xalo Posted May 19, 2012 Share #61 Posted May 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) There are many different workflows possible, depending on your location (labs available?), time and financial resources and how you like to work, especially. As a rule of thumb, colour film development (C-41 or E6 for slides) is more comfortably done in a lab - some (few in fact) can even do a reasonably good C-41 job, including prints and scans (often less good) in an hour. B&W (except the chromogenic ones for C-41) can easily be developed at home, in many places there is not even a choice because many commercial labs are just lousy and slow with this. I am still pushing the decision to re-start processing because of time constraints (and inertia some call laziness), but the forum is bursting with practical advice on this. Once you have the developed negative or slide, you can either wetprint at home (reward about proportional to invested time and attention, and you sure need some equipment and a bit of space), use lab scans for inkjet prints (well, sometimes... even seldomly from slides), or scan yourself. That takes some material, and a learning curve to get to pleasing results (what does not?), but less than wet printing colour, I dare say. And you can control very well what you want to achieve. You can make your mix out of this, for example, I usually get lab scans from my slides and color negs which help me organizing and editing the pics. Only what I really like I may scan to my taste for sharing and prints at home (when I have a working colour printer, unlike now...) or send/take to local labs for print (some still do also colour wetprints from negs). B&W I get developed with a contact sheet showing all images from the film. Again, what I like, I scan at home, but I get wetprints done as well when I am really happy. You pick what works for you, but try different ways if possible to get a feel for the differences and the fun they imply. Cheers, Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Hi xalo, Take a look here Which Leica Film Camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
NZDavid Posted May 19, 2012 Share #62 Posted May 19, 2012 All this makes slide film not a bad choice. It's a first generation process: the film itself is the finished product. Each slide comes in an easy-to-handle plastic mount. You can see straightaway any errors in exposure or composition. This encourages a more disciplined approach. You can then choose your favorite slides to either scan yourself or have scanned in a lab, to view, email, or print. Slides are also easy to store and sort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest suilvenman Posted May 20, 2012 Share #63 Posted May 20, 2012 The easiest compromise is to shoot transparencies and have them developed at a serious and reliable lab that doesn't butcher them. That might take a couple days patience. Bruno Patience - a commodity in increasingly short supply. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted May 20, 2012 Share #64 Posted May 20, 2012 Yes Ken, especially in these strange times when everyone seems to have gone multitasking to have everything done by yesterday. I began to feel that reverting to older technologies and - why not? - older lifestyles might help to regroup and better focusing on one's own purposes. Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted May 22, 2012 Author Share #65 Posted May 22, 2012 All this makes slide film not a bad choice. It's a first generation process: the film itself is the finished product. Each slide comes in an easy-to-handle plastic mount. You can see straightaway any errors in exposure or composition. This encourages a more disciplined approach. You can then choose your favorite slides to either scan yourself or have scanned in a lab, to view, email, or print. Slides are also easy to store and sort. How does slide film compare in quality to regular film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted May 22, 2012 Share #66 Posted May 22, 2012 You mean slide vs. neg film? Each film has its own individual character or signature. Slide film tends to have higher contrast. Resolution of detail is extremely high at 100 ISO. Slide film used to be favored for publication, partially because of ease of handling, but also because you get nice saturated colors. "Kodachrome...it gives you those nice bright colors," according to the Simon and Garfunkel song. Sadly, you can't get Kodachrome any more, but there are still some good choices, like Fuji Provia and Velvia, and there's still some Kodak films in stock. Provia 100F scores highly. See: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=181489&is=USA&si=rev#costumerReview. You can check out some more user reviews at: Roll Film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcentric Posted May 22, 2012 Share #67 Posted May 22, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Great thread and advice. I also recently got the film bug (virtually no experience) and eventually settled on an M6 TTL. My first two rolls, both B&W, came back from the lab and were absolutely terrible. I was very discouraged. But the first roll of color negative film came back from a different lab and looked wonderful. So I need to find a lab that can handle B&W and keep practicing. I'm liking the suggestion of using slide film, despite the increased requirements for getting the exposure right. Feels like that's my best shot at ensuring consistent performance of development independent of lab quality. I can get the slides back with a contact sheet and manually scan the keepers. Is that logical? If I understand correctly, I'm more at the mercy of the labs with negative film. Ed Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted May 22, 2012 Share #68 Posted May 22, 2012 Ed, the slide development process is pretty standard therefore the only way a lab has to ruin it is by using exhausted chemicals. With negatives it's a different kettle of fish. First, B&W treatment is not widespread amongst labs because almost no one brings them anymore to the lab. Contrarily to what my dad taught me - learn B/W first, switch to color then - even during film heydays everyone shot in colors and only advanced amateurs did BW and most of them developed themselves. BW has too many variables: films, speed, developments, temperature, exposure compesation. If you do BW but do not develop yourself you really are at the lab's mercy. First, they have their standards. If you require a treatment that diverges from that you're lost. Next, given the small numbers of lab developed BW it's likely that the chemicals will be old and exhausted. Not to mention the lack of care. The last BW roll I brought to a lab came back with stains, scratches and two piees of film sticked each other. It was more than enough to convince me. Oh, it was 1986... Cheers, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted May 22, 2012 Share #69 Posted May 22, 2012 Hello all, I have been quietly watching and following the developments of the new M Monochrom and realized that for me or anyone else to really appreciate it and or be able to fully understand just how good it is compared to the Lwica film cameras, I have to be familiar with them first. I have always been a digital user and now would finally like to try out the film world. I currently have an M9-P. I know next to nothing about film and or film cameras. I read some posts on here about the MP, M6, M7 and would like to chose one of these (I'm open to the ones before those too). I don't want to do anything in the dark room and would like to go the slide film route (another topic i know little about) since that seems easiest. I am very intrigued by this because of all the whispers I hear about even the Monochrom not being able to favorably compare to the real film Leicas. I read a lot of people like the M7 because it has better meter and auto exposure mode. Would this be a good choice for someone who wants to try the film route and stay with Leica? I know there are two different kinds but don't know the difference. What would you guys recommend? What sort of things should i consider and look out for when buying used (my intention)? As far as lenses go, I have a 50mm Lux ASPH, 28mm Cron ASPH, 85mm Rex, and 135mm Tele Elmar. All which I currently use with my M9-P. thanks in advance for the help. Re-reading this complete runaround of a thread, I have come to a very simple conclusion for the original poster. Film photography holds absolutely nothing for you. For you, it will be a complete waste of time and money, and I seriously doubt you can slow yourself down long enough to start to remotely understand it, excel at it, or even enjoy it. If you really are an M9-P owner, then that's as good as it gets Leica wise. You should stick with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted May 22, 2012 Share #70 Posted May 22, 2012 I want both film and a digital M cameras, but I don't know which to get first. Would the instant replay of the digital rangefinder image make learning to focus quicker than with a film M? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
!Nomad64 Posted May 22, 2012 Share #71 Posted May 22, 2012 Not at all, Andy. First because the monitor of the digital Ms is quite crappy and wouldn't allow you to judge proper focusing on the go, second because focusing with a rangefinder is immediate and intuitive per se. You might even not need at all to focus if you learn hyperfocal. IMHO the main difference would be that being the digital much cheaper than film it would allow you to shoot more than what you'd do with film. So if you critically analyze the results of each and every photo session of yours you might improve a bit faster with digital than film because you can do a lot more try and error and learn from that. But you must seriously engage yourself into what you're doing otherwise you'll remain forever a serial shooter, one of those poor souls who have no clue about composition and exposure and rely solely on automatisms and great numbers statistics, namely every some thousands shots they take there must happen at least a decent one. Problem is that even if they succeed to take one they'll never know how and why they did it. So it's ultimately up to you. Hope this helps, Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
myshkine Posted May 22, 2012 Share #72 Posted May 22, 2012 I respect the interest of the OP in film, but what completely puzzles me is how someone can have an M9P and know almost nothing about Leica history, which is mainly a history of film photography and great film cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted May 23, 2012 Share #73 Posted May 23, 2012 i am not exactly sure either, to your point about knowing leica history. on the question of film and digital, here is a suggestion, carry both, instead of thinking color vs bw for digital and film think fast/slow. you can carry both and load your film camera with some slooooow bw film iso 25 or 50, or slow color film. when the light is with you, shoot the film. when it isn't, shoot the digital. remember, the thing about digital is the flexibility -- it can be fast, slow, color or bw from frame to frame. this way film and digital can complement. how it works is up to you. fast/slow is merely a recommendation......enjoy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share #74 Posted May 24, 2012 I respect the interest of the OP in film, but what completely puzzles me is how someone can have an M9P and know almost nothing about Leica history, which is mainly a history of film photography and great film cameras. I'm not sure what knowing ones history has to do with being able to use one's products? Many people know the interesting history behind the Bugatti brand. Few people have ever driven one, let alone with grace and skill. I thought that was obvious but people surprise me every day. The history of Leica does not go into the actual loading of the film and developing it, part. I know the history behind Leica but learned it after I was already using DSLRs. Never shot film. Never was curious until now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
myshkine Posted May 24, 2012 Share #75 Posted May 24, 2012 What I was trying to say is that normally when one has a Leica, which is a very special camera, one is interested in Leica's "legend". Before buying mine, a few years (not many) ago, I did a lot of research, and felt the need to know more. Anyway, I did not intend to offend or criticize, it is just that nowadays it seems to me that we give for granted a lot of things, and do not find enough time to explore our interests as we should, that's all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted May 24, 2012 Author Share #76 Posted May 24, 2012 What I was trying to say is that normally when one has a Leica, which is a very special camera, one is interested in Leica's "legend". Before buying mine, a few years (not many) ago, I did a lot of research, and felt the need to know more. Anyway, I did not intend to offend or criticize, it is just that nowadays it seems to me that we give for granted a lot of things, and do not find enough time to explore our interests as we should, that's all. You still make very little sense to me. Leica's "legend" is not about how to process film or which scanner to use. It is about design, engineering and longevity. As I mentioned before, I am familiar with all things Leica including their rich history of film cameras. I just never had the curiosity to get one and now the curiosity is there so I decided to learn more (about film itself) through the knowledge and experience of the great photography folk on this forum. If you are not sharing any knowledge or experience then what is the point of your comment in this thread other than to criticize? To your last remark, I am exploring my interest. This thread is a representation of just that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
myshkine Posted May 25, 2012 Share #77 Posted May 25, 2012 you said: I know next to nothing about film and or film cameras. This is what triggered my remark. I found it strange that an M9P owner would know nothing about film cameras. Now you say that you are familiar with all things Leica including their rich history of film cameras. So thank you for clarifying your knowledge, clearly my remark does not apply any more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyder28 Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share #78 Posted May 25, 2012 Its not a problem. When I said that I know nothing about film or film cameras, it was in the context of being able to use them. Sorry if that was not clear. Either way, its all good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted May 25, 2012 Share #79 Posted May 25, 2012 Although I am sure that Leica (inc.) would be delighted with "rich history", "legend" etc. It actually for me is not about that -it is about being blown away about the pictures this stuff makes. Their name and reputation (and price, to a minor extent) was more of an impediment than the opposite. Take only a few pictures and you start eating your words. Its the pictures - no more, no less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted May 25, 2012 Share #80 Posted May 25, 2012 Although I am sure that Leica (inc.) would be delighted with "rich history", "legend" etc. It actually for me is not about that -it is about being blown away about the pictures this stuff makes. .... I completely agree. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.