Robert Seeney Posted September 22, 2012 Share #1 Posted September 22, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I had the pleasure a week ago of photographing an Orthodox wedding ceremony in Romania. Started at 0900 and finished at 0430 the following morning in 30 degrees of heat and with every lighting condition known to man. To say this was hard work is an understatement. Shot it all with an M9, an M6 and an SF58. Main camera was the M9 with a 35mm glued to it all day and a 21mm on the M6 (although I did swap around later in the day). I learnt more in that 18 hours about flash and leica than I have done in the last 18 months I think! I had quite a few learning points in the day - the SF58 is a cracking piece of kit, shooting off camera with a sync cable and shooting full manual, i need a second battery charger for long shoots like this and zone focussing is a god send at f4 in good light. The M6 was 'relegated' to being a camera to maybe grab some nice shots with to get the film look i like. Pushing tri'x to 1600 in the evening only gave me 1/15-1/30 (flash was full time on the M9). I snapped away (and am now pretty fast at loading film!) I get the shots back within 48 hours from the lab (ID11 used to process - worked well). What amazed me was that I only discarded 50 shots from the day because of poor focus - i shot over 1400. Rangefinder is obviously decent on calibration although it was hard work at times with fast moving action. However, what puts me at a loss is that my shots with the M6 and Tri-X gave me by far the most atmospheric shots of the day. Slight motion blur, grainy because of the push but damn those images pop. The M9 are great images, good subject separation and it is a stellar performer but somehow, to me, they just are not as good as the M6 shots. Naturally, most brides want the crisp clear digital shots - I understand this - but more and more I am just not finding digital to give me what I want. I am in the odd position of having used the M6 as a 'if it works then great' to now being in 'hmmm perhaps I should shoot M6 as the main camera next time'. I know this has been discussed to death many times and I am certainly not into starting film vs digital - I have to maintain digital for weddings for clients but I just find it odd that handholding at 1/15, no flash, no chimping/checking and pushing film gives me better images (to my eyes) compared to an M9 with off camera flash. (can probably insert any camera name here). There's probably no answer to this..and to be honest I am not even sure what I am asking but the forum was quiet so I figured what the hell Rob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 22, 2012 Posted September 22, 2012 Hi Robert Seeney, Take a look here At a loss. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CalArts 99 Posted September 22, 2012 Share #2 Posted September 22, 2012 Both film and digital have their own issues. There are pros and cons with either medium. I choose depending on subject matter and the project in mind, and the final end product (venue, production, type of print, size of print, etc...) Each clearly have their own characteristics including one's style of producing images when using either a digital camera or film camera; i.e., the process and mindset is often very different, which can have an affect on the end result. I don't think either medium is inherently 'better' over the other. But if one feels more productive with film over digital (or vice versa) then that's valid. Part of image making is the author's mindset, too. It has to be a process that one is fully engaged in and feels good about. e.g., my 'mindset' is entirely different when using sheet film in a 4x5 view camera than when using the digital M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted September 22, 2012 Share #3 Posted September 22, 2012 I suppose you have done some post processing with your M9 images to get them to look how you want, like pushed Tri-X for instance? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olimatt Posted September 22, 2012 Share #4 Posted September 22, 2012 I am a curious person... and would like to see some of your trix wedding pictures Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Seeney Posted September 23, 2012 Author Share #5 Posted September 23, 2012 Thanks for the replies. I would absolutely agree that both digital and film have their uses - I still intend to use both. I have tried the various addon packs for mimicking film looks but I have never been able to get a satisfactory result - they look like tri-x etc but as soon as i load up an actual tri-x shot it immediately becomes apparent I am nowhere near. Perhaps thats my technique in post though. A couple of shots below which I chose to illustrate my point and personal preference. I should perhaps add that most of the images I like from down the years are blurry from low shutter speeds, grainy and have that crushed black feel - the old photojournalist pictures are a good example (Nachtwey, McCullin). Perhaps that is what influences me to what I prefer to see in an image One is M9, the other pushed tri-x. Neither of them have had anything done with them of any note (and are not finished images) and the shots have been picked deliberately - the tri-x shot for instance has motion blur, slightly off focus (zone focussed at f4 at 1/15 if i remember) and is a low res scan. On paper, it has any number of reasons to be a 'reject' in lightroom but.... Maybe it is a different use of technique for the film camera (flash etc), I just don't know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted September 23, 2012 Share #6 Posted September 23, 2012 Of course the digital files will always look very clean out of the box, but with a little bit of minor tweaking in Photoshop (no Nik plug-ins or add-on software needed) I think one can get an image to emulate film pretty well (at least to where only you would know which is which, and most likely not the viewer.) And you always have both of the files to use or not use. But there is always that 'organic surprise' that comes with using film. And as I mentioned, I think the mindset that one is in when using film (always expecting the difference) can be all a part of it, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted September 24, 2012 Share #7 Posted September 24, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) film rocks.. i had to look at random analog film pictures in Flickr. what nice feeling to watch deep shadows and highlights rendered. I forgot how it was like . no wonder i didnt develop rolls for a while. that flickr watching was good reminder to scan my negatives again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Seeney Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share #8 Posted September 24, 2012 Many thanks for the replies and the re-process - appreciate you taking the time to do that Calarts I think perhaps it is more of the shooting style when using film - see the moment and shoot and forget about it until the film is developed. I did wonder whether it was because I was being cautious on the M9 (in order to get the shot since it was a wedding) whereas with the M6 I was far more relaxed in my approach. I did also wonder why I am using such expensive lenses when I like motion blur, grain and crushed blacks...hmmm. Rob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted September 24, 2012 Share #9 Posted September 24, 2012 Rob - as you suspect there probably is no answer - horses for courses..... However, the Tri-X shot is beautiful - could be a still from a Béla Tarr film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted September 24, 2012 Share #10 Posted September 24, 2012 However, the Tri-X shot is beautiful - could be a still from a Béla Tarr film. btw, I show his films to my students as an intro to 'thinking in B+W'...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted September 24, 2012 Share #11 Posted September 24, 2012 It is difficult judging the grain size to add with such a small image, but it only takes three minutes to make the digital file look much more like film. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.