gniquil Posted February 25, 2013 Share #1 Posted February 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi All, I've been thinking about taking the plunge and get a M6, for mostly B&W. Here's my thought process; and later my question. I realized no matter how hard i try, i still mostly convert my images to B&W. So I am thinking selling my m9 and get an m6 and shoot lots of tri-x and perhaps get an omd for color and i can still use my leica lenses. But last weekend, I rented an M7 and bought a few rolls of film. Then it dawned on me how expensive and complex the whole process is. I wasn't aware, a roll of film ($5), developing ($5) and scan ($10-$20 depending on resolution) eventually amount to non-trivial amount of money and time. If I go ahead and scan it myself, i have to spend another $1k on scanner, and I still have to pay all the rest. In addition, the scanner out there today really can't compare to the resolution one could get from an M9/Monochrom. So for larger prints, I have to get those $10-$20/scan high resolution scans. So bottom line is shooting film is expensive. And I don't think any of the above will get cheaper either. This led me to think, the Monochrom is actually not as "expensive" as one might think (hey we are talking about Leica here). I do shoot a lot of night scenes; the extra 2-3 stops could really help. Nevertheless, looking at my most recent prints (8x11) of ISO1600 shots, they are already gorgeous. So what do you think? What should i do? 1. sell m9, and go film 2. sell m9, get monochrom 3. keep m9 and be content. ISO1600 is plenty fine. If darker than that, remind myself to go to bed. Frank Frank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Hi gniquil, Take a look here M6 or Monochrom?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted February 25, 2013 Share #2 Posted February 25, 2013 .......................I realized no matter how hard i try, i still mostly convert my images to B&W. .............................................. This could be quite revealing. Why do you try hard not to convert to B&W? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted February 25, 2013 Share #3 Posted February 25, 2013 Monochrom:) I am not sure how it is where you are but if you count the time necessary to go to my local dealer and leave the film then go back and pick it up you are talking about a lot of time and expense. I do not know of a local black & white processor so all film goes to Dallas. It could probably be done direct with them but it would require an account and I would not have enough volume to satisfy them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmldds Posted February 25, 2013 Share #4 Posted February 25, 2013 Sell M9, get MM and be happy:)! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted February 25, 2013 Share #5 Posted February 25, 2013 Absolutely go MM. If you haven't been doing film a long time and have a developed workflow, etc then go MM all the way! You can get equal results with a nice scanner and high res film though if you like shooting at ISO 50! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 25, 2013 Share #6 Posted February 25, 2013 3. keep m9 and be content. ISO1600 is plenty fine. Bearing in mind an M6 and Tri-X is your benchmark for comparison, I suggest persevering with your M9. Doing so doesn't involve getting any shiny new kit but sticking with the M9 will save you money on equipment and film. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunghang Posted February 25, 2013 Share #7 Posted February 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) The answer to all multi-choice questions is always © 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 25, 2013 Share #8 Posted February 25, 2013 ... it dawned on me how expensive and complex the whole process is. I wasn't aware—a roll of film ($5), developing ($5), and scan ($10 - $20 depending on resolution) eventually amount to non-trivial amount of money and time. You're welcome. If I go ahead and scan it myself, I have to spend another $1k on scanner, and I still have to pay all the rest. In addition, the scanner out there today really can't compare to the resolution one could get from an M9/M Monochrom. You have no idea. Home scanning, when supposed to be done right, is rocket science. (This may sound like I'm trying to be funny but I'm damn serious. Been there. Done that. No thanks.) This led me to think, the M Monochrom is actually not as "expensive" as one might think (hey, we are talking about Leica here). I do shoot a lot of night scenes; the extra 2 - 3 stops could really help. You. Will. LOVE! The. M Monochrom. 'nuff said. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted February 25, 2013 Share #9 Posted February 25, 2013 Well, if it helps any, I recently bought an M3 and shot my first roll of fim through it, a long-expired roll of T-Max 400. According to my chemistry bottles, I hadn't mixed chemistry since April of 1996. So, I set about mixing my chemistry and processed the first roll I've done since then. I was pleased when the negs came ouf of the wash. The density and contrast looked good. I hung my roll of T-Max to dry, and then scanned them later in my quite-inexpensive but adequate film scanner. I had forgotten how grainy T-Max 400 is compared to digital files. For the sake of your wallet, I'd suggest that you keep the M9, and get the M6 to supplement it and you'll have the best of both worlds while you decide whether film really works for you or not. At the end of the day, you can always re-sell both and go for the MM if that's what you decide you really need. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted February 25, 2013 Share #10 Posted February 25, 2013 Absolutely nothing in your question - nor which subforum you chose to post it - suggests to me that you have any intention of switching to film, whatsoever. Seems to me just some rationalization for wanting to buy some new kit. Nothing wrong with that - I do it all the time. So sell the M9 and get a Monochrom. It'll make you happy until the nagging dissatisfaction starts again, and you need to buy the next toy... 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted February 25, 2013 Share #11 Posted February 25, 2013 OP, if you had any intention of trying film, you wouldn't be so concerned about the cost. Switching to film made me far more selective about what I shoot, so cost isn't as much of a concern as you'd think. The depreciation that comes with digital means its far costlier than film, and how long will it last before it fails and leica wont service it? My MP will still be in use 30 years from now, which represents awesome value for money! 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 25, 2013 Share #12 Posted February 25, 2013 If you're thinking of primarily shooting traditional B&W film you really should be processing yourself, it's simple and quick to do. True that scanners are more limited now but you can make very acceptable scans from the Epson flatbed. Don't forget you also have the option of making traditional wet prints direct from the negative! I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve though. If you want to try film buy yourself a film M body and keep the M9 too, then see how you take to film without the loss of your M9. Here's a curve ball - what about selling the Leica stuff and buying a MF film camera? Scans on the Epson will be fine for larger prints (and you still have the wet print option). 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted February 25, 2013 Share #13 Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Hi All, I do shoot a lot of night scenes; the extra 2-3 stops could really help. Nevertheless, looking at my most recent prints (8x11) of ISO1600 shots, they are already gorgeous. MM....... and buy something cheap for colour holiday snaps. Look at Kaethe Ko's Yosemite shots and tell me you don't want an MM..... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/273011-yosemite-no-snow-oh-well-half.html Edited February 25, 2013 by thighslapper 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gniquil Posted February 25, 2013 Author Share #14 Posted February 25, 2013 Hey All, Acquiring new gear is certainly GAS. Given I am not a pro, i.e. I don't have to turn in assignments with any dead lines and any minimum quality entailed by professional contracts, acquiring any piece of gear is just to make myself "feel" better. Nevertheless, making oneself "feel" better can be for the short or long term. I am trying to go for the long term. Many of you claim that shooting film makes one a better photographer (read Eric Kim, Bellamy Hunt). Therefore M6 feels like a good investment. But it's just the new workflow costs so much more per roll. If i shoot 100 rolls a year, that would be $2-3k per year spent just on buying/developing/scanning film. So assuming if I do that for 2 to 3 years, it's equivalent to a Monochrom, which already fits perfectly into my existing workflow. So perhaps another question is, is there way to make scanning cheaper? I would like to make 8x11 and occasionally larger say 14x17 prints. Are there cheaper film scanners out there good enough for this purpose? Frank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 25, 2013 Share #15 Posted February 25, 2013 Epson as I said above. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted February 25, 2013 Share #16 Posted February 25, 2013 Hey All, Acquiring new gear is certainly GAS. Given I am not a pro, i.e. I don't have to turn in assignments with any dead lines and any minimum quality entailed by professional contracts, acquiring any piece of gear is just to make myself "feel" better. Nevertheless, making oneself "feel" better can be for the short or long term. I am trying to go for the long term. Many of you claim that shooting film makes one a better photographer (read Eric Kim, Bellamy Hunt). Therefore M6 feels like a good investment. But it's just the new workflow costs so much more per roll. If i shoot 100 rolls a year, that would be $2-3k per year spent just on buying/developing/scanning film. So assuming if I do that for 2 to 3 years, it's equivalent to a Monochrom, which already fits perfectly into my existing workflow. So perhaps another question is, is there way to make scanning cheaper? I would like to make 8x11 and occasionally larger say 14x17 prints. Are there cheaper film scanners out there good enough for this purpose? Frank I went down that road with an MP. Loved the camera although I'm more of an aperture priority guy. In the end, it was a matter of time. Not enough time to do my own developing. Not enough time for scanning. Not enough time or impatience to wait for someone else to do it. If you have a lot of time and want to make it kind of a side hobby then I can see it being a lot of fun. I'm too much into instant gratification too regarding seeing output at the time of capture. B&W photography is different enough that if you are new at it, it really helps to see the output RIGHT AWAY to see what your image will look like. You will end up not shooting film in the future...I'd just bypass it now and save yourself some time. If you do end up shooting film I've got a nice starter kit for you to start developing that I'm looking to sell!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 25, 2013 Share #17 Posted February 25, 2013 .. is there way to make scanning cheaper? ... You might consider scanning only those shots which are worth it. If evaluating the negatives is not practicable, scan the all negatives in the cheapest possible way and re-scan the worthwhile ones only in the highest quality. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 25, 2013 Share #18 Posted February 25, 2013 Frank, My M9 was my first proper digital camera. My background is in film, and in the end I couldn't resist picking up an M3 so I had a film camera. I have processed a couple of rolls of film, and I have a box full of negatives that need scanning (I have an Epson and a Plustek scanner on the shelf). After scanning a few of my favourite slides, I'm over it. I now have an M3 on the shelf with a roll of film in it I don't know how old, a drawer full of exposed but unprocessed film, and a box full of negatives still unscanned (I will get around to it one day); and I have a Monochrom in my bag with me everywhere I go. I love photography for taking images, and the quality of the final image (or print, if it is worth it). I'm not into chemistry, and faffing about with a scanner, cleaning slides and negs, scanning and re-scanning until I get the best image I'm going to get from a slide ... With the Monochrom, I get a better digital file straight from the camera than I do after processing a scanning film, simple as that. All I need to do is pop out the SD card. The M3 still sits on my shelf, and I take it out and take pictures with it from time to time, adding to my collection of exposed film. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 25, 2013 Share #19 Posted February 25, 2013 I'd say most of us who use film do so because we prefer the results we get from it. What is an inconvenience to some is simply the workflow we choose. If convenience and speed is most important to you then yes, a digital camera is 'better'. I'm still not sure what the OP wants to achieve however. I don't think that simply using a film camera will make you a better photographer. If you are unhappy with your results from the M9 perhaps you should post some examples and ask for feedback/advice. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted February 25, 2013 Share #20 Posted February 25, 2013 I'd say most of us who use film do so because we prefer the results we get from it. What is an inconvenience to some is simply the workflow we choose. If convenience and speed is most important to you then yes, a digital camera is 'better'. I'm still not sure what the OP wants to achieve however. I don't think that simply using a film camera will make you a better photographer. If you are unhappy with your results from the M9 perhaps you should post some examples and ask for feedback/advice. I think what folks mean in terms of making one "better" is that there is the idea that you will take more time and be more thoughtful due to the limited number of shots you will have, etc. Obviously it's an artifical limitation. I guess you could load up your digital cam with a 512K card and call it "film"! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.