Anyone with M9 (or variant) still shooting MF or LF

[Deliberate1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For years before I got my M9 (two years ago) I shlepped a fairly complete Rollei 6008i MF kit all around the world. It was a pain, particularly in the Middle East in the summer heat and in areas where people scatter when you lift that big box with the bazooka 90mm Schneider to your eye. The M9 kit weighs a fraction of the Rollei and never garners a passing glance from the world.

 

There is no digital equivalent to the day those 2 1/4" chromes arrive from the processor. You put them on the lightbox and study them through a loop like a jeweler assessing a gem. And some of them are. Digitize them with the Eversmart scanner and make huge files from which you can do whatever you need to. Then print those lovely 2' square images on the Epson 7800.

 

About four years ago I built a LF (4x5) kit. And that moved me even further away from the digital Leica shooting experience. Some can set up and shoot with remarkable speed. Not me. A Zen experience for certain. But I have successfully captured a few splendid images which look, well, about 5x more magic on the light box as do the MF chromes.

 

Ultimately, it comes down to image quality and practicality and resisting the passing of an era. I never really bonded with the LF and harbor little remorse parting with the gear. But that Rollei. It is a thing of mechanical beauty. Lock that box onto a beefy RRS tripod, load with Kodak 100 G and the and train that Schneider on your target and amazing things can happen.

 

But for how long. Is this the film version of musical chairs. Two years from now will there be film. And even if there is will there be anyone to process it. The dilemma is made even more problematic by the the fact that my best files from the M9, for all practical purposes, often equal the Rollei images. I do print up to 2' with the film files, especially when they call for a big, square presentation. I have not gone that big with M9, but I might be able to with the right image. So there is more than a little over lap. And the overlap of MF and LF is even greater, except with those images which call for movements. But those are a rarity.

 

I have come to accept that this is not a purely rational analysis. After all, the Rollei is just a machine. But it is tool too which forges a partnership between device and eye. And when the stars align, magic can happen. I suspect I am not the only one who has faced this dilemma. To those who have, did you totally give up on larger format film in favor of digital Leica, or do you still see that film box as a viable component in your photo arsenal. Appreciate your thoughts.

David

[garysamson]

Hi David,

 

I have a Leica M-E and five lenses and for travel and some studio work it is my first choice but for my serious fine art work my camera of choice is a 4x5 or larger format camera with B&W film. I process the film and then scan the negatives for printing on an Epson 7900 or 9900.

[Guest Emile de Leon]

That is exactly my dilemma at the moment as well…

For quite a few years now..I’ve just been shooting digital with a Lumix gh1 and all my old Leica and Nikon lenses..as well as cine lenses and others..its been a gas..

But I have done no printing at all..

Just photos for the web..and other projects..

So..way back in the past..about 10 to 20 years ago I bought a lot of cameras..Leicas..Rollies..Brooks Veriwide..Linhof 2x3..Anba 5x7..Deardorff 8x10..Rittreck 6x10..Wisners in 7x17/11x14/12x20/16x20...and others too..and a bunch of old protars and Dallmeyers and other cool lenses..really a ton of stuff..

All to do B&W printing..but music took over and I got away from all of that..

But zipping along to the present..

I’m thinking of doing some B&W once again..

But I’m asking myself..

Do I want to sniff chemicals..

Or just get a Leica MM and be done w/it..

But all that stuff is just sitting..for years now..

And no..I don’t sell anything..as I know I will need it tomorrow..

But..

I’m thinking..digital..or Film..whats it a gonna be..

So my wife says today..

Don’t do one or the other..

Do both..

And yes as always..

She is right..

There is really nothing like an Azo contact print…nothing in the world..

Life is short..

Go for the best..

And you will not regret it..

[250swb]

It isn't a dilemma for me, film and MF and LF can still do things a digital camera can't do, especially if you want to go a step beyond simply recording a scene and consider how to interpret a scene.

 

I tend to be more of a landscape photographer in the Autumn, winter, and Spring months, preferring the light and harsher conditions, and for the past two years my M9 hasn't been used for months on end while I'm using MF and LF. Film can deal with shadows and highlights in a much more subtle way than digital, combined of course with choices of developer and processing regime. Recently I bought an MM, and while it gets close, and it may just about be a contender for MF honours, it still doesn't replace the tuning available with film both before, during, and after exposure. You chose a film to suit the conditions, you expose to suit your interpretation of the subject, you develop it to lock that idea into the emulsion. Done properly and there is no doubt about what you intended.

 

Digital on the other hand starts with an accident, you are at the complete will of the camera, or rather the people who designed it and processed the software. Keeping within the histogram is often essential, and you have to take what you are given. If you want to subsequently bunch tones up at the shadow end, or in the middle, or at the highlight end, or spread them apart and gain contrast, you are either throwing information away or needing to somehow invent new information to fill the gaps, so you don't get the smooth transitions available with film that is developed for high contrast (for example). So digital can be good, until the pot of information is empty. But pre-plan your strategy with film and you never have an empty pot of information on your negative, it is all exactly as you wanted it. Of course you could use HDR with digital and fill the pot up, but multiple exposures blended together often still look like multiple exposures, especially on a windy day.

 

And all this hasn't even mentioned the camera movements available, or using small f/stops without the worry about diffraction, or long exposures that don't involve increased noise and the camera simply not being able to manage five or six minutes (or longer). But the biggest advantage of film is creativity, not because it makes you more creative necessarily, but creativity comes with the moment of exposure. You have to work and think at the time you are there, and this alone I suspect means you automatically make the most of what is available by testing composition, thinking of film and how it will be developed, etc. That mental process can often be short circuited by using digital even for experienced photographers who recognise the problem. The lack of scrutiny at the time of exposure, the surety that you have a result, leads to less thought. It is easier to walk away before the job is finished. But in a different work ethic this is true just as much for 35mm film as LF. Look how Bresson carry's on shooting the same subject until all his ideas are worked through, until he is sure he has the image he wanted all along. And then look at digital photographers who are bored because they think a hundred images on an SD card all need post processing, they are treating each one as a new and separate image, which implies one of two things, they are true geniuses, or are snappers because they haven't explored the potential of the situation and rejected ideas along the way.

 

Steve

[tom0511]

I use the M9 and also Leica S.

Also still have a Rolleiflex GX, where I want to shoot film here and then but I nearly never use it.

Maybe I will.

Regarding your concerns. I am convinced there will me film for many years. maybe there will be less choices and maybe you have to send it somewhere for development - but I think there are still many people who like film.

So if you like your Rolleiflex and film- I would just go on and enjoy it.

If it is just about the Rollei you could also add a digital back one day.

I enjoy using the Leica S - and while the M9 files are very good I still find the S-files superior.

Cheers, Tom

[Peter H]

......... And then look at digital photographers who are bored because they think a hundred images on an SD card all need post processing, they are treating each one as a new and separate image, which implies one of two things, they are true geniuses, or are snappers because they haven't explored the potential of the situation and rejected ideas along the way.

 

Steve

 

I really enjoyed your post Steve, and whilst I'm nowhere near as accomplished a technician as you, I recognise the wisdom in what you say.

 

But I can't agree with this conclusion, or at least, I don't agree that these are the only two possibilities. It rather depends on the purpose of the photograph and the photographer's intentions. These strictures no doubt apply to your type of photography but there are plenty of serious and excellent photographers who have very different priorities and for whom very different methods and equipment are appropriate.

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having shot digital for the past 10 or so years I'm dreaming of film more lately and am torn between the convenience and practicality of digital and the beauty of film.

 

The problem is some of the film stocks, which I love, have disappeared or are disappearing, It's a 4 hour trip to and from the lab to drop the film off and to and from the lab to pick it up. It's getting more and more expensive and what used to be done in an hour now take a lab 24 hours or more. That's not a luxury I have particularly for editorial work. Drum scanning prices are sky rocketing and it's another process to be disappointed with unless you have a highly skilled operator and these guys are getting harder and harder to find.

 

I have medium format digital and while the quality is mind boggling, no matter how you try digital colour looks...digital. You can't always get the colour of film, even colour correction in digital, in some cases looks digital to me. The analogue process of film and chemistry creates organic and natural colours, recreating these digitally is not the same. Also, sometimes it's just too fine and sharp for me. Even 10x8 film paints with broader brush strokes it has a kind of thickness about it that I just prefer the look of it and in my 10 years of manipulating digital I've not found a way that matches it. I'm not even sure I want all that sharpness these days...it's sharpness without the character.

 

It's a tricky situation and I am torn to be honest. My workflow and pace is such that I can't easily go back to film. In so many ways I'm quite saddened that it has got to this. We have fallen victim to marketing, with these machines that have mostly replaced something of incredible beauty and it seems we are about to lose it for good.

 

For me the M9 has been about getting some balance and character back into my work with it's lenses and I've been devising new ways of shooting which embed some character into the actual image rather than introduce it digitally. I'm bored of digital. I'm bored of computers. They suck up my life and I'm not even so happy with the results....

[FrozenInTime]

Over the last two years, I gave in an bought a M9-P and MM.

I only shot my Trix-X and 400H in my Hasselbads - so not a serious as you guys.

I still love using my 501c and 80mm lens but have sold the SWC, 203FE and flexbody with Leica replacing them. A Noctilux replaced the 110/2. I'm on the verge of selling the 50,60,100 and 150 lenses.

 

In good light I still prefer the 400H tonality and Hasselblad handling.The 80mm view seems very unforced - I prefer it to both 35mm and 50mm on the Leicas so will probably never sell it.

 

But I far prefer cropping a 21mm to 1:1 often shifting the crop as virtual lens shift to using the SWC ( which is why it went )

[Peter H]

David, I too loved my Rollei 6008i, and some of the lenses I had, Schneiders and so on, were sublime.

 

When I moved up to Scotland I naturally brought my entire darkroom set-up with me, but now, ten years later, its all still boxed up.

 

I have forged a different sort of relationship with my digital cameras, and now use a Leica exclusively. I don't try anymore to create any sort of perfection, which in the past was always the aim, however elusive it proved in practice. I now prefer a much more immediate and spontaneous photographic relationship with the world outside me, which almost always involves other people or their effects.

 

I do miss the beauty of MF sometimes, but I feel I've moved away from it, towards something a little freer and easier and less to do with photography and more to do with the subject.

[Paul J]

A good perspective Peter

[rsmphoto]

After years of 4x5 pro work, then transition to MF digital (Hasselblad) ten years ago or so, I'm now in a sweet spot - for me at least. M for personal work, S for pro work. Happier than I've been in years. Don't miss film in the slightest. Especially those nights in hotel bathrooms reloading 4x5 graphmatic backs for the next day's shoot, guessing how much of each type film I'd need! Not to mention all the cases of Polaroid I used to go through.

 

Film will be here for a long time still, I think. There's a strong art photog market out there that will maintain strength for some time.

[pgk]

Prior to digital days I ended up with a Contax 645 and 4 lenses which I lugged around all over the place. Fabulous camera, stunning lenses, wonderful 'chromes. I then shifted to Canon full frame digital - still heavy lumps, and even heavier in the housings which I use for underwater - and I now run a Leica M9 for topsides. Would I go back? Absolutely not. The M9 delivers more than adequate files for 99.99% of my needs and I'm simply not bothered about the 0.01% - its not worth it.

[earleygallery]

I've actually had thoughts about clearing out much of my current equipment and going predominantly MF, mainly B&W, with DSLR's for colour and/or paid work.

[TomB_tx]

It isn't all about image quality, but the entire process. I find the Hasselblad with WL finder changes my viewpoint and perspective, making the results different from an M9. Neither replaces the other in that regard.

[BerndReini]

I have been pondering that same question because I own way too many camera systems. I sometimes think I would be better off getting rid of all of it and just keep my M9 and two lenses. But that's just not going to happen. I just recently stumbled upon a portrait I took with my Contax 645 and TMAX 400 film, and there is no digital camera that can replicate the subtlety of that image.

 

As far as 4x5 goes, I take one or two trips with a friend every year and shooting LF becomes like fishing. When I have the time for it, the process is just so enjoyable that I wouldn't want to be shooting any other format. When I'm in a rush, it is a big pain in the neck. The one thing I definitely wouldn't want to miss about LF is the perspective control. I just love those straight lines with architecture and neither Photoshop nor tilt/shift lenses are an adequate replacement for what I can do with my Sinar.

[Deliberate1]

At the risk of high-jacking my own thread, I would be interested to know how you MF and LF shooters print up your color negs/chromes. Are you doing Lightjet or other direct printing, or scanning/printing.

As above, years ago I picked up an Eversmart Pro II flatbed scanner for about 1/20th its original price and have been using that very successfully with my MF and LF chromes. The files are huge, though and 16bit are monsters. Before that had a Nikon 9000 that was good up to 6x6 film.

I ask because I wonder if the process of capturing an "analog" image digitally changes the quality of the capture - that is the "film look." Otherwise put, would an image digitized and printed lose the qualities unique to film that keeps some of you still shooting in that medium.

Thanks

David

[4X5B&W]

Interesting topic, going through the same thing myself.

 

Trying to rationalise equipment, in my experience I find the less equipment I have the more comfortable I am with the process. I'm not talking about a minimalist system, I'm talking about no excess gear "just in case".

 

I have used a M8 for the last 6 years and really like the results, colour is fine and B&W surprisingly good for most applications. Currently awaiting my number to come up for a M240. The Leica M outfit is perfect for my hand held applications, and being able to use 2 of my R lenses (100 macro, 180 Apo-Telyt) via tripod makes a nice versatile and compact kit.

 

I have a Hassy V system with film backs and a Phase One digital back. The results from digital are excellent for colour and again do superb B&W. A nice kit for serious tripod work.

 

Then there is the 4x5 kit that has been ignored for some time now while I played with the digital toys. Have done a lot of thinking about this recently and have pared it down to 2 classic vintage lenses for strictly B&W in the traditional sense. That doesn't necessarily mean gelatin silver prints, digital printing techniques and papers have come a long way.

 

So here is where I currently stand, get rid of everything other than:

Leica M for hand held digital shooting.

Hassy V for critical work either film or Digital, shot from a tripod.

Large Format for traditional B&W film printed which ever way is suitable for the end result.

[bocaburger]

I still have a couple Rolleiflexes and a couple 4x5s and I do have the capability to develop b&w film in both sizes, but I've tried scanning (I've an Epson V700 for MF/LF) and if I'm honest with myself, the results really don't come up to what I get directly from my 5D or M9 with a lot less time and hassle. Perhaps my scanning technique could stand improvement, and perhaps if I bought a more expensive scanner...but as one of many hobbies of mine, there's a limit to how much money and time I'm willing to devote.

[Jeff S]

Up until 4 years ago, I had a b/w darkroom (for the prior 30 years) and shot film formats including 35mm, MF variants, and LF, primarily 4x5.

 

Then I moved, for the 5th time, and had to decide whether to build a 5th darkroom. Without one, I knew it was digital or nothing, as I didn't want to outsource processing or printing (nor matting and framing). For prior moves, this was an easy decision since I hadn't seen digital prints from others that satisfied.

 

But that was changing and the quality of papers, inks, and such gave me encouragement. So I made the leap and exited film cold turkey, selling my darkroom and film cameras. I didn't want to compare results; rather I decided to dedicate myself to a singular approach in order to learn and maximize results, i.e., quality inkjet prints, as best as possible.

 

It's a continuing journey, as simultaneous with my improved workflow and techniques, the quality of software, equipment and materials (printers, inks, papers, profiles, etc.) has likewise improved.

 

For now, I'm sticking with the M system, hopeful that the M240 will allow for more contemplative tripod work than my heretofore handheld M8.2 pics. We'll see, as I'm expecting a call today on the M.

 

A good friend is further along this journey than I, although he still shoots film up to 5x7. His digital b/w prints, using Leica and Canon primarily, with Cone inks (Piezography) with 7 shades of grey/black and gloss optimizer, now have a gorgeous subtlety in tonality that I wouldn't have thought possible a few years ago. My prints, so far using standard Epson inks, are still wonderful when I do my part well, but still can be improved with the Piezo approach and with even more tweaks certain to come.

 

Film and digital are different, and I never get into meaningless debates about better or worse. I can only control what I think and do, and for me, it's always been about a disciplined workflow and approach, focusing on the print as the end result. No looking back.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

I should have added to my post that one thing digital has done for me is to open up the world of color. I rarely shot color with film gear, other than Kodak slides for family travel. But digital now allows the equivalent of the color darkroom that I never had.

 

In answer to the question posed regarding current use of 'chromes,' they still sit in boxes. I did, however, send one out for printing recently (I don't own a scanner) for personal family reasons; the sentimental value exceeded any IQ nuances. As for the rest, no plans.

 

Jeff