How many Monochrom users still shoot B&W film?

[ndevlin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In order to pay for my MM a few weeks ago, I did what I had sworn I never would: sell my beloved Mamiya 6. Alas, she had gathered dust for a decade, and a friend with a darkroom wanted her, so the stars aligned.

 

The work I have produced off the MM is amongst my best ever, and the creative control I enjoy in LR/SFX exceeds what i could ever achieve consistently in the darkroom, even when I printed almost daily back in the '90s. If I had a wet darkroom I think I would still shoot film, but even that I am not sure of. But without one, I don't think I will.

[vdb]

Gary, I say I haven't used film in years. I tell myself I have fully converted to digital. Ah, but I have not gotten rid of my darkroom. Because yes indeed, the day will come....

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MarkP]

I love my Monochrom - the best camera I've ever owned.

 

However, it was the Monochrom that sent me back to film so I have bought a Contax T3 (which I bitterly regret having sold some years ago) and an M7. I shoot primarily BW400CN and Portra.

 

I now shoot either film or digital depending on the subject or my mood.

I don't consider film to be better, just different.

[sarav]

I bought a MM several months ago and I am very happy with it. I use it in low light or very low light condition and the results are marvelous. With my MP I do all the shots during the day (sunny, cloudy or foggy). Shots in low ISO with MM are too sharp, clean...too perfect. I like the old style of B&W which only film can deliver, and MM in high ISO is quite similar.

With MM I renewed my passion for B&W and now I shot more film than past years, I am very happy with both worlds, digital & analog.

Thank you Leica!

[jpattison]

I love my Monochrom, and use it to copy my 35mm to 6x7 B&W negs, via the BEOON adapter over a light box. Much faster than scanning, as the MM sorts out the exposure perfectly. In Lightroom I convert to positive and carry out any PP. Much faster than a scan, but you have to do a few test shots to line up a 1:1 copy!

 

Shoot film on my M4, Hassy X-Pan and Linhof Technikardan (5x4, 6x12 and 6x7)

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/BEOON

 

John

[asiafish]

I bought a MM several months ago and I am very happy with it. I use it in low light or very low light condition and the results are marvelous. With my MP I do all the shots during the day (sunny, cloudy or foggy). Shots in low ISO with MM are too sharp, clean...too perfect. I like the old style of B&W which only film can deliver, and MM in high ISO is quite similar.

With MM I renewed my passion for B&W and now I shot more film than past years, I am very happy with both worlds, digital & analog.

Thank you Leica!

 

Thats why we have ND filters. I often use orange AND 3-stop ND filters in daylight with my MM so that I can shoot at ISO 5000 and still have control over depth of field.

[batmobile]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have not shot film in a while and the MM is part of the reason why. I retain several film bodies, but can see them dwindling further. The MM is not a perfect or complete replacement (it is its own beast), but it can do so much so well that there are very limited reasons for me to use film now.

[SSC]

MM is my walkaround camera. In the studio Ive been medium format film and used the MM for "fun" with film continuing to be king for work or special portraits etc. The MM was not enough to get me out of the darkroom. That changed recently acquired an achromatic+ Digital back. I use it on a Contax 645 and on a 4x5 view camera and it is a tough call on whether it is "better" or worse--it is close enough and easy enough that without making a conscious decision to forego darkroom work, I have found that after 2 months of owning the achromatic+ I've not been in the darkroom.

 

Love the MM--it won't replace my Mamiya 7's or Contax 645 MF stuff but I gave my M6 to my assistant and haven't looked back.

[john neal]

Interesting insn't it? I have had the MM for about 6 months now, and have not shot film since I bought it - I even considered selling my MP to part fund the purchase.

 

I'm so glad I didn't as the MM has given me the urge to get back into B&W film (I have 800+ ft of Double-X in the fridge and really want to run some of that through it - and i wouln't have that opportunity if I had sold it - Phew!

[ndevlin]

I bought a MM several months ago and I am very happy with it. I use it in low light or very low light condition and the results are marvelous. With my MP I do all the shots during the day (sunny, cloudy or foggy). Shots in low ISO with MM are too sharp, clean...too perfect. I like the old style of B&W which only film can deliver, and MM in high ISO is quite similar.

With MM I renewed my passion for B&W and now I shot more film than past years, I am very happy with both worlds, digital & analog.

Thank you Leica!

 

This is something I hear a lot but don't understand. You can make a 'perfect' digital file look any way you want it to. Like the a lot of grain and a sharp, film-like tonal curve? No problem. Want it buttery smooth like 4x5? No problem. Want it to look like TMZ 3200 is Rodinal? No problem. Want it blurred a bit? No problem. It's all just a question of a bit of skill with the right basic software.

 

The current Interview has Kirsten Stewart shot by a well known fashion photog on the cover and a large spread inside. It's done to look like it's outside at night in the city, and is grainy in a way that looks like ISO 3200 film (though with greater saturation), but was actually shot in-studio with projections, etc, probably on MF digital, probably at base ISO.

 

The look was achieved in post. Which is the whole point in capturing a fall, tonally rich, noise-free file. You can do anything with it. With film (or a lesser digital file) it ain't never getting any better.

 

What's the objection to a technically superb files as a starting point in the creative process?

 

- N.

[fore]

I love my Monochrom, and use it to copy my 35mm to 6x7 B&W negs, via the BEOON adapter over a light box. Much faster than scanning, as the MM sorts out the exposure perfectly. In Lightroom I convert to positive and carry out any PP. Much faster than a scan, but you have to do a few test shots to line up a 1:1 copy!

 

Shoot film on my M4, Hassy X-Pan and Linhof Technikardan (5x4, 6x12 and 6x7)

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/BEOON

 

John

 

John, what lens do you use for this setup?

 

Chris

[Jager]

This is something I hear a lot but don't understand. You can make a 'perfect' digital file look any way you want it to. Like the a lot of grain and a sharp, film-like tonal curve? No problem. Want it buttery smooth like 4x5? No problem. Want it to look like TMZ 3200 is Rodinal? No problem. Want it blurred a bit? No problem. It's all just a question of a bit of skill with the right basic software.

 

The current Interview has Kirsten Stewart shot by a well known fashion photog on the cover and a large spread inside. It's done to look like it's outside at night in the city, and is grainy in a way that looks like ISO 3200 film (though with greater saturation), but was actually shot in-studio with projections, etc, probably on MF digital, probably at base ISO.

 

The look was achieved in post. Which is the whole point in capturing a fall, tonally rich, noise-free file. You can do anything with it. With film (or a lesser digital file) it ain't never getting any better.

 

What's the objection to a technically superb files as a starting point in the creative process?

 

- N.

 

I don't think there's any objection to technically superb files. Nor is their much argument to your suggestion that pretty much anything can be done in post.

 

Most of us who love the MM do so not because it renders "perfect" files - I'm not sure such a camera exists - but rather because of the look and the character and the richness of those files. There are many outstanding digital cameras on the market. What sets MM files apart are their film-like character - albeit 4x5 sheet film, not the 35mm cassettes or even 120 roll film most people instantly think about, I would argue.

 

As for PP, and being able to achieve any look one wishes, some of us shrink from "too much." If the resulting photoshopped image is wholly different from the scene that our eyes saw, it somehow begins to feel less like photography and more akin to something we might have made up with an etch-a-sketch as a kid. To me, at least. YMMV.

 

As for film, if you don't shoot it, it's going to be hard for you to understand. Especially medium format or large format. It's a totally different experience. Very different process. Much slower. More thoughtful and measured. Sometimes, maybe most of the time, that's not such a bad thing.

 

Want to see light? Really see it? Go shoot some pictures with an old film camera that doesn't have a meter.

 

Ultimately, the "files" you get with film have their own unique character and look and nuance. Qualities that can be approached with digital, but never achieved entirely. IMHO.

 

The MM is the closest thing to shooting film - both the process and the results - you're going to find in today's digital world. It rocks.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Jager

[jpattison]

John, what lens do you use for this setup?

 

Chris

 

Hi Chris,

I started with my 1965 Summicron, (see pic of Tony... AKA here as Pintpot ... M4 PAN F), but it isn't made for close ups - soft edges, so I'm going to be using my 50 f2.8 Schneider Componon-S enlarger lens. Tests are promising.

The BEOON takes Leica screw or M bayonet lenses/cameras. You focus with a viewer in place of the camera, see the Wiki entry.

 

Cheers,

John

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 1, 2015 by jpattison
viewer info added

[jpattison]

Here's one with the Schneider, although the image was taken with a 1.4 50 'lux at full aperture, so the softness is in the shot. You can see the grain sharp to the edges, though.

 

John

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 1, 2015 by jpattison
added set-up photo

[Jeff S]

The look was achieved in post. Which is the whole point in capturing a fall, tonally rich, noise-free file. You can do anything with it. With film (or a lesser digital file) it ain't never getting any better.

 

What's the objection to a technically superb files as a starting point in the creative process?

 

For many people, apart from the shooting experience, I suspect the reason for using film is a fine silver (or platinum) print. Giving that up was the hardest part of going all-digital for me….although I've made many digital prints that are superb….just different. For others, scanning offers a hybrid approach (one I still contemplate).

 

But I disagree with your premise that with film, "it ain't never getting any better." Via scanning or darkroom, there are still myriad possibilitiies for print results from any given film….well after it's developed….assuming the neg is at least adequate. Adams' Moonrise prints from the same neg changed dramatically as he got older….early prints are light and airy compared to later ones with dramatic contrast, as shown here. Not only can interpretations vary over time, but so can papers, equipment, user techniques and many other variables in the workflow. Same conceptual differences, film or digital PP…although the the latter offers more ease and flexibility.

 

Jeff

Edited April 1, 2015 by Jeff S

[jpattison]

Agreed.

I'm still looking through my 1970s and '80s negs, hoping I can improve them with the modern papers and my better enlarger! And my "skills" learned over the years.

 

John

[sarav]

The look was achieved in post.

 

PP requires a lot of time to me, more than processing films. Sometimes you reach the right result in a while but it's not the normal situation (to me).

I can easily PP a night shot in high ISO from Leica MM, but during the day I prefer shooting films and obtain immediately the look I want, i.e.: the look of the film I loaded and the look of the developer I chosen, eventually I can play with a variety of papers.

Surely, it's a limit of mine, but I own both the technologies and I utilize them in the most comfortable manner to reach my goal.

anyway, Leica has the right tool for every Leica photographer :-)

 

Sara

[RobSkeoch]

Even while enjoying the M9, I still shot a fair bit of film. Now for some reason I've gone back to shooting b&w for almost everything. The M9 was a joy to use but I like and appreciate film more. I don't scan the neg's but make prints in the dark. Old school I guess.

[250swb]

What's the objection to a technically superb files as a starting point in the creative process?

 

Because for many people, even some digital users, the creative process is started well before they sit down in front of the PC to start post processing. For them it starts in their minds eye and the sort of picture they want, then they load an appropriate film, then they start making exposures still thinking in terms of the eventual outcome, so by the time it comes to developing and printing/scanning an awful lot of the creative process is already in the DNA of the image. Working on the print can even be a formality because the image is already formed in the imagination and confirms a commitment and authenticity to the original creative idea.

 

It is in other words far removed from the 'lets see what we've got here' approach as the camera operative sits down at the PC and discovers images they didn't know they had.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sarav]

Because for many people, even some digital users, the creative process is started well before they sit down in front of the PC to start post processing. For them it starts in their minds eye and the sort of picture they want, then they load an appropriate film, then they start making exposures still thinking in terms of the eventual outcome, so by the time it comes to developing and printing/scanning an awful lot of the creative process is already in the DNA of the image. Working on the print can even be a formality because the image is already formed in the imagination and confirms a commitment and authenticity to the original creative idea.

 

It is in other words far removed from the 'lets see what we've got here' approach as the camera operative sits down at the PC and discovers images they didn't know they had.

 

Steve

 

+1 (you couldn't write it in a better way!!)