Monochrom or MP (film) - Help needed

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

MM or MP-M-A ?

 

Your choice after looking at this link  "match MM versus M6 Kodak TX400" ***

 

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1450/compact-a-objectifs-interchangeables-leica-m-monochrom-test-terrain-18.html

http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=51356

 

You said  "nuance" ?

 

Thanks

Best

Henry

***

if you want to translate in english , copy the link above and translate "french -english" by "Google Translation"

Edited June 20, 2015 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

My new MP purchased in Leica Store

(the former was stolen)

 

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!

 

M8-90 MacroElmar

 

 

my next wil be a M-A

 

and our main "Red Dot", initiator of this thread , what he thinks ?

 

Best

Henry

Edited June 20, 2015 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

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

[chrism]

Coming a bit late to the party, but that's because I don't visit the digital forums as often as I used to do (which might give you some sort of answer to the original poster's question!)

I grew up with film, and learnt to use it sparingly and carefully as each shot cost me a significant amount of money (significant to me at the time). That meant that I grew used to taking photographs with some care about focussing and exposure, but never really was exposed to lots of film emulsions; I always bought the cheapest. Outdated Orwochrom slide film was my replacement for Kodachrome, for example. I did my own B&W developing and printing back in the seventies, but never tried colour negative or reversal as this was known to be far too complicated for home use.

So I got a lot older, and got some disposable income. Eventually I bought an M7, then digital Leicas such as the M8, M8.2, M9 and MM. I love the convenience of digital, and use it whenever I need a photo quickly to document something. The M9 and MM get little use these days, and my main digital workhorses are the OM-D E-M5 for wildlife and the D810 for other very high resolution needs. But film remains my main effort. I had a little illness during the last year, and was unable to work for about eight months during chemotherapy. I resolved to shoot and develop a film a day as often as the weather and my symptoms allowed. I went ape! 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and even 10x8 by the end. B&W, C-41 colour, and LF paper negatives, monobath development. I had a ball. Loved it, every minute. Possibly even worth the price paid for having those months off. I just can't make photographs without feeling that film is the proper way to do it. This is actually rather stupid of me, in that my digital cameras out-resolve the films I use, cost me nothing more per shot, allow the photographs to arrive in LightRoom practically immediately, don't require further exposure to known carcinogens and allergens, don't require me to sit in front of my several and expensive scanners. But it still feels far better when I use film. Perhaps it's the awareness that I'm keeping alive an old skill, that I'm responsible for things that would otherwise be done by hardware and firmware that I shall never understand properly. It's being tired of seeing the same digital photography again and again exploiting HDR in every shot, massive increases in Clarity and Vibrance, focus stacking and all. Another time exposure of a waterfall and I swear I'll puke. Whatever it is that makes me use film, it isn't rational. It costs more, it's limited in many ways, but it's how I choose to occupy myself. I have typed out a list of all my Leica gear that I will send to my dealer one of these days. I'll keep the M7, a 35 and a 75 and sell the rest. It ought to be sold by someone who knows what it's worth rather than leaving that task to my wife. Then the M7, my F6, my many MF and three LF cameras will work on the freezer brimming with film and see if I can get through it all.

 

All I can say to the OP, is to do what you enjoy best. There is no one right way. Only what gives you pleasure. Take what you can, while you can.

 

Chris

[M9reno]

Chris, what carcinogens are your referring to?  I ask because I want to avoid them, naturally. Thanks.

[chrism]

Chris, what carcinogens are your referring to?  I ask because I want to avoid them, naturally. Thanks.

CD-4 colour developer is linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, acute leukemia, and bladder cancer.

 

CD-4, Metol and hydroquinone all provoke skin reactions.

 

I don't know if I can blame any of these (or the tar shampoo I treated my scaly scalp with for 25 years, the coke-fired furnace of my childhood home or simply standing in the way of the wrong photon of ionising radiation) but I don't see any reason not to use rubber gloves nowadays!

[Doc Henry]

Chris, what carcinogens are your referring to?  I ask because I want to avoid them, naturally. Thanks.

Reno, I continue after Chris by saying that you must work with gloves and in a ventilated room .

 

I remind you that these developers ("phenylene diamine" (P2) or "hydroxylamine" (P1) for color development with other many products has also carcinogenic risk that fine particles from diesel or cigarette (benzene) or plastic bisphenol A  or pesticides (neurodegenerative diseases in addition ex. Parkinson disease) or portable electromagnetic waves (glioma).

Best

Henry

Edited June 21, 2015 by Doc Henry

[Joshua Lowe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

there is being sparing and there is working the scene.  Reading through Magnum Contact Sheets really opened my eyes as to how much those legends were shooting - a lot.

[colonel]

lots of interesting views here

 

I recently bought a MP (and M7) and have returned to film for a lot of shooting

 

I absolutely love the feeling, concentration and working environment the MP makes. Plus trying out different films and the exciting wait for results.

 

The cost saving is a bit illusory, if you add the film and developing cost during the year, you will come to a Monochrom price after a few years.

 

I have no intention or time to develop my own film, but I can imaging that if you are prepared to B&W can be quite rewarding. The main thing that would put me off is the scanning, as I primarily want to work with the results digitally. Its just very slow if you do it yourself. I prefer someone else does.

 

There are disadvantages to film but not the conventional ones IMHO. For example with f1.4 lenses and below, and ISO 400 film, I can pretty much take photos in all environments at good quality. With film highlight recovery seems to be better then digital, so I tend to over exposure slightly in high contrast environments with film, whereas with digital I would under expose, especially with the MM

 

At the end of the day its the fun factor. It suits considered photographers who can anticipate speed, aperture and focus, using the meter and display to just "finish off" the setting, rather then "make" the setting

 

The good news is that second hand film cameras don't change much in price so you can always buy one and see if you like it.

 

rgds

Edited July 1, 2015 by colonel

[Doc Henry]

Very interesting point of view of Harold
Certainly we have more fun and time to frame or compose with our MP or M7
and most importantly all the pleasure of doing everything itself  : film development, film printing paper, nothing in common with the time passing in front of his computer (with his LR or PS software) and its inkjet printer , it is much more beautiful !

Best

Henry

[wilfredo]

Red Dot where are you?

[Jon Pop]

Interesting discussion. I currently use both film (MP, iiig) and digital (M9, M-P 240). The pluses and minuses of both from a technical point of view have been laid out well for some time now, although the great film vs. digital debate continues to raise its head every possible moment. I've often longed for, and written about, my wish that some day photography would be like music in that no self-respecting musician would ever think that a peer who played an acoustic guitar wasn't making as good of music as an electric, but that's for another thread.  My thoughts and experiences shooting with both, and on all of this are as follows, and in no particular order:

 

- Anyone citing 'environmental reasons' for digital vs. film needs to do a total footprint assessment, on both their own individual usage, and what's happening globally. This includes total purchases over time. I would argue that the burden of the consumer electronics rat-race, with continual purchases and upgrades (see iPhone/ipad as the benchmark/archetype of what we do now) probably outweighs the production of, and subsequent use/processing of, 35mm film cassettes. The crippling environmental effects of the computer and related businesses (the mining of rare earth, etc.) have been well-documented and need to be all brought together. And, as has been pointed out, environmentally friendly developers exist, and also proper disposal means. Economically, it all depends on your own patterns. I can only say that my film Leicas are built to last...superbly crafted and simple and elegant mechanical tools. I'm not thinking either of my film Leicas will become technologically obsolete, where I upgrade/replace them. 

 

- I can shoot Delta 3200 pushed higher and have some great low-light performance. A different look than digital in those situations, but good all the same. I don't really chimp a lot. I'd say the biggest advantage of digital over film is the ability to adjust ISO rather than being committed to 24/36 frames with one ISO. But I also find shooting something like HP5+ pushed to 800 in DD-X (for example) to be pretty flexible; I'm not usually going from a street in the afternoon light to a root cellar within five minutes and moaning over some limitation

 

- I like the looks of all of my files, for different reasons, when they're done properly. 

 

- the aesthetics, handling, heft, thinness, of my MP and iiig win over anything digital for me, ever. 

 

- everyone I know who has the original Monochrom (and the new one) raves about it...I think it's a great camera. Don't let all the sensor corrosion jazz get you down. And they're working on a long term solution. 

 

- my M9 files, though not as 'capable' as the 240 files in terms of DR and ISO, have a pretty organic look to them in B/W...I know this is the same with the original MM

 

- buy what works for your own workflow. I shoot both systems professionally, as well as for pleasure. I don't do sports photography from 1000m away so discussions of M limitations are meaningless and misplaced.

 

- As for processing, it's been easy to develop my own negatives and then scan them - not as fast as chimping but not a big deal. Digital does require regular backup (digital files are, in fact, LESS long term...they degrade, this is well documented). Negatives are stable, but of course you only have one set. I have both the original negatives, and my scans which are backed up, and my digital originals from my digital M.