First test roll from my M6

[pinchers of peril]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I have to be honest. I had very high, probably unrealistically high, expectations for how my first test roll of film was going to turn out from my M6.  I kept telling myself that it was just a "test roll" and the main purpose was to check the function of my new purchase and to be sure that there were no light leaks.  However, in the back of my head I was expecting to pick up the developed roll and be moved to tears by the Leica magic.  I was expecting Henri Cartier-Bresson's ghost to visit me and tell me that I was to pave the way for the next generation of Magnum photographers (although I think the fact that I shot in color kind of precluded this from happening ha ha).  Anyway, I had also read so many good reviews about the Zeiss Planar lens that I had purchased and it's "3D pop" and how "great the colors were."  When I picked up the roll I was mildly disappointed. Here are some of the things that I learned

 

- Portra 400 is a lot more grainy than I was expecting:  I know it's film, and I know part of the appeal and romance is that "film grain" but I guess I was not expecting this much.  Coming from a digital background I don't think of ISO 400 as being very grainy (at least not on my x100T or my 5DIII) so I was surprised by how much grain most of the images showed.

 

- Images not super sharp: Now there are a lot of things that could have affected this, most notably the fact that this is my first rangefinder camera so there is probably quite a bit of user error to blame here.  Also a lot of shots were indoors with less than ideal lighting so I let the shutter speed drop to pretty slow speeds for some of the images.

 

- Colors not great: As stated above, I was ready to be wowed by how the 50mm Zeiss Planar rendered colors.  That being said I knew that Portra 400 is kind of a more subdued film but over all I was not super impressed with the colors of the images.  The roll was developed by CVS (which technically use Fuji) so I don't know how "good" their labs are or how much bearing that has on the final images.  I was also surprised by how much the saturation seemed to vary with some of the images.  I know that the lighting conditions have a lot to do with the contrast and saturation of the images, but there was a lot less consistency than I was expecting.  Also, I feel that most of the images have a green cast to them.  Again, I don't know if this has to do with the lab that developed them or what.

 

- Gotta work on that composition: As this was my first rangefinder, I found myself super preoccupied with trying to make sure I was lining up my rangefinder patch when shooting.  This was very different for me as I usually just move my AF focus point with my x100T or my 5dIII. Because of this I found that most of my compositions had my subject smack dab in the middle of the frame making for overall kind of boring images.  I am still getting used to focus and recomposing so I am hoping this will get better with time.  

 

So overall I am sobered by the fact that picking up a Leica didn't transform me into the photography master I was expecting.  I know that a camera is just a tool blah blah blah but I guess I had kind of higher expectations.  I know I have a LONG way to go and a lot to learn.  I am still having a lot of fun but at this point my digital images are leaps and bounds above my film images.

 

Here are some samples, apologies for the fact that there are no exciting street photos and instead the pics are all of my little rug rats   

 

If anybody shoots with the Zeiss Planar and Kodak Portra 400 I'd appreciate your opinion on how the images appear.  I'm just curious if sending them to a better lab would give any better results.  Thanks

 

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!

[pinchers of peril]

A couple more

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Tony Mac]

The colors have a lot to do with the lab, the kind of scanner used, and how the technician adjusts the scan. I would go with a higher quality lab than CVS that will help you fine tune your colors to your liking. A lot of higher end labs will let you send inspiration images for the kind of color palette you want, and help you refine it as they scan more film for you.

 

This image isn't from a Leica, it's from a Ricoh GRIV, but it's still on Portra 400 and scanned on the Nortisu at 6700px wide. You can see that the grain isn't very prominent when scanned with a good scanner and then down-sampled for the web. Down-sampling would also help with perceived sharpness a bit (if one nails focus to begin with). Doesn't hurt to add a little post-sharpening if that's what you're wanting. But you can never pixel-peep film compared to digital, it just won't be the same.

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 September 4, 2015 by Tony Mac

[rpavich]

The colors have a lot to do with the lab, the kind of scanner used, and how the technician adjusts the scan. I would go with a higher quality lab than CVS that will help you fine tune your colors to your liking. A lot of higher end labs will let you send inspiration images for the kind of color palette you want, and help you refine it as they scan more film for you.

 

This image isn't from a Leica, it's from a Ricoh GRIV, but it's still on Portra 400 and scanned on the Nortisu at 6700px wide. You can see that the grain isn't very prominent when scanned with a good scanner and then down-sampled for the web. Down-sampling would also help with perceived sharpness a bit (if one nails focus to begin with). Doesn't hurt to add a little post-sharpening if that's what you're wanting. But you can never pixel-peep film compared to digital, it just won't be the same.

mac_t_20150826_000008180033.jpg

True

A hard lesson I've had to learn.

[jankap]

Images not super sharp: Now there are a lot of things that could have affected this, most notably the fact that this is my first rangefinder camera so there is probably quite a bit of user error to blame here.  Also a lot of shots were indoors with less than ideal lighting so I let the shutter speed drop to pretty slow speeds for some of the images.

 

You could sharpen somewhat more. Please try to sharpen the picture "Girl with curtains" with Photoshop at 100/1/0. I tried this with your downsized picture.

The plane of sharpness is ok, the eyes, the emblem on the shirt and part of the hair are sharp. But what f/stop did you use.

 

Perhaps a tripod helps.

With film one has the problem, that the ISO is fixed.  

Jan

[pinchers of peril]

You could sharpen somewhat more. Please try to sharpen the picture "Girl with curtains" with Photoshop at 100/1/0. I tried this with your downsized picture.

The plane of sharpness is ok, the eyes, the emblem on the shirt and part of the hair are sharp. But what f/stop did you use.

 

Perhaps a tripod helps.

With film one has the problem, that the ISO is fixed.  

Jan

Yeah it's definitely different not being able to crank up my ISO like on my digital bodies. That shot of my daughter in the curtains was probably shot fairly wide open and I was standing pretty close to her so the DOF is pretty thin.

[Wayne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not see any major problems with the photos of the children, in fact, I would say that they are images you will enjoy more and more as time passes. One thing I have learned about evaluating my images, overall, is that it is best to give it a few days and go back to reevaluate. It seems that, for me, a rank amateur, my first response to every new image is: It should have been better. 

[pinchers of peril]

I do not see any major problems with the photos of the children, in fact, I would say that they are images you will enjoy more and more as time passes. One thing I have learned about evaluating my images, overall, is that it is best to give it a few days and go back to reevaluate. It seems that, for me, a rank amateur, my first response to every new image is: It should have been better.

 

I think you may be right about this. I like the images more now than when I first got them back from developing. It's probably due to my expectations becoming more in line with reality and my skill set ha ha.

[rpavich]

I think you may be right about this. I like the images more now than when I first got them back from developing. It's probably due to my expectations becoming more in line with reality and my skill set ha ha.

True. As you look at film images on flickr, you will start to forget the clinical sharpness and lack of grain of digital and your images will look good (and they really do look good)

 

Heck...I've spent quite a bit of money on Lightroom Presets to get what you just got with a $5.00 roll of film.

[too old to care]

I also like your photos.  I grew up with film, even shooting weddings in the 70's and 80's with medium format to pay my way through college and help buy our first house.  I like the look of film, the softer, less harsh look.  That is why I sold my 5D MK II a few years ago and bought a slightly used Hasselblad 501 to replace my worn out Mamiya C330f.  

 

As others have noted, processing is everything.  When my wedding proofs and negatives were returned from the lab, each negative was in its own envelope with the processing data written on it.  This way the final enlargements would look exactly like the proofs, the lab could reset their equipment using the data recorded those envelopes.  

 

Other services offered by them was dust spotting, cropping, retouching, reprints to correct the colors if the customer was not happy.  I have even sent along color samples of the bride's maids gowns to the lab so they could match their prints to the actual colors.  You do not get this kind of service at CVS, or most places that process film today.  Only a few professional labs will do film anymore, and most of them convert the image to digital for printing.   

 

There has been many articles written comparing film to digital, which is best; the same as there has been to which recorded music sounds best, vinyl or digital.  Because I cannot get color film processed to my satisfaction, I shoot only B&W film.  There are color kits that I can use at home, but I just do not do much color anymore.  

 

One other point about film, if stored right the negatives will last almost indefinitely.  Recently I scanned some negatives from a wedding that I shot 40 years ago and reprinted them for one of my old customers.  They still looked great after all those years.  

 

Enjoy your camera.  

 

Wayne 

Edited September 5, 2015 by too old to care

[Wayne]

On digital music and images......I read somewhere: The human body, i.e ears, eyes, etc., is not digital, it is analog. There is no limit to the entertaining tricks  possible with digital; but, personally, I like a Gibson SG plugged straight into a tube amp.

 

I like the photos of the kids. Especially the little crochet crown . Stand by, those princesses can present a real challenge as they move through the teen years.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Wayne

[pinchers of peril]

On digital music and images......I read somewhere: The human body, i.e ears, eyes, etc., is not digital, it is analog. There is no limit to the entertaining tricks  possible with digital; but, personally, I like a Gibson SG plugged straight into a tube amp.

 

I like the photos of the kids. Especially the little crochet crown . Stand by, those princesses can present a real challenge as they move through the teen years.

I'm more of a fender jaguar man

[rpavich]

I'm more of a fender jaguar man

My rig of choice was a 335 through a Dr. Z head.

[TomB_tx]

My rig of choice was a 335 through a Dr. Z head.

D28 - no amp

[indergaard]

After having experimented with Kodak: Portra, Ektar, UltraMax 400 and Fujifilm: Provia 400x, Velvia 100f, Pro 400h, Natura 1600 - I have decided that my future color work will be done digitally, and that my black and white work will be done with film.

 

Some color shots with film can be fantastic, especially if you get the lighting conditions and exposure perfectly with Portra, portraits can look amazing, and the faces can have a slightly soft and etheral aura around them, which is very appealing. But if the lighting conditions are less than perfect the pictures turn out grainy, flat, mushy and boring.

 

With digital I find that I can create color images under less ideal lighting conditions and still get excellent results.

 

For black and white photography however, I see no substitute for film. Even the M Monochrom falls short - for me. I love B&W film. And I have full control over the development and scanning process, so the results are consistent.

 

Remember, with C41/B&W film: If in doubt - always over expose. Never ever under expose. It's quite the opposite of shooting digitally. Most films love a slight over exposure. Framing with a rangefinder can be quite frustrating at times, especially if on a film camera: Focus and recompose isn't always easy with a shallow depth of field and subjects that are close. Even the slightest change in the plane of focus can cause faces to become out of focus. The X100T, and other cameras, are far easier and more efficient in this regard. And with a digital M you can always focus bracket to make sure you get one frame in perfect focus - lean forward a little bit, lean back a little bit, and make one from in the middle. It's a horrible practice, but it's the only way to assure that one of your images most probably will be in good enough focus.

Edited September 6, 2015 by indergaard

[BerndReini]

I understand where you are coming from, but I highly recommend you print one of those pictures at about 6x9 inches on letter size paper. We are so used to pixel peeping on our computer screens that I think you will be surprised how nicely these grainy pictures print. When I don't shoot film for a while I have the same reaction, but when I print, I really love the results. Also, I think you should put your camera on a tripod and shoot a tape measure angled away from you to check your camera and lens for focusing accuracy. Once you are sure, that your rangefinder and lens are adjusted correctly, shoot a roll of Portra very deliberately. Include portraits, landscapes, lots of color etc. Then send it off to RichardPhotoLab in LA. They are one of the best labs in the country. Make prints from their scans and ten decide how you feel about the quality of film.

 

I am currently going through the opposite process where I just can't get excited about my digital color photographs. They lack a certain abstraction, and they are just too clean and linear. I am shooting mostly with an MM and I just started shooting color negative again.

[Tony Mac]

I understand where you are coming from, but I highly recommend you print one of those pictures at about 6x9 inches on letter size paper. We are so used to pixel peeping on our computer screens that I think you will be surprised how nicely these grainy pictures print. When I don't shoot film for a while I have the same reaction, but when I print, I really love the results. Also, I think you should put your camera on a tripod and shoot a tape measure angled away from you to check your camera and lens for focusing accuracy. Once you are sure, that your rangefinder and lens are adjusted correctly, shoot a roll of Portra very deliberately. Include portraits, landscapes, lots of color etc. Then send it off to RichardPhotoLab in LA. They are one of the best labs in the country. Make prints from their scans and ten decide how you feel about the quality of film.

 

I am currently going through the opposite process where I just can't get excited about my digital color photographs. They lack a certain abstraction, and they are just too clean and linear. I am shooting mostly with an MM and I just started shooting color negative again.

 

Definitely worth while to see if your lens is focusing properly. To expand on this...I think the best way to do it is to print a siemens star and put it on the wall, with your camera on a tripod 10' from the star, set focus to the target. Have your camera iris wide open. Check and see if the distance measured matches the witness mark on the lens (10' measured should mean that the lens reads 10' on the barrel). You can measure to the film plane with the little symbol hidden underneath the film advance. Take a picture and have it scanned, then you can see if the camera has critical focus.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Tony Mac

[BerndReini]

I would also confirm with a simple tape measure test. Lay down a tape measure stretching away from the camera and focus on a marking a little beyond minimum focus distance. Let's say you focus on the 4ft mark on the tape measure, you will see if the focus is right on the mark or a behind or in front of the mark. Siemens star is great, but the lens markings are too crude for critical accuracy and you won't know what sharpness to expect in the final negative without comparison. 

[Velociphile]

Hi PoP,

 

I have also been on the journey back from digital like yourself.  Others have given you great advice. Pixel peeping is largely frustrating and arguably irrelevant.  Once you appreciate that you can see things with digital that you can't see with your eye on a subject you wonder what all that resolution could be for.  

 

I can get at least prints 12'' x 16'' out of Portra 400 suitably scanned and the organicness of Tri-X has a charm of its own. I have greater success shooting the negatives on a light table with a macro lens and my DSLR than any scanner (pro lab or not) - much finer definition of contrast in particular and then print control via Aperture or LR to your own taste.  

 

As, I have a Planar too I hope my calibration experience with it can help you.  I find that at f2 the difference between focus at the centre and where a subject's eye would be once recomposed in a typical portrait at a distance of about 3' (0.9-1m) is around 1 1/2" (35mm) or so.  So one needs to focus on their nose to get their eyelashes and iris in focus - and of course, less so the more the subject is towards the middle of the frame.

 

Good luck.

T

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ReturningToFilm]

I have just shot a roll of test shots of a measuring tape with a tripod and different focus points and f stops with M4 and new to me 35mm Cron ASPH. I couldnt work out if my previous scans (with my old 50mm Cron v3) are slightly useless focus because, a) I'm rubbish at using a rangefinder, the camera body has a rangefinder calibration issue, c) the old lens needed calibrating or d) Plustek 8100 isn't scanning properly. A lot of variables!

So hopefully going through the advised process here will eliminate lens (as its newer and excellent condition), me (on the hoof being clumsy) and leave body (oof when looked at with loupe) or scanning as issue....

Sadly I think it's me that's the problem!