Convince me to buy a film M

[PaulJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M4 is the reason I won't buy an M246. Film Ms are just nicer machines to shoot with. Developing and scanning at home is a real challenge to get what I had in mind. The excitement of opening the Paterson tank and finding a perfectly exposed film then scanning to find images nicely in focus and complimented by attractive grain is unmatched by digital. I enjoy the whole process and I enjoy being on a learning curve where I can see improvements happening with every role. I have a lot to look forward to as I try different recipes of film and developer not to mention the effects of varying each combination with push processing, varying agitation and stand development.

 

My orange filter arrives today so that will be another thing to learn.

[BerndReini]

Horses for courses. I bought an MM1 last spring and I have to admit that I haven't shot much black and white film since. I've actually shot more color film than black and white. I still love black and white film, but I have a six year old and a five year old and the MM in combination with the Noctilux has opened up a new world. The kids won't stand still and with the MM I can shoot more freely. I'm sure I will get out my film Ms again soon though.

 

Here's one with the MM Noctilux combo from last weekend.

 

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!

[Mijo]

I mainly shoot film, with a MP, but I do use a MMv1 in low light conditions as I don't like to push film (I'd rather pull).  I'm currently trying some different developers with Delta 3200 (pulled to 1600) but I have yet to find a combination I really like in terms of the grain.  I also use my MM when I don't have money for film or paper, or when I just want to practice street photography (I don't get a lot of keepers when shooting street).  Shooting film, developing and printing are very relaxing (to me anyway) and I really enjoy it.  However, I'm always blown away by the output of the MM and I often wonder if my experiments with Delta 3200 and the different developers is a lost cause.

 

Recently I've started shooting color film and scanning, simply because I don't have a digital camera that does color.  Scanning is a finicky beast and dust has become the bane of my hobby.  I never bothered to scan my B&W negatives as I make prints of the ones that I like anyway.  If I didn't have access to a community darkroom, I wouldn't bother with film anymore.  The darkroom experience is why I shoot film.

[BerndReini]

Mijo, please do some research on the Pakon 135 scanner. It will change your photographic life. There is a whole Facebook user group on this scanner.

[PaulJohn]

I mainly shoot film, with a MP, but I do use a MMv1 in low light conditions as I don't like to push film (I'd rather pull).  I'm currently trying some different developers with Delta 3200 (pulled to 1600) but I have yet to find a combination I really like in terms of the grain.  I also use my MM when I don't have money for film or paper, or when I just want to practice street photography (I don't get a lot of keepers when shooting street).  Shooting film, developing and printing are very relaxing (to me anyway) and I really enjoy it.  However, I'm always blown away by the output of the MM and I often wonder if my experiments with Delta 3200 and the different developers is a lost cause.

 

Recently I've started shooting color film and scanning, simply because I don't have a digital camera that does color.  Scanning is a finicky beast and dust has become the bane of my hobby.  I never bothered to scan my B&W negatives as I make prints of the ones that I like anyway.  If I didn't have access to a community darkroom, I wouldn't bother with film anymore.  The darkroom experience is why I shoot film.

 

Pulling presumably reduces contrast and increases fidelity but I would be surprised if pulling 3200 is better than pushing 400?

I never considered the option of shooting colour film and b/w digital. Sounds great but I havent tried C41 at home and suspect it is a little harder to master with maintaining higher temperatures.

I dont get much dust and LR spot removal seems to do the job for the occasional problem. I always blow and wipe prior to scanning and so far I've never needed to rescan.

[Doc Henry]

Recently I've started shooting color film and scanning, simply because I don't have a digital camera that does color.  Scanning is a finicky beast and dust has become the bane of my hobby.  I never bothered to scan my B&W negatives as I make prints of the ones that I like anyway.  If I didn't have access to a community darkroom, I wouldn't bother with film anymore.  The darkroom experience is why I shoot film.

Mijo , I have a profes. compressor but it's a bit expensive.You can buy this one cheaper (and you can also use for your bike)

http://www.amazon.fr/RevolutionAir-425005-Miny-Compresseur-portatif/dp/B0052WQGTK/ref=sr_1_1?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1453226724&sr=1-1

The gun is particularly practical to remove dust on the negative.

 

What I criticize in digital photo,  that everything is "smoothing" (pixels by the software of the camera), everything is the same, which makes the picture "flat", "without relief"

Then grays are not gray and black is not black ** , I mean "deep" black (look at the black in the photo of fog posted above with Kodak TX400)

and "nuance" is unknown in digital , nuance and grayscale .It is for this reason that analog films are currently successful. In printing through an enlarger , black (and grey) are even more beautiful on photographic paper.

Best

Henry

** for this reason all digital  pictures need LR or PS to correct  b&w and color !

[Mijo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mijo, please do some research on the Pakon 135 scanner. It will change your photographic life. There is a whole Facebook user group on this scanner.

 

I'm currently using an Epson 850, that the community darkroom has as part of their digital lab.  They have a larger scanner available for large format negatives but I haven't used it as it's suppose to take longer than the 850 (which already takes too long IMO).  If I decide to continue with scanning at home I'll look into this scanner.  The community darkroom does provide canned air for reducing the dust on the negatives and I bring in my own antistatic wipes but I still end up finding dust on the digital files when I view them at home.  I find the dust removal option on the Epson software completely useless, sometimes it makes it harder to remove the dust when PP.

 

As stated, I only scan in color negatives which I don't shoot a lot of anyway.  I may end up getting a used M9 for those times I need color digital files and forget scanning altogether.  As far as pushing and pulling film, my understanding is that you lose detail when pushing vs. gaining detail when pulling (someone correct me if this is incorrect).  That's the reason I pull 3200 rather than push 400, even though the cost between the two films is substantial.  I'm trying different developers with 3200 to try and control the grain, thus far I prefer TMAX to D-76 (but not by much).

[Doc Henry]

another picture given by Kodak TX400 (dev home D76 20°C 9min)

 

Your opinion about the black ?

 

Picture uncorrected (not needed)

Leica M7 - Summicron 28 Asph

 

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!

 

Best

Henry

 

 

[Doc Henry]

another Kodak TX400 for the black tone

I found these pictures (that I post immediately for you)
because I'm currently looking for pictures of Kodak TX with my Noctilux

 

 

At the open air market

 

MP-35 Summilux Asph

picture uncorrected

 

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!

 

and some snow posted in "I like film" thread  :

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=2971887

 

Rg

Henry

[ekindangen]

Awesome pictures Doc Henry

[Jeff S]

 

** for this reason all digital  pictures need LR or PS to correct  b&w and color !

 

You mean just like b/w film requires various darkroom controls and materials?

 

I shot film for 35+ years, processing and printing in my own darkrooms (built 4), and transitioned to digital 9 years ago.  Conceptually I find the need for a disciplined workflow quite similar....but obviously the tools have changed.  I can make deep blacks or softer blacks printing from film (as the subject demands) and likewise render deep blacks or soft blacks using digital.  Quite easily.

 

Besides shooting film and making my own silver prints, I've also collected vintage silver prints from some of the best photographers and printers for decades....so I know how a truly wonderful silver print can 'sing'.  But, so too can a terrific digital print....just requires new learning to control still myriad workflow variables (including matting/framing, display and lighting)....and with the same judicious eye and judgment required.  

 

Every successful print I've ever made.....silver or inkjet....has required careful darkroom or 'lightroom' work.  Besides the obvious need for a terrific image to start, It's the difference between a good print and a wonderful one.  And I have both on my walls.

 

Jeff

[ShivaYash]

I'm late to the party on this one but my experience may assist you. In July 2015 after suffering with the half frame M8 for years, I took the plunge and got myself the M-E. I was delighted, it was great to have a full size sensor again. Then I arrived in Melbourne, complete with M-E and three lenses, 28-35-50. I asked myself the same question about hearing about the film shooting 'scene' here. I got myself a cheap M6Ti in December. Since then I've barely used the M-E... the M6 is my camera of choice, I'd owned one a good few years ago, I think it was the TTL version but sold it to get the Epson R-D1, but that is another story.

 

It is great to have another M body to shoot with and at the moment I'm really enjoying film. It means I just shoot and then a few days after dropping my roll off, I get an email link with my photos scanned to DropBox. I don't edit these but just enjoy and share them. I don't even bother importing into LR6. 

 

I'm off to India in March and the only camera I'll be taking is the M6 and my trusty 35f/2 (4th). Film is cheap there as is processing and scanning. I don't need to mess about with chargers, SD cards, laptops/ iPads etc. Its just the sheer joy of capturing moment.

 

Of course the M-E will remain with me and be used when it is required, but for fun, the M6 is just perfect. And you can pick up classic bodies (non-TTL) for less you may think.

 

Enjoy.

[Doc Henry]

Awesome pictures Doc Henry

Thank you for your comment Ekin

No comparison for the black we get with film

 

You mean just like b/w film requires various darkroom controls and materials?

 

I shot film for 35+ years, processing and printing in my own darkrooms (built 4), and transitioned to digital 9 years ago.  Conceptually I find the need for a disciplined workflow quite similar....but obviously the tools have changed.  I can make deep blacks or softer blacks printing from film (as the subject demands) and likewise render deep blacks or soft blacks using digital.  Quite easily.

 

Besides shooting film and making my own silver prints, I've also collected vintage silver prints from some of the best photographers and printers for decades....so I know how a truly wonderful silver print can 'sing'.  But, so too can a terrific digital print....just requires new learning to control still myriad workflow variables (including matting/framing, display and lighting)....and with the same judicious eye and judgment required.  

 

Every successful print I've ever made.....silver or inkjet....has required careful darkroom or 'lightroom' work.  Besides the obvious need for a terrific image to start, It's the difference between a good print and a wonderful one.  And I have both on my walls.

 

Jeff

Hi Jeff glad to read you here. I know you have S camera.

My transition to digital to have a telemetric M camera begins in 2009 with the M8 !

I still have this camera with a second digital M9. Each time I can, I take in parallel pictures to compare

with my M7-MP versus M8-M9

The result is obvious in every way in scan (Nikon Coolscan 5000) and in print (Focomat IC)

I said in another thread (I'll try to find the post) that the printing process on photographic paper and inkjet is not the same

In one, it is the printing of silver grain within the paper and in the other deposits of ink on the surface of the paper.

The difference is visible, black is better

 

I'm late to the party on this one but my experience may assist you. In July 2015 after suffering with the half frame M8 for years, I took the plunge and got myself the M-E. I was delighted, it was great to have a full size sensor again. Then I arrived in Melbourne, complete with M-E and three lenses, 28-35-50. I asked myself the same question about hearing about the film shooting 'scene' here. I got myself a cheap M6Ti in December. Since then I've barely used the M-E... the M6 is my camera of choice, I'd owned one a good few years ago, I think it was the TTL version but sold it to get the Epson R-D1, but that is another story.

 

It is great to have another M body to shoot with and at the moment I'm really enjoying film. It means I just shoot and then a few days after dropping my roll off, I get an email link with my photos scanned to DropBox. I don't edit these but just enjoy and share them. I don't even bother importing into LR6. 

 

I'm off to India in March and the only camera I'll be taking is the M6 and my trusty 35f/2 (4th). Film is cheap there as is processing and scanning. I don't need to mess about with chargers, SD cards, laptops/ iPads etc. Its just the sheer joy of capturing moment.

 

Of course the M-E will remain with me and be used when it is required, but for fun, the M6 is just perfect. And you can pick up classic bodies (non-TTL) for less you may think.

 

Enjoy.

Shiva you're right and congratulations for your camera

I recognize the convenience of digital and that is all !

but if we want the beauty , the art , the film without no doubt.

Look at Henri Cartier Bresson's pictures.When looking , there is emotion that emerges

Even if the image is not perfect from a technical point of view.

 

Best regards to you all

Henry

[Doc Henry]

... and if we talk color  look at these colors (picture uncorrected)

Kodak Portra is developed by myself 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=2971128

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=2972301

Rg

H.

[colonel]

I would share the view above that film blacks are somehow not reproducible in digital.

And also the digital picture above confirms a fundamental difference. Digital is basically smooth whereas film is basically granular. Neither is better, its just what you want to want to portray at any point

 

I film that film speaks to my heart and digital to my head. Both have their place

 

Triple reflection fade to black

Leica MP, Zeiss 50mm f1.5 ZM, Kodak Tri-X 400

 

 

Reflections on a fag

Leica MP, Zeiss 50mm f1.5 ZM, Kodak Tri-X 400

 

 

Best regards

 

 

[ChrisKDavies]

Hi

 

Made the change to film last summer with M6 TTL. Best decision ever, so much more satisfying from a personal point of view.

 

Bought a plustek scanner, VueScan software and just get the film developed by Max Spielman in the UK. I have found scanning film an issue, some scan better, my favourite is Kodak Portra 400.

 

Didn't have a single failure on holidays last summer. Great feeling not relying on autofocus and auto exposure systems, just experience.

 

Just do it, shoot some cheap film first to calibrate your senses with the way the M6 works. You will love it!

[zipper]

If you can find one - A Nikon CoolScan 9000 with Viewscan software. Looking at my film images I can often see a big difference, colour response to reds particularly I much prefer on film, particularly red lights such as car tail lights look better, rich reds usually without the blown centre and halo effect. I have a digital M, Canon 5D3, but I never could bring myself to sell my M2, M3, Hassy Super Wide, Pentax 6x7, and 5x4, so I never really intended to give up film.

[BerndReini]

I don't want to fuel the film vs. digital debate. I shoot both in different situations but as far as the end result is concerned, I don't agree with the notion that the MM can't produce rich blacks and subtle gray tones. In a different thread, I linked people to a black and white gallery on my website that I had exhibited this summer. I asked people which images were shot with the MM and which were shot with the MM and not a single person could get all of them right. Of course people will say that you can't tell from small web Jpegs, but people could not get all of them right when I had them exhibited. Some of them are obvious, but others are not.

[Doc Henry]

I would share the view above that film blacks are somehow not reproducible in digital.

And also the digital picture above confirms a fundamental difference. Digital is basically smooth whereas film is basically granular. Neither is better, its just what you want to want to portray at any point

 

I film that film speaks to my heart and digital to my head. Both have their place

 

Triple reflection fade to black

Leica MP, Zeiss 50mm f1.5 ZM, Kodak Tri-X 400

 

 

Reflections on a fag

Leica MP, Zeiss 50mm f1.5 ZM, Kodak Tri-X 400

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Stunning picture with deep black as I mentioned above

Thanks Harold for sharing this proof

For me pictures during a surgical operation , I take my 2 digital cameras

The rest is film

Another phenomenon and here I return to photography as art I noticed .

I have sometimes a "banding" in the black (black not uniform everywhere)

weakness of sensor and software ?

In any case it is not perfect

Regards

Henry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

 

Hi Jeff glad to read you here. I know you have S camera.

My transition to digital to have a telemetric M camera begins in 2009 with the M8 !

I still have this camera with a second digital M9. Each time I can, I take in parallel pictures to compare

with my M7-MP versus M8-M9

The result is obvious in every way in scan (Nikon Coolscan 5000) and in print (Focomat IC)

I said in another thread (I'll try to find the post) that the printing process on photographic paper and inkjet is not the same

In one, it is the printing of silver grain within the paper and in the other deposits of ink on the surface of the paper.

The difference is visible, black is better

 

 

 

Doc, no I don't own the S....maybe another Jeff.

 

I don't doubt the results you see....but I can assure you that my results, and the results from others, differ.  I'm well aware of the ink/paper distinctions....as I said, I have some of the best silver prints ever made on my walls....and I've seen and made fantastic inkjet prints, some with lustrous rich blacks, if that's the intent.  There are some fabulous inkjet papers and ink sets available these days, but that's not all...

 

No offense, but I suggest that you haven't yet taken advantage of the full potential of the digital workflow (from camera to PP techniques to printer settings to inks to papers to lighting, etc).  It's no different than in the darkroom days.....some people get fantastic results with minimal gear, while others turn out mediocre prints with the best equipment available (Edward Weston's stark darkroom with his lightbulb comes to mind).

 

BTW, I've seen a lot of crappy silver prints in my day, too....even from some talented photographers.  Printing is another skill altogether....probably far fewer great printers than great photographers around...film or digital.

 

Jeff