TriX or DNG

[m0n0]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

film vs digital is a personal choice. I had an MM and also shot film. Then I concluded that I liked the look of film more and was frustrated to no end with the blown highlights of the MM and the sensitivity to rangefinder misalignments - and sensor spots. So I sold my MM and now shoot only film. It is more work but infinity more rewarding. My personal choice was to focus solely on film and ignore the digital camera world. I couldn't be happier and my photography couldn't be better. Just me...

The MM, and choice I made with it to learn to see in black and white actually led me to film. I went at things the 'wrong' way round, getting first the MM, then, out of curiosity, film M's. I found I liked the look of film more and found found shooting film on classic M's a delight. This led me to buy a string of different M's but that's another malady. The MM stayed in the dry cabinet or was away for service, not least because half the time it was down with rangefinder calibration and sensor issues (all which have now been resolved by Leica customer service.) I'm glad Rick started this thread. It's my dilemma too. I don't mind developing film but I hate scanning. So I shoot digital for convenience, but film when there's something I want to make a connection with. Film is closer to the heart. It's the medium that defines photography _for me_. I have a fridge backed up with exposed film I have to find time to develop and scan. Despite this I don't regret the crazy sum of money sunk into the MM, depreciating fast. Its files have a beauty of their own. It is convenient. But I wonder if I would have bought it if I had started out with film M's. I am tempted sometimes to sell my MM just to force myself completely into film. But I would miss it. This is all to say I live Rick's dilemma!

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

Thanks for these statements, as I seem to be going down this route now. I shoot with an M9-P and an MM I argue with myself that, for the dark, high-contrast look that I often like, the M-Monochrom is ideal — but then I see the luminosity of the highlights like in the shot below of the two young women in black and realize that the MM, no matter how carefully I post-process, produces something duller in the highlights. That makes me want to sell my M9-P and MM and limit myself to film, although it's much more work. The lower resolution, or acuity if you will, doesn't bother me. I'll agonize over this for few more weeks and then decide.

 

 

It continues to be a difficult choice no matter how much one looks at one's pictures — and that of others. Looking at my pictures I can argue either way, although something keeps on pushing me to commit to film with the M6 and sell both the M9-P and the MM. Perhaps it's like how one photographs and develops and prints — only by committing to one type of look that you get what you really like and are able to explore that look in greater depth. But, still, just looking at my pictures, I could argue either way between the digital-Ms and the M6/Tri-X, as you can see in the link below — the look that you like may be quite different from the high contrast that I am after, but the considerations may be quite similar:

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155090 

[01af]

... I was a good consumer of the photographic industry's lie that gear makes good photos.

 

Don't blame the industry! It's not the photographic industry's lie. It's the amateur photographer's misconception. The industry then simply produces whatever will sell.