Leica Film Odyssey for a beginner

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The black and grey scales of TX400 are absolutely nice IMO

and the grains are fine

A picture for illustration

 

Scan Nikon Coolscan 5000

in Tiff > posted in Jpeg 1000 Px

 

Facade of our cathedral

Leica MP - Apo Summicron 90 Asph

Kodak TX 400 (dev D76 9mns30 20°C)

any correction

 

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

H.

[Guest]

Neil - Last month I shot three rolls of Tri-X in Chiang Mai; and I'm also trying to decide on a return to film after ten years.It's a difficult decision. As Ian says, no use comparing at 100% — but, with a view to printing digitally, I find that I post-process scanned film as much as digital images taken with the M9 or MM, often burning and dodging, as I would in the darkroom. Clearly, scanning is a big issue. Back in the States for some five months, I thought that I would use a lab to develop and scan; but looking at US lab websites, I find that most of them don't even say what resolution thy scan at: some of them apply meaningless names to the various scan resolutions that they offer. I would have to call them and ask. Too big a PITA. That made me think of getting a copying stand and using my M9/MM for photographing negatives at 1:1. Although I haven't decided yet, I doubt that I'll enjoy doing that. One possibility is that I'll only shoot film when I'm in Chiang Mai, where there is a small film lab run by two women in their twenties who learned to love film at university: they do hand developing and make custom darkroom prints. In that case, of course, I won't sell my M9-P and MM, as I had originally intended.

 

On RFF in the Digital vs Film section, under the name of "Nowhereman," I started a thread with a few series of Tri-X and digital images, altogether 38 photographs. Looking at those, it's not obvious to me which way I should go. I could go either way, but the one thing that I particularly like about Tri-X is the rendition of highlights in bright and harsh tropical light — all that in the context of the high-contrast look that I'm interested in. The following two pictures, I think show this difference clearly:

 

 

 

M6 | Summilux-35 FLE | Tri-X @ISO 400 stand developed for 1 hour in Rodinal 1:100, gentle inversion after 30 minutes

Chiang Mai

 

 

 

 

M-Monochrom | Summicron-35v4 | ISO 640

Pak Nam Pran

[Doc Henry]

NAH, nice pictures

The blur in background in the first picture is nicer in film

+ effect of perspective and space

I still have my 2 M digital camera  but don't use them

I use mainly now my 2 M analog cameras since 5 years .

Black is black and white is white for film , not the case in digital monoch.

where sometimes you can have "banding" (non-uniform in black) .

 

Buy a scan for well defined and nice tonality pictures

and an enlarger for print  !

Best

Henry

[EoinC]

They look good, Neil. Let them grow on you.

Your reaction is as I would expect, and comes from years of "digital indoctrination" on what an image looks like. Spend a while shooting Tri-X (TX400), which has pronounced grain, and wonderful tonality, and digital images will come to seem somewhat plastic by comparison. Just note that it works better with some subjects than others...

c004 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

 

Tri-X can work very well with portraits and people shots, but will not produce the finer grain of slower films, such as Pan F Plus...

b001 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

 

Don't expect it to be digital, and remember that, as mentioned above, digitising film does not show it at its best - That's where the wet print comes in.

[IkarusJohn]

 

Knowing what you want your film output to look like is key.....do you?  There are myriad ways to get there, including variations in materials, workflow and techniques.

 

 

This is the key.

 

It will take you time, but film looks different; particularly black & white.  When you look at a scene, you need to think of tones and textures and come to grips with what you're doing.  It's very different, and very good for your creative inspiration when you get it right.

 

At this stage, what you've posted looks well composed, focused and well exposed.  It's a very good start.

[gbealnz]

I'm in the same boat as all that have posted so far Neil.

 

When I first read your post I expected way worse, and the comment about the 1800's worried me. But then again, it is what film looks like and as most have said you have tackled this backwards. You have arguably the best digital gear about, and now want to experience what all us old farts enthuse about: film.

 

The trouble is, I started film in the early 60's, and this digital lark with it's clinical sharpness and tonality is a new fangled thing.

 

Better? Nope. Different? Heck yes.

 

But the key to film for me is the total experience, hard to put into words but...........  I enjoy it from start to finish.

 

You have to select the film you want or think you want (so B&W/Col/Reversal/Neg/ISO)

Then you have to load it, some cameras are simper than others, you have already a wealth of knowledge here

Then usually given a manual camera you have to futz with exposure, set speed/aperture

You even have to advance the film

Once finished you have to rewind it

Then process it and in my case wet print

Or in some cases scan the negs, although I think the only real reason to shoot film is if you intend wet printing, but that's just me

 

So hang in there, it gets easier, slightly, but not much, and might take you a while. The images you posted are fine, and if they were the result of my first bull-in-a-china-shop foray I'd be very happy. You could find however that film doesn't pull your chain and simply go back to the world of instant gratification that is digital.

 

Me, I enjoy the good and bad of both.

Gary

[EoinC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I liked your shots, Neil, and just went back and had another look at them, as I think you should. I have a completely unproven theory that, the more you look at film, the more you see. Each time you look is like a voyage of discovery. In your first shot, the grain is very compatible with the stone and brick surfaces, and the shadows reveal more as you look in to them. On the second shot, look at the range of tones present, and how the lampshades are represented. Digital would render these scenes well in a WYSIWG fashion, recording it as is, then providing lots of data for manipulating it into what you want it to look like. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a bit like a magician revealing how a card trick is done - It's no longer quite so exciting.

With the photo of your wife, think about how differently it would appear if the background were in deep shadow, and her face held the image's highlights. As it is, the shadow granularity is emphasised by the highlights behind.

The last shot is very nice, and transports the viewer to the scene.

 

I think you've done very well for a first outing. Your reaction is natural, and to be expected, but you need to go back and revisit these images with fresh eyes. Look around them, and think about what do you like about them, and what would you change next time. For me, there is a measure of honesty about film, which I find refreshing (others may rightly point out how flawed my view is, but it works for me). I know I can reasonably competently post-process a digital image (and I use several digital cameras), but with film, I am pre-processing - I'm doing the bulk of my creative effort on the front end, when I choose my film (and format), choose my lens, choose my aperture and shutter settings, choose my composition, and choose my moment. Not relying on rescuing in LR helps me be more aware (usually) at the time of taking my happy snaps, and I like it that way.

 

As Doc Henry has said, take some time to drift through the hundreds of pages at the "I like film..." thread, and see what it is you like about the images you are drawn to. Check what film was used. Without worrying too much about subject and composition, are there common themes to the looks that you are attracted to...tones? contrast? granularity? highlights? Have another look at your scanned images - Do you see any of those characteristics coming through? What do you need to look for in your next outing to be able to include some of those characteristics?

 

You're just starting on a journey - Don't be surprised that you haven't reached the destination yet.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Thanks for all the replies. Ive had a few hours nap and woke up wanting to look at my pictures again. There growing on me they're  defiantly growing on me. The picture of Kellies Castle below has this amazing amount of tones to it and just looks great..... to me

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!

I added the border and signature but now when I think about that I'm thinking why am I trying to make this look digital, its not digital its film.

 

Last night when I showed my wife the picture of her, her reaction was of horror and I was immediately warned not to post that picture on FB (bless her) :) She just doesn't get it but since sleeping on it I am getting it and the more I look at them the more I am liking them.

 

Someone mentioned seeing different things when you look at them and that is so true, its like a magical mystery tour. 

 

I will be taking these pictures to the rig with me and studying them and finding out what I like about this and what I don't like about that and try and learn by that.

 

I haven't had a reply yet but I am going to do a 3 weekend B&W film developing and wet room printing class when I come home next time, so that I can at least try and figure out how all the nuts and bolts fit together.

 

Henry give me five and I will post some of the other prints on the film picture thread

 

I edited it on an Eizo monitor but when it showed up on my Mac monitor it looked way to dark so I have brighten it up a wee bitty

[gbealnz]

Ah, good, what a difference e a bit of kip makes huh

 

I think you need to also take control of the scanning. If you are happy (at this stage anyway) with leaving the actual neg processing to someone else, at least get a scanner, any scanner, and digitize them yourself. It's something that you could do while on the rig, a scanner and a MacBook or whatever. A suitable suggestion would be any of the Plustech neg scanners available, and small change really. Even one at home, one on the rig?

 

And by all means do a darkroom course, a great insight into the dark art. If at the end of it all you decide to stop after you have processed the film all will not be lost. Wet printing can be laborious (and enjoyable, but still slow and laborious) and you have to "want" to go that far.

 

Keep walking, running can come later.

Gary

[Jeff S]

Classes are good.  Looking at lots of silver (and platinum) prints....workshops, galleries, museums, exhibits, etc....better yet.  

 

To paraphrase my own comment above, find out what you want to achieve, and learn to know it when you see it.  The technical stuff is important, but not the hardest part.....that's about seeing and judging so you can determine when/how to use the necessary techniques/materials.

 

Film has many different 'looks', and ways to get there....before digital, some worked like mad in the field and in the darkroom to achieve a 'grainless' smooth print, especially many of those working with medium and large format.  Digital made that much easier.  Others sought a different look altogether, e.g., Tri-X grain, etc.  Digital hasn't done so well replicating that, nor has it achieved the silver print benefits of having the image appear embedded in the paper, not on the paper (although some digital processes and papers/inksets have gotten closer, e.g., Piezography, etc.)  And that's before even getting into special effects, toning, etc. (try split-toning in the darkroom and you'll realize how digital has spoiled us).

 

There is no one size fits all (not to mention the image itself)....thankfully...no more than with painting.

 

Jeff

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Ah, good, what a difference e a bit of kip makes huh

 

I think you need to also take control of the scanning. If you are happy (at this stage anyway) with leaving the actual neg processing to someone else, at least get a scanner, any scanner, and digitize them yourself. It's something that you could do while on the rig, a scanner and a MacBook or whatever. A suitable suggestion would be any of the Plustech neg scanners available, and small change really. Even one at home, one on the rig?

 

And by all means do a darkroom course, a great insight into the dark art. If at the end of it all you decide to stop after you have processed the film all will not be lost. Wet printing can be laborious (and enjoyable, but still slow and laborious) and you have to "want" to go that far.

 

Keep walking, running can come later.

Gary

 

Gary

I will be doing my own B&W processing when I come home next hitch.......I'm looking forward to that

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Looking at the color film, its defiantly less grainy than the B&W Trix 400.........is that just a case of the difference between 400 and 200 ?? I'm guessing 200 B&W film would be be less grainy?

Ilford 200

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!

[david strachan]

I like your images Neil.  All look pretty good.

The Kellies Castle is exceptional. Besides the nice composition and "environmental" setting, you've got good deep blacks and "paper" whites...so important to my eye.  And a long tonal range.

As for the matt...that's always the best way (film or digital)  to present as a hanger, or on screen.  Any print hanging on the wall will always look better with a matt.  Perhaps a little too wide for my taste ...but that's up to you.

 

When you do your first wet room print (large)...you will think you are on the planet "Beautiful".

Kellies Castle would be a perfect candidate, so look after that neg.

 

all best Dave S

[madNbad]

You are correct.  The grain is finer but the film speed is slower.  When you have the oppourtunity, try a few slower speed B&W emultions in the 50 to 100 ISO range and see how you like them.  

[hepcat]

Looking at the color film, its defiantly less grainy than the B&W Trix 400.........is that just a case of the difference between 400 and 200 ?? I'm guessing 200 B&W film would be be less grainy?

Ilford 200

 

No, you're talking eggs and apples with color and b&w film.  Color film uses dye layers, and black and white uses silver halide crystals.  You'll see "grain" in color film, but it's really not "grain" in the same way as "grain" in b&w.   This is where those pesky physics and chemistry issues come into play.  Lower ISO film in b&w is less grainy.  Lower ISO film in color is less 'clumpy" but it's for different reasons. 

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Here are a few more with some questions;

I really like these two as they have got that silvery kind of a look to them but I don't know why......I didn't do anything to them in PP that was any different to my other images, so why the silvery look, has it got to do with light, has it got to do with lens??

 

 

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!

[Doc Henry]

Neil here is my home lab and recent prints of fog pictures

It's nicer than scan in 12,7x17.8 cms and on Ilford paper through my enlarger, 

a Focomat with a Focotar lens . I put a brown wooden frame  with a large margin

slightly beige and it is beautiful. The framed picture is now hanging in my office   

 

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!

 

I like the grain of your wife portrait ("pores" of skin) and "soft" edges of her  face, not

"cutting" lines like in digital because of "smoothing" by camera software !

 

Have a nice day

Best

Henry

I'll post for you some color pictures in Kodak or Fuji (rice fields) taken during my recent

humanitarian mission in VN and Laos.

[@McLeica]

Hang in there Neil. You'll always get variances across a single roll of film unless the conditions for every one of the shots is exactly the same. Generally they won't be, particularly when you are used to digital and the latitude of ISO levels this gives you. I'd argue this is also why people love the M digitals so much, less ISO latitude and closer film 'feel' in the images.

 

You've just got to condition yourself to see the beauty in grain and let 'sharpness' go. The Posters above are right, print these on quality matte paper and you'll see what the outputs can give you.

 

At the moment you are only controlling the shooting process and not the developing process and, initially, you will have the same reaction, horror!!

 

There's lots of variables to consider but you can control the process to a point. Patience is required. 

[convexferret]

Neil

I've not long got back into film shooting (though I have plenty of previous experience) and have also had to accept a few truths. In particular (non-slide) film has plenty of latitude in the highlights but not a great deal in the shadows. A couple of your photos show noisy, greyish shadows. That's normally a sign of underexposure. That's not to say that you should always overexpose, but if in doubt, tend that way.

Scanning via a DSLR and macro lens for me gives much better, sharper results than the typical flatbeds with a negative attachment, and I'm only using a micro-4/3 camera to do so. You do have to be careful to avoid things like reflections from room lights (all off, curtains closed). You also have to be very careful to avoid dust.

This is all to say that film nowadays requires a lot more work than digital but it does have its' own look and if you like it, it's worth it. And you get to play with some very nice old cameras at low prices.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Doc Henry]

"Scanning via a DSLR and macro lens for me gives much better, sharper results than the typical flatbeds with a negative attachment, and I'm only using a micro-4/3 camera to do so."

 

CF, the best is print , not scanning  because not the same quality (scan = digital result) , highlighting more film grain, more artistic IMO.

I remind you that inkjet print is ink deposition "on" paper , not the same process than silver print : impression of silver grains "inside" the paper layer  !

Rg

H.