Leica Film Odyssey for a beginner

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

^^^^^ Amazing

Thank you Neil

I reached my quota for "thanks" today

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

... and inspiration for the camera choice

this picture .  My M8 and M9 "sleep"  in the Billingham bag

Left Leica MP-50 Summilux Asph with inside a roll of  Kodak TX400

and right M7-Summicron 28 Asph with a roll of Kodak Portra 160 (or 400)

 

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!

 

Leica M8-28 Summicron Asph

 

Rg

H.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

 

 

You mention that you're not new to photography, yet you're going about this like film photography and digital photography are wholly and completely different.   They're not.  As a matter of fact, what happens with the camera in your hands is identical.  The only difference is how the images are stored, and that making a crazy number of frames with film gets expensive.

 

 

 

Hepcat.

The reason I asked all those questions is because "I don't know". Sure I am past the basics in photography, but that is shooting digital not film. So thats the reason why I asked all those questions.......... I want to learn, thats all

Thanks

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

 

  I know photographers who shoot 3,000 frames for a wedding on digital.  I don't understand how you can possibly find 3,000 "somethings" to shoot at a wedding and reception... yet that's becoming the norm because photographers lack the discipline to find the shot, wait for the shot and capture it at the height of its action.  They just machine-gun the shutter hoping to catch something good.

 

 

Hepcat

I have a story relating to that. I recently went on my first 10 day Safari to Tanzania.............I was so excited about going that I was nearly peeing myself when we first drove into the first game park. When we got back to the camp at night I had rattled off 3500 shots............never saw a thing just rattled off 3500 shot. The same happened for the next 6 days we drove around in the jeep and I just machined gunned of at 11 frames per second another 3500 to 4k pictures a day. On day number 8 I started looking at some of my pictures and I was at first overwhelmed at how many pictures I had taken and then it dawned on me that most of these pictures were shite. Many out of focus, many heads and feet cut off. So day 9 and 10 I went f%$k it I am only going to shoot after I have enjoyed looking at the animal first. 

The last two days I think I only shot 150 to 200 shots a day, and most of those shots were my best shots from my 10 day safari. But more importantly the last two days were the most enjoyable days on safari............I actually got to see the animals with my eyes rather than through a viewfinder or 3" LCD screen

Moral of the story, I've already learnt to take my time and only shot when the time is right.

 

Hopefully I will be able to take that out with me when I start shooting film :)

[pop]

Hopefully I will be able to take that out with me when I start shooting film :)

 

Having only 36 frames on a roll might go a long way in that direction.

[earleygallery]

Neil,

 

Download a manual from the net for an M6 TTL and read that which will explain how the meter works etc.

 

Do you meter manually with your other cameras or stick to AE? As I said before the M7 is the only film M with AE (and might be better for you?).

 

I'm amazed you say you didn't know that film can be processed for you! In the UK walk into any Boots and they'll do it for you!

 

The camera and lens look mint - very nice. And the 35 is for me a better 'standard' lens on an M than a 50. Just think about if you will be happy with manual metering (and read that manual about how to use the M meter).

 

I think you're better off just getting the (a) camera/lens, loading a roll of C41 B&W film and getting out with it. As Nike says, just do it!

[rpavich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having only 36 frames on a roll might go a long way in that direction.

 

Not only that, once you shoot film, you will realize that you paid good money for the film, you'll be paying for the processing, and maybe eventually, you'll be paying for the printing....not only in money, but your time and effort.

 

You will soon realize that before you hit the shutter on that blah-cat-picture that you would have taken with digital, that it's just not worth what you will put into it. After developing and scanning a few rolls of those types of pictures, you'll soon think before you shoot. That will make you better also, by thinking about taking the best picture you can at the time and avoiding mindless pictures that won't last.

 

Shooting everything that moves and sorting them out later seems to me a digital approach, thinking before you shoot and trying to maximize your shot is (to me) a film thing.

[EoinC]

Hepcat raises some interesting points, Neil.

I grew up shooting and developing 35mm and MF film, and printing B&W back in the 1970's, and then moved away from photography in the 1990's. The original Canon 5D attracted me back, and followed on with a raft of other cameras. I enjoy shooting digital, but it's never quite managed to fill a void. Returning to film has been like a coming home for me.

I was reminded of it recently when I was in Australia shooting the Australian National Track Cycling Championships with an Aussie stalwart of news photography. While other press photographers were firing off thousands of shots, he probably shot 200 frames over the course of 4 full days of racing. I looked through his work, and they were nearly all good in my book, minus a few where riders had got between him and his subject. Like he said, he'll end up with a few shots that he'll  consider good, and he's happy if he gets 1 great shot per year.

In my current workflow, it's generally 1-2 weeks from when I shoot a film to when I get to see the result. I'm not being paid for it, so I'm happy to wait. You can simulate this "Patience, Grasshopper" approach with a digital camera, but I doubt if many people do.

I put a bit of effort into working out which film I want to use, and what the exposure should be, and then immerse myself in taking the shots. By not needing the immediacy of a digital playback, I can generally feel when I've got the shot. It is always nice to have it confirmed when I finally get around to seeing the results. Not great photography, but very satisfying.

You may well be disappointed when you first see scanned images of your negatives, particularly if you are searching for the crispness that goes with digital (especially with your S006). But then, hopefully, you will look for the light. Following on from Doc Henry's candle shot, this is a shot on Neopan Acros 100 taken in a fairly dark exhibition at the NSW Art Gallery in Sydney. It's not a great shot, and there's not much detail in it. It's a very slow film to be shooting handheld in those conditions, but there's something about it that makes me happy - Even as a scan, it displays the light exactly as I saw it...

d001 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

 

Try film - It'll either make you happy, or very frustrated. It makes me happy.

[EoinC]

 

Hepcat

I have a story relating to that. I recently went on my first 10 day Safari to Tanzania.............I was so excited about going that I was nearly peeing myself when we first drove into the first game park. When we got back to the camp at night I had rattled off 3500 shots............never saw a thing just rattled off 3500 shot. The same happened for the next 6 days we drove around in the jeep and I just machined gunned of at 11 frames per second another 3500 to 4k pictures a day. On day number 8 I started looking at some of my pictures and I was at first overwhelmed at how many pictures I had taken and then it dawned on me that most of these pictures were shite. Many out of focus, many heads and feet cut off. So day 9 and 10 I went f%$k it I am only going to shoot after I have enjoyed looking at the animal first. 

The last two days I think I only shot 150 to 200 shots a day, and most of those shots were my best shots from my 10 day safari. But more importantly the last two days were the most enjoyable days on safari............I actually got to see the animals with my eyes rather than through a viewfinder or 3" LCD screen

Moral of the story, I've already learnt to take my time and only shot when the time is right.

 

Hopefully I will be able to take that out with me when I start shooting film :)

 

That's exactly why I sent you the reference to the "cerebral snapshot"  by Paul Theroux, before you went on your safari, Neil.

https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=Ft0Cbmkd7poC&pg=PT29&lpg=PT29&dq=cerebral+snapshot+paul+theroux&source=bl&ots=eQxX-KEHKH&sig=nLEN3h7qkVj2Cu6GDjnmkoQ50sA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEx6K7xN7LAhWFBI4KHWI3A4cQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=cerebral%20snapshot%20paul%20theroux&f=false

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

James, Ive never shot film. When I was living in the UK 25 years ago, the only camera I had was the throw away type and yes you just hand them in and they would give you prints back. Talking of which. Someone mentioned somewhere before that I could do the same with my film, take it to the develop shop, get them to print them out in say 5" x 4" and then shoot them with my Leica S and then PP them as they were Leica S DNG's.............how would that be possible, surely you would need some sort of jig to do that with lights etc etc

I'm amazed you say you didn't know that film can be processed for you! In the UK walk into any Boots and they'll do it for you!
 

[earleygallery]

James, Ive never shot film. When I was living in the UK 25 years ago, the only camera I had was the throw away type and yes you just hand them in and they would give you prints back. Talking of which. Someone mentioned somewhere before that I could do the same with my film, take it to the develop shop, get them to print them out in say 5" x 4" and then shoot them with my Leica S and then PP them as they were Leica S DNG's.............how would that be possible, surely you would need some sort of jig to do that with lights etc etc

You'd be far better off using your S to 'scan' the negs, but just ask for a cd with the negs - it'll be low res but fine for viewing on a monitor.

[EoinC]

James, Ive never shot film. When I was living in the UK 25 years ago, the only camera I had was the throw away type and yes you just hand them in and they would give you prints back. Talking of which. Someone mentioned somewhere before that I could do the same with my film, take it to the develop shop, get them to print them out in say 5" x 4" and then shoot them with my Leica S and then PP them as they were Leica S DNG's.............how would that be possible, surely you would need some sort of jig to do that with lights etc etc

Refer back to the YouTube clip, Neil. You use your S006 or your Nikon with a macro lens on a copy stand to photograph your negatives or transparencies on a small light table. This is instead of using a film scanner.

[hepcat]

 

Hepcat

 

Moral of the story, I've already learnt to take my time and only shot when the time is right.

 

Hopefully I will be able to take that out with me when I start shooting film :)

 

 

That's excellent. Then you're half-way there.  That self-discipline is what makes the photos... not the gear... and whether you're shooting digital or film is, for the most part, irrelevant.  

 

Just because a camera will shoot 11fps doesn't mean that its appropriate to do that.  As a matter of fact, "back in the old days" when 5 and 6 fps motordrives were first becoming the thing in sports photography, and old hand who was issued one from his paper told me he never used it.  I asked him why, and he told me that the motor drive always captured the instant before the highlight and the instant after....  but never took a shot at the right moment.

 

Just because a camera has autoexposure doesn't mean that you have to use it...  and in fact other than for snapshots, it can be a burden because most of the time you need to defeat it to get the exposure YOU want rather than what the programmer thought was right. 

 

None of this is rocket science particularly nor is it limited to just digital or just film;  but learning your craft is what it's all about.  It's your craft work that makes the images, not the camera or lens.

[@McLeica]

Neil , not need 25.000 Isos and a sensor , to take this picture in almost full dark

completely illogical to denature the present atmosphere , make night photos as in the day

 

MP-28 Summicron Asph

Kodak TX400 pushed 800

 

Image5cathcandlekodtx400lfht+++950crbis.jpg

 

Best

Henry

 

Exactly, let the film do the work and hunt the light you need. A colour shot. M3, 50mm, Provia 100F

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!

[hepcat]

You can simulate this "Patience, Grasshopper" approach with a digital camera, but I doubt if many people do.

 

 Following on from Doc Henry's candle shot, this is a shot on Neopan Acros 100 taken in a fairly dark exhibition at the NSW Art Gallery in Sydney. It's not a great shot, and there's not much detail in it. It's a very slow film to be shooting handheld in those conditions, but there's something about it that makes me happy - Even as a scan, it displays the light exactly as I saw it...

d001 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

 

Try film - It'll either make you happy, or very frustrated. It makes me happy.

 

You are oh-so-right about the "Patience, Grasshopper" approach and digital.   

 

Here's one I shot at the Art Institute of Chicago.  Now, Neil,  without checking the image info from Flickr, can you tell whether it was film or digital, and with what gear it was taken?  I suspect not?

 

L1010896 by Roger H, on Flickr

[Guest]

There many types of shots from which one cannot tell whether they were film or digital but the one above does not seem to be among them. The big difference is usually in how the highlights are rendered, and the one above looks to me like a typical digital rendering. In contrast to this I feel that in the bright and harsh noontime light of the tropics the I have never been able to get my MM or M9 to render the highlights as in the Tri-X shot below.  

 

 

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

Chiang Mai

 

 

In post #71 above, I posted a link to a thread in which I've posted a couple of series of shots taken with the M6/Tri-X and the MM/M9 — my feeling is that that, for my type of high contrast look (which not everyone likes) , I could argue for using either the Leica digital-Ms or film but, overall, I've been coming to the conclusion that I might sell my MM and M9-P cameras and shoot only film with the M6.

[Fotoklaus]

At first I would read the manual. A lot of basic information in there. About setting the light meter, loading the film, setting the film speed, and also about different light situations and so on.

Invest 30 Minutes to read it and you will save hours of asking ("OK, guys, no I have it in my hands. How should I put the film in?"...)

and waiting for answers:

 

https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwirtOee9d7LAhVB2hoKHQFPDM4QFggsMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.ntlworld.com%2Fjoechan%2Fpdf%2Fleica_m6ttl_manual.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFv6mnbotZxsklRnY2dLXVx2514DA&sig2=wU-pZlmgzzjBvDOjYdSCFA&bvm=bv.117868183,d.d2s

 

At first I would put a Roll of Portra 400 in it. Good for scanning, and forgives some mistakes.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I read the manual last night and read it again this morning

 

last night I googled about scanning negatives using a DSLR and wondered what you guys thought about that. It looked fairly straight forward but wondered whether the quality was up there with the Plustek scanner.

Where can I buy a developing kit for having a bash at doing my own negatives ???

 

At first I would read the manual. 

[EoinC]

I read the manual last night and read it again this morning

 

last night I googled about scanning negatives using a DSLR and wondered what you guys thought about that. It looked fairly straight forward but wondered whether the quality was up there with the Plustek scanner.

Where can I buy a developing kit for having a bash at doing my own negatives ???

You're getting GAS again, Neil. Before you go forking out moolah for developing and scanning solutions, find out if you actually like the results.

1. Using a DSLR, copystand, and lightbox (or a simulation of the same), can be very effective, particularly if you use exposure bracketing to capture the full range of tones available in the negative, but remember that it takes a fair bit of setting up, and you probably only want to do it for the frames that are worth putting the work into. Many of the scanning solutions do batch preview scans, after which you decide which frames to do a full scan of. I would very much advise getting the scans done by a shop as, in the beginning, you want to be concentrating on photographing, rather than processing. Bang Bang Geng's Fuji Frontier will do at least as well at scanning as anything you are likely to achieve in an initial foray.
2. As with scanning, I advise you to postpone the developing until you have gotten comfortable with your new shooting workflow, otherwise you are introducing another factor to confuse yourself in interpreting the results. Developing is reasonably simple, but there are even more choices than there are films. Developing equipment can be bought easily from B&H, but chemicals will need to be bought locally in Malaysia.

My advice (again) is to get the camera, get a few different B&W films, shoot some rolls, get them developed and scanned, and assess the results. As Hepcat indicated, you should be asking yourself why you want to do this. What is it about the shots your friend took that impressed you, and was it because they were shot on film, or because of how he / she shot them? Films have 'special' qualities, but they are not a panacea - They will not make a mediocre photo good, or a good photo great. They will make it a lot or a little different to digital, which may be better, or it may be worse, depending upon what you are trying to achieve with that image.

 

Most of my photography at the moment is on film, but only because I know what I want and expect from it. There are also other images that I shoot with digital, as i know that it is better suited to it.

 

What do you actually want to shoot?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Can someone point me to some EASY reading on shooting Leica film cameras, I am not a complete plonker around cameras but have NEVER shot a film camera so while I have a wee bitty of time on my hands I would like to at least learn the basics, things like adding EV compensation, someone mentioned before shoot to the left not to the right, good starter film roles to use for B&W only or for Color only or for B&W and Color. Buy rolls of 12, 20, 30 or what...........all this kind of stuff

If you really want to know the ins and outs of shooting a film M I can only recommend Günther Osterloh : Leica M - Advanced Photo School. I'm surprised nobody mentioned it yet.

As to scanning, it is a part of photography that I hate. I would say get the film developed and scanned to the highest resolution your lab will provide and only scan the images that you want to print large to a higher resolution.