Is film only for prints? Thinking of M6 Black paint

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

in a rational way it does not male sense at all...

 

...but don't expect your pictures to become any better from this. that won't happen!

I suppose it comes down to a matter of interpretation, for me 'better' means being less like the perfect digital plastic looking images with sharp edges. Also the opportunity to experiment with out of date film stock, and different chemical formulations. Even the great Saul Leiter experimented with out of date colour film, and look how good the results turned out. Film for me has to be vastly different to digital otherwise there's no point, in my opinion.

[chris_livsey]

That's an M6 TTL. An M6 is the term usually reserved for the non-TTL, earlier version

As the thread title is "Thinking of M6 Black paint" I obviously foolishly concluded that the OP was considering an M6 BP and couldn't care less if it was an M6 TTL 

[Advertisement]

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

[Martin B]

Reading this thread with interest. I am also doing both, digital and film. Leica M is currently all film-based for me which includes shooting with M6, predominantly B&W. I have no experience with Leica monochrome digital cameras, so I leave them out of the equation here what I am saying next: so far I was not able to reproduce digitally well made B&W film photos. This includes in-camera B&W processing as JPG result and post processing RAW with specialized B&w filter software like Topaz or Nik. I digitize all my made B&W film photos as first step after the film development - to select the best ones and as an additional way of storage other than keeping the negatives in designated archive foil. You will always lose something when digitizing film no matter how accurate you try to be within the settings. Nevertheless, you can still see enough differences compared to the same shot taken digitally and processed for B&W. 

 

Next step is to make silver gelatin prints from selected negatives - if you already like the digitized photo on the screen, you will enjoy even more so the print of it. The print is not a must - it is mostly sufficient just to have the digitized negative which itself might be the best way to reach the largest amount of viewers by posting it in online groups. There is no right or wrong to do either digitizing, printing, or both - just do what pleases you most. But film itself is a different medium than digital - the difference is worthwhile shooting film. Some film effects like halo or "bent" light around items cannot be reproduced digitally either. It also depends on the film development how much these kind of effects will show up on film.

[Martin B]

An aside, please: as I mentioned in a recent post - we are highly unlikely to get the so-called Leica Glow of early film using digital sensors. The glow does exist. It largely attributed to the film used. I can explain further.

 

I heard about the Leica glow a few times, and I might have seen it myself in my own shots - but I am not fully sure I understand what it means. Could you provide some examples from your experience? Especially since it seems to be a more film-based thing, I am really interested to learn more about!

[Steve Ricoh]

Reading this thread with interest. I am also doing both, digital and film. Leica M is currently all film-based for me which includes shooting with M6, predominantly B&W. I have no experience with Leica monochrome digital cameras, so I leave them out of the equation here what I am saying next: so far I was not able to reproduce digitally well made B&W film photos. This includes in-camera B&W processing as JPG result and post processing RAW with specialized B&w filter software like Topaz or Nik. I digitize all my made B&W film photos as first step after the film development - to select the best ones and as an additional way of storage other than keeping the negatives in designated archive foil. You will always lose something when digitizing film no matter how accurate you try to be within the settings. Nevertheless, you can still see enough differences compared to the same shot taken digitally and processed for B&W.

 

Next step is to make silver gelatin prints from selected negatives - if you already like the digitized photo on the screen, you will enjoy even more so the print of it. The print is not a must - it is mostly sufficient just to have the digitized negative which itself might be the best way to reach the largest amount of viewers by posting it in online groups. There is no right or wrong to do either digitizing, printing, or both - just do what pleases you most. But film itself is a different medium than digital - the difference is worthwhile shooting film. Some film effects like halo or "bent" light around items cannot be reproduced digitally either. It also depends on the film development how much these kind of effects will show up on film.

Martin,

Can I ask you to expand on the statement '... film effects like halo or "bent" light around items cannot be reproduced digitally... It also depends on the film development how much these kind of effects will show up on film.' I think you're referring to the grain, am I correct? This could account for the Leica glow, possibly. But I've heard it mentioned in relation to digital Leicas.

Also interesting (if I've interpreted correctly) you find it impossible to make a digital captures look like B&W film, even with Topaz or NIK. I must say I find it difficult to distinguish at times, especially with web quality sharing. Perhaps blown up it would be easy to spot.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Steve Ricoh

[Martin B]

Martin,

Can I ask you to expand on the statement '... film effects like halo or "bent" light around items cannot be reproduced digitally... It also depends on the film development how much these kind of effects will show up on film.' I think you're referring to the grain, am I correct? This could account for the Leica glow, possibly. But I've heard it mentioned in relation to digital Leicas.

Also interesting (if I've interpreted correctly) you find it impossible to make a digital captures look like B&W film, even with Topaz or NIK. I must say I find it difficult to distinguish at times, especially with web quality sharing. Perhaps blown up it would be easy to spot.

 

Steve, I refer to the highlight effects as shown in the images below (not the grain!). Not sure if this is "Leica glow" - I call it more neutrally halo glow. 

 

Leica 50/2 version V M-lens, Kodak TMax P3200 film, developed in Xtol (1:2): I refer to the car headlight structure.

 

CV 12/5.6 M-lens, Ilford FP4+ film, developed in Rodinal (1:50) first followed by Xtol (1:2). The light bends around the inner top window frame so to speak. Another kind of halo glow!

 

Leica 35/2 version IV M-lens (cropped after digitizing to demonstrate effect better), Ilford HP5+, developed in Rodinal (1:50) first followed by Xtol (1:2). Probably one of the most interesting halo effects I have achieved so far with the electrical candles. I have never seen this kind of effect in digital. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Martin B

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Martin, the halo effect looks great - great advert for film.

I've not started home development yet, but this I must - inspired by what you've just shared.

[Martin B]

Thanks Martin, the halo effect looks great - great advert for film.

I've not started home development yet, but this I must - inspired by what you've just shared.

 

Thanks for your kind feedback, Steve! I read somewhere that best halo effects can be achieved with Xtol (1:2) or even at higher dilution which I never tried so far. It makes it very interesting that I was never able to predict this kind of halo to appear. Certainly something where the combination of lens/film/development changes what was seen with the eye when taking the photo. I personally like this kind of halo effect a lot. Glad I inspired you

[pico]

[...] Some film effects like halo or "bent" light around items cannot be reproduced digitally either. It also depends on the film development how much these kind of effects will show up on film.

 

That is all about some film's lack of, or placement of, their anti-halation layer.

Digital mavens will never understand it.

.

Edited September 26, 2017 by pico

[Paulus]

I'm an old film person. One observation. For 35mm film, I enlarged B&W using a top quality Leitz condenser enlarger and excellent Nikon lens and the best grain focusing device to ~5x to ~10x  enlargements.

 

At my day job I had use of a high quality film scanner so I scanned a negative I had printed. Surprise - the output from the scanned negative was so much sharper than the original enlarger print that I did not like the sharper outcome.

 

How can this be? Well, optical enlargement loses sharpness even with the best enlarger and best lens. So you decide. It's all about choice.

 

An aside, please: as I mentioned in a recent post - we are highly unlikely to get the so-called Leica Glow of early film using digital sensors. The glow does exist. It largely attributed to the film used. I can explain further.

 

I can't explain it, but I can back up the above. The reason that I still print 35mm film on an very nice LPL enlarger with Nikon Lens is exactly this: I really like the outcome. 

[Lux Optima]

I started my Leica life with the MM2 - and I really do believe that I never made "technically" better b/w images. The Mono produces little wonders by simply pushing the button. At least with a proper lens.

 

In the meantime I realised that I even prefer the sometimes-not-that-technically-perfect look of film pictures and more the handicraft of analogue photography. I have two M3 right now, love very old lenses and the sound and haptic of old camera bodies.

 

So I enjoy my two M3 right now much more than the digital one. Somewhere here was said, that film is more versatile. I like to agree. Right now I digitalize my negatives and can do anything with my pictures I want to. Hybrid is the future! :-)

[johnwolf]

I recently went from MM to M6. I print a little but mostly share online. My feeling is that for color work film does not offer much over digital. But for black and white, I find the difference more pronounced and film more compelling. Even more so if you plan to do your own processing.

 

There's such a range of film/developer combinations, with endless processing variables. If you enjoy learning and exploring such things, BW film is a real pleasure. 

 

And, yes, scanned BW negatives, even when only shared online, do retain the character of film. 

 

John 

[pico]

And, yes, scanned BW negatives, even when only shared online, do retain the character of film.

First I admit my experience with scanning was so disappointing that when my scanner died several years

ago I gave it up. Scans of negatives never looked at all like wet prints. In fact they were too sharp.

I'm sure I will get some grief for writing that. OTOH, scans of wet prints were pretty much okay.

[plasticman]

My feeling is that for color work film does not offer much over digital. 

 

John 

This is either because you haven't shot enough Kodak Portra, or alternatively don't have a feeling for the nuances of color film (which is fine - but it's your personal experience).

[johnwolf]

This is either because you haven't shot enough Kodak Portra, or alternatively don't have a feeling for the nuances of color film (which is fine - but it's your personal experience).

 

Agree, I should have excluded Portra, which has a very distinctive look. With that exception, I've always had a hard time seeing much of a difference. Unlike the case with BW film.

 

But there is probably too much variation in the so-call "film look" to answer the OP's question. Over on RFF a guy recently posted a T-Max 400 shot to the MM thread, and it looked so much like MM files in the thread, which was his point. 

 

With film the aesthetic is only part of the equation, anyway; you need to enjoy the workflow as well. 

 

John 

Edited October 3, 2017 by johnwolf

[Martin B]

First I admit my experience with scanning was so disappointing that when my scanner died several years

ago I gave it up. Scans of negatives never looked at all like wet prints. In fact they were too sharp.

I'm sure I will get some grief for writing that. OTOH, scans of wet prints were pretty much okay.

 

I agree with this from own experience - wet prints always look different (and most often better) than the digital scan. But here comes the catch: A print is nice to look at and show to others, but if you really want to reach a larger crowd with your photos, you need to post it online. You could still scan the print itself, but again you will see a loss in image quality. It is something which I learned to accept, I still see enough difference to a full digital photo from a scanned negative that I am okay with it. It is a compromise. 

[SilentShutter]

I started my Leica life with the MM2 - and I really do believe that I never made "technically" better b/w images. The Mono produces little wonders by simply pushing the button. At least with a proper lens.

 

In the meantime I realised that I even prefer the sometimes-not-that-technically-perfect look of film pictures and more the handicraft of analogue photography. I have two M3 right now, love very old lenses and the sound and haptic of old camera bodies.

 

So I enjoy my two M3 right now much more than the digital one. Somewhere here was said, that film is more versatile. I like to agree. Right now I digitalize my negatives and can do anything with my pictures I want to. Hybrid is the future! :-)

 

YES we CAN !

[Guest Nowhereman]

...My feeling is that for color work film does not offer much over digital...

 

I used to think so, but am not so sure now after recently having digitalized some 400 old slides, mainly Kodachrome and some Ektachrome. My feeling now is that it's worthwhile to shoot transparency film occasionally: not only do some of these films have great beauty, but also scanning or digitalizing transparency film gives a color experience that can help one's processing of digital color film. You can see what I mean in this thread.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

[philipus]

It's to do with aberrations in older lens designs (and by no means only Leica's) which affect things like look of oof areas and sharpness at the widest apertures. Strangely, it is still used regarding modern well-corrected lenses.

 

 

Leica glow is hyped-up rubbish, imho.

 

br

Philip

 

 

 

I heard about the Leica glow a few times, and I might have seen it myself in my own shots - but I am not fully sure I understand what it means. Could you provide some examples from your experience? Especially since it seems to be a more film-based thing, I am really interested to learn more about!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Slides are for projecting. Nothing beats a large screen with a good slide,