Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm so happy that not my interest anymore. How about you?

 

If you're happy then why do you care about what others think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're happy then why do you care about what others think?

 

Is it a strange question?

 

Because i have interest in how others experience that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're happy then why do you care about what others think?

Strange question, as if happiness consists in ultimate individualism

Edited by otto.f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud your approach. I shoot film exclusively on our family trips overseas. For me it’s very much part of the experience of travel and discovery. Two Leica Ms, two lenses, one AA battery. Brilliant.

 

Back at home digital will do. More iPhone than anything. If I had more time and interest in digital post-processing I might take digital more seriously. For now I’m happy to enjoy using my film Ms while I still can.

After few days I can say I am not missing digital. In fact I am not even interested in knowing how it will come out. The scenery had been breathtaking so far (part of Route 66 in hot deserted road). Even if I get 5 good pictures I will be happy. I know they will be great. Today one waitress offered to take our pictures and was excited to crank the camera. She took three pictures one after another moving back and forth framing precisely, cranking each time with wide grin. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that they will be out of focus!

 

Only smile matters.

Edited by jmahto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you want to restart with exclusively film, then Route 66 is The place to go, you made it easy on yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s an extra reward for film shooting nowadays, except that the (b&w) developers are much better than in the pre-digital era: Karbe’s lenses are much more interesting on film than on sensor, for instance the latest 28cron.

Can you please explain your Karbe comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh yes, although it's just my opinion. I find Karbe's lenses often a bit clinical and in digital camera's this comes extra strong forward. Film has an ameliorating effect on that so that these lenses look a bit smoother. Here's an example of the Summicron 28 ashp ii on Delta 100 developed in RPX-D:

https://lotwouda.zenfolio.com/p125475802/ha30e9d81#ha30e9d81

 

Here is an example of a portrait of an Inka woman from Chucuito, Peru, made with this lens on my M9, I like it but if you see the original it is so sharp, that it is sort of unreal. Of course is no hard proof and lust an impression because I compare two totally different subjects and light situations, it's just to illustrate what my opinion is on the basis of my experiences.

Edited by otto.f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what otto.f means.

 

Film (except for the ultra-fine-grain, ultra-thin-emulsion "ISO 20" converted microfilms, or K25) has a built-in "Gaussian Blur." A thickish-by-silicon-standards layer of Jello contaminated with silver-halide crystals, which diffuse and bounce around the light and soften image edges. Since approximately the time of the move to Solms (1986) and the retirement of Walter Mandler, his successor (Lothar Kölsch) and his protege Peter Karbe have been working to overcome that by increasingly tightening the "edge spread function" of images in their design computer. More or less building an "unsharp mask" right into the lens's handling of light rays, to "carve" an image into film. Call it "higher MTF" or "better acutance," if you want.

 

APO glass, ASPH surfaces, floating elements; all tools to achieve that.

 

(That is, of course, in Terry Pratchett's words, "A wonderfully illustrative description that is, in every technical detail, completely wrong." An analogy.)

 

Actually, Mandler tried to acheive that also, but just didn't have all the same tools available, at least at a sane cost. Note the difficulties of grinding aspherical lenses (35 f/1.4 AA, abandoned, Noctilux f/1.2, abandoned) until molded ASPH techniques (1993-ish) were figured out.

 

Anyway, digital already produces less diffusion (tighter edges) than most film, and thus today's APO/ASPH lenses can seem hypersharp or unnaturally sharp/hard-edged on digital. Depending on one's expectations or creative needs.

 

I don't like the modern A/A lenses much, not because they are "too sharp**" but for reasons of color tint and macro-contrast (more likely to blow highlights and create purple fringing, contributes to "clinical" look). Fortunately, digital does for many of the Mandler lenses what Mandler himself didn't have the tools to do - tighten the edge contrast.

__________________________

 

**I don't mind "as sharp as possible" lenses, as such, or believe in "too sharp" - if I want blur, I can always kick the tripod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes adan, the other way is also true: I like my Monochrome 1 the best with Mandler lenses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone back to straight film after a ~10 year gap of digital. I've been carrying my film M body as my sole camera into travel and other events without a bit of apprehension. Like the original post said: I'm loving the break of a nothing but a pure photography experience without the bottomless equipment thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid for most of people it sounds as an horrible statement but... I like and shoot both, film and digital. Sometimes when traveling iso 100 film in the m7 and the m10 in the bag for interior shots when higher iso are needed.

robert

PS:  Of course I know I can shoot 200 iso with the M10 as well 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid for most of people it sounds as an horrible statement but... I like and shoot both, film and digital. Sometimes when traveling iso 100 film in the m7 and the m10 in the bag for interior shots when higher iso are needed.

robert

PS:  Of course I know I can shoot 200 iso with the M10 as well 

 

First, don't be afraid of what other people think, and second your approach , IMO, is eminently sensible if it suits you.

Of course you will realize that the M7 is perfectly capable of shooting much higher iso as well, but then there are certain filmic limitations coming into play, all of which can be considered 'artistic tools'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone back to straight film after a ~10 year gap of digital. I've been carrying my film M body as my sole camera into travel and other events without a bit of apprehension. Like the original post said: I'm loving the break of a nothing but a pure photography experience without the bottomless equipment thoughts.

I respect your decision to shoot film only. It is important that you enjoy how you pursue your photography.

 

You do realize of course that swapping your M film body for a M digital body will give the same experience without 'bottomless equipment'' thoughts as the two are exactly interchangeable wrt to accessories and lenses. Of course you may not wish to use them in either case, for simplicity. In that scenario you would only be trading darkroom work for desktop computer work.

 

Of course you have already chosen your preference and you should stick to it as long as it serves you.

 

In fact I shoot both film and digital, using the same lenses. The only issue I have is which one suits today's shooting experience. Both win, but on different parameters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know two photogs started with digital M and then selling and moving to film M.

 

Okay, that is one data bit. Next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rein,  you wrote: When you took a photo of the first Kodak miniature film, you probably also asked: >What do you want with these little negatives?<  

 

Easy. Through projection.  (Trannies are not negatives!

 )   Still have a pair of Leica 2002 projectors, with a couple dozen halogen replacement lamps.  My grandchildren can enjoy my collection on the matte screens used for their digital stuff. (They are into projection, rather than printing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only use film. I prefer it.

 

I like printed images. Whether from the next roll of colour neg film or from my darkroom. I could make these with a digital camera but I prefer this way.

 

Without a print, I don’t feel like anything happened but then no one except me could care less about any photo i made.

 

Enjoy your prints or your projections, however you made them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't miss color negative film and printing one bit but I never left B&W film and printing. Even now, with all the advances of digital imaging, it can supplement (when limited to one camera or in very low light situations since selling my noctilux) but has not replaced B&W film. Thus my Monochrom M is an MP loaded with HP5 plus. BTW, I'm a relative newbie to this forum and posting while scanning 8 rolls of HP5 taken this month while on vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I can't compare true C RA4 prints with else prints. I don't have any big enlargements, just small regular back then lab prints. Every time I look at them it gives me feel of the art.

But it is so much time and effort. And I'll get results like these: https://www.lomography.com/magazine/258606-printing-ra4-colour-photos-in-a-darkroom

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only shoot my M7 after having shooting digital for about 8 years,. 

I just don't like the look of digital photos, although I do like the files the A7r3 is producing, I choose to support film by primordially shooting film. 

also the time it takes to develop film (about 6 month to a year for me) helps me objectively judging my photos by how it looks to other people rather than how I felt when I took it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...