which film M for pro-use?

[frogfish]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb dsj:

To me personally, Riccis Valladares is among the best wedding photographers I have ever seen. And he shoots with one or two film Leica Ms. So there is definitely space for great wedding work on 35mm film. If you have a good lab that produces the results you are looking for it can take a lot of time off of your post processing work. 

is he still shooting film at weddings? I remember some years ago that he tried Fuji. Have not heard anything from him in the last few years...

 

heiko

[dsj]

No idea. Haven’t seen anything by him these last few years. He used to be active on the forum as well. 

[Advertisement]

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

[dsj]

vor einer Stunde schrieb ktmrider2:

And even though I did not mention it in my previous post, currently my favorite film camera is an M5.  Now, it will be criticized by many here as not being a classic M, being too big or too ugly, etc.  Well, Leica spent years (have heard over ten) in its development and really expected it to be state of the art rangefinder when it was introduced.  It probably failed due to the conservative Leica audience, the popularity of SLR's (Nikon F) at the time, and the Leica CL which was one third the price.  It did not fail because it did not work.

I have owned just about every film M made starting with a CL in 1975 and then all the M's as they were introduced.  I like the M6, M2 and M4 and had never tried an M5 until two years ago.  Now it is my favorite film body as the shutter speed dial, the spot metering, and rapid film loading and rewinding just work.  Yes, it is different in shape and size of the classic film bodies but every professional Nikon made after the Nikon F is different from the original but they dominated photojournalism for years and years.

Honestly, you owe it to yourself to try an M5 before making a final decision.  Perhaps you can borrow one.  Good luck.

I completely agree that it is a great camera that is often undeservedly overlooked. However repairability has become a real issue. The technician who services my cameras advised me not to shoot it daily anymore as there are few parts in there that tend to break and can’t be replaced anymore. 

Therefore it might not be suitable for professional use anymore. For private use it’s still a very good camera non the less. 

[Guest Nowhereman]

On 10/15/2018 at 2:38 AM, frogfish said:

...I am a wedding photographer, shooting 25 big weddings a year. Have been using digital Leicas for years. Use mainly the 35 FLE or 35 Summicron IV.
On a usual 12 hour day I tend to shoot about 2500 images. This will be less when using film...

Heiko - I just looked at everything on your website — everything because I couldn't take my eyes way. Fantastic photography. Inspirational!

Great work and great marketing: in this way you are sure to get the clients you want and the bride is happy and you get to do the work you like. By the way, I like how you describe your and Cati's background.

I also read your blog and the articles on the M9 and the Sony digital cameras that you've used. Considering the results you've  been getting with digital cameras why do you want to shoot weddings with film,  considering the added burden of working with scans, even if the film is scanned or digitalized by a lab? Are you seeking any difference in the look of the images? 

I like the high contrast and how you handle highlights, potentially the weakest aspect of digital cameras. This point is of interest to me because, these days, I am becoming annoyed with the tendency of the M10 to blow or exaggerate highlights, particularly when shooting into the light or even when there is strong sidelight: sure, I expose for the highlights and sometimes underexpose by 1-2+ stops and raise the shadows in Lightroom — but the M10 blows highlights, or renders highlights much lighter, than the M9 and the MM that I used to shoot with. For this reason I've been thinking of selling my M10, but looking at your work I started thinking about how sometimes even blown highlights can be used effectively in high contrast M10 images — that I should go further in this direction. Still, I like the highlight rendition of the M9 much better than that of the M10. Any views on this highlight issue? (If you feel that this would sidetrack the purpose of your thread, please send me a personal message on this.)
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nowhereman Instagram

Edited October 15, 2018 by Nowhereman

[pico]

4 hours ago, frogfish said:

is he still shooting film at weddings?

What difference would it make?

[sblitz]

Wonderful pics, but when I look at my wedding album from 40 years ago, I flip to the table pictures and some of the dancing ones, to see who was there and note how many have grown, changed, home many aren't around any more -- in other words, real life. These wedding albums today with all this reportage and arty stuff, look great but it won't stand the test of time. Even the selfie obsessed people getting married today will eventually figure that out. It may take 40 years, but it is too late the moment the wedding is over and most candid reportage photographers don't capture everyone fully. The real reportage is who was there. That's it. All this other stuff fades with time. 

[frogfish]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 6 Stunden schrieb pico:

What difference would it make?

none
I just asked, because someone mentioned it. I am not sure if he shoots still weddings at all

 

heiko

[frogfish]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Nowhereman:

Heiko - I just looked at everything on your website — everything because I couldn't take my eyes way. Fantastic photography. Inspirational!

Great work and great marketing: in this way you are sure to get the clients you want and the bride is happy and you get to do the work you like. By the way, I like how you describe your and Cati's background.

I also read your blog and the articles on the M9 and the Sony digital cameras that you've used. Considering the results you've  been getting with digital cameras why do you want to shoot weddings with film,  considering the added burden of working with scans, even if the film is scanned or digitalized by a lab? Are you seeking any difference in the look of the images? 

I like the high contrast and how you handle highlights, potentially the weakest aspect of digital cameras. This point is of interest to me because, these days, I am becoming annoyed with the tendency of the M10 to blow or exaggerate highlights, particularly when shooting into the light or even when there is strong sidelight: sure, I expose for the highlights and sometimes underexpose by 1-2+ stops and raise the shadows in Lightroom — but the M10 blows highlights, or renders highlights much lighter, than the M9 and the MM that I used to shoot with. For this reason I've been thinking of selling my M10, but looking at your work I started thinking about how sometimes even blown highlights can be used effectively in high contrast M10 images — that I should go further in this direction. Still, I like the highlight rendition of the M9 much better than that of the M10. Any views on this highlight issue? (If you feel that this would sidetrack the purpose of your thread, please send me a personal message on this.)
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nowhereman Instagram

Hi Nowhereman,

 

thank you for your kind words about my work (0:
 "in this way you are sure to get the clients you want and the bride is happy and you get to do the work you like"   jip, exactly that. This is what makes wedding photography so much fun. It is hardcore reportage, close and intimate but you do not need to make the monkey (0:

why I want to shoot film? That is a good question. I do not have a satisfactory answer for that. I feel I need something new. It was a big step a few years ago trying a Leica at a wedding. I really wanted to do it, but very often got so frustrated and quit - went back to my Nikon or Sony. But I came back, time and time again and tried again. It was really painful... when your heart wants something but your brain keeps telling you it is not a good idea.

So about two years ago I made a commitment. Since then I only shoot weddings manually, Leica and a Sony A7s with a Nikon 50/1.2 AIS on a tilt adapter. With time I adapted my technics, found new ways to get the shot when scenarios and situations got difficult. Now, I can confidently say I get the shot with my Leica whatever the circumstances are. But it took a lot of work. On the way I discovered new styles because of my struggle. E.g. my flash signature style at the reception (see image).

So why film? I feel I need to do it. A new challenge? Maybe. But I want to explore it, who knows what I might find for myself this time... 

Oh, and one more thing. I believe an image created on film and printed is more likely to be called art then when shot digitally and edited on a computer...

 

heiko

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!

[frogfish]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Nowhereman:

Heiko - I just looked at everything on your website — everything because I couldn't take my eyes way. Fantastic photography. Inspirational!

Great work and great marketing: in this way you are sure to get the clients you want and the bride is happy and you get to do the work you like. By the way, I like how you describe your and Cati's background.

I also read your blog and the articles on the M9 and the Sony digital cameras that you've used. Considering the results you've  been getting with digital cameras why do you want to shoot weddings with film,  considering the added burden of working with scans, even if the film is scanned or digitalized by a lab? Are you seeking any difference in the look of the images? 

I like the high contrast and how you handle highlights, potentially the weakest aspect of digital cameras. This point is of interest to me because, these days, I am becoming annoyed with the tendency of the M10 to blow or exaggerate highlights, particularly when shooting into the light or even when there is strong sidelight: sure, I expose for the highlights and sometimes underexpose by 1-2+ stops and raise the shadows in Lightroom — but the M10 blows highlights, or renders highlights much lighter, than the M9 and the MM that I used to shoot with. For this reason I've been thinking of selling my M10, but looking at your work I started thinking about how sometimes even blown highlights can be used effectively in high contrast M10 images — that I should go further in this direction. Still, I like the highlight rendition of the M9 much better than that of the M10. Any views on this highlight issue? (If you feel that this would sidetrack the purpose of your thread, please send me a personal message on this.)
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nowhereman Instagram

about the highlight issue.

I cannot say anything about the M10. Never used one. I feel the dynamic range of the M9 and the M240 isn't very good, compared to Nikon and Sony. But honestly, I feel that does not matter. Just decide what you want to show in the image and set your exposure accordingly. I nearly always shoot fully manually. Especially in high-contrast situations.

You know, the difference between a sunny spot and a spot in the shadow is easily 4 stops or higher. When you have a tiny sunlit spot in front of shadows, you cannot expect the metering to work. You need to dial it in manually.

Like in this example. To not blow the highlights here I set the exposure somewhere like 1/4000 at f2 at ISO 100. Even my Nikon with its multimastering and its "highlight-saving feature" would have blown it.

Hope this helps (0:

 

heiko

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!

[Mute-on]

17 hours ago, frogfish said:

Thank you for your kind words (0:

You always have the time to set the exposure. You scan the place/room where the things are going to happen. Then you get two till three settings which you need to remember depending where the situation will take place e.g. sun vs shadow. Within a spit second you got your shutter speed dialled in.

I know quite some proffs who shoot weddings on film, but so far never seen a really good reportage. Most is set up, posed and portrait stuff. This is where we can set ourselves apart from the rest.

 

heiko

Heiko,

If you always have time to set the exposure using your techniques, then my recommendation of an MP stands.  No need for the M7. 

If you are shooting with a 35mm exclusively, and have any desire to use a 28 in the future, then see if you can try a 0.58 magnification viewfinder.  

I prefer it for 35mm as you have that extra space around the frame lines to see what is entering or just out of frame, giving you the opportunity to adjust to include or exclude an element you may have otherwise missed.  It is also the only magnification that allows you to easily see all of the 28 framelines. 

Truthfully, my 0.58 MP is my favourite Leica M (of M2, MP, BP M4). 

I don’t know of the 0.58 MP is still available a la carte. If not, the standard 0.72 is still wonderful. 

Cheers

J

[frogfish]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb sblitz:

Wonderful pics, but when I look at my wedding album from 40 years ago, I flip to the table pictures and some of the dancing ones, to see who was there and note how many have grown, changed, home many aren't around any more -- in other words, real life. These wedding albums today with all this reportage and arty stuff, look great but it won't stand the test of time. Even the selfie obsessed people getting married today will eventually figure that out. It may take 40 years, but it is too late the moment the wedding is over and most candid reportage photographers don't capture everyone fully. The real reportage is who was there. That's it. All this other stuff fades with time. 

I respectfully disagree.

I believe images were a gusts just smiles into the camera does not really shows who he is, or was. It just documents that he was there and what he was wearing. (and THIS is already documented by themselves with all the selfie-stuff).

But if you get an images, where he softly touches the hand of his spouse. When, for a glimpse of a second, they look each other in the eyes, you see who this person really is and what he loves. 
And you will still see this in 40 years...

keep it real (0:

 

heiko

[Nozar]

I love MA and would have chosen A if it was my own work. But to recommend, for a professional to use, I would say M6, as it has passed the stress test. MA is still the new kid in the block, and has yet to prove itself (but it's a beauty, with charm and character; it's a Swiss watch.)

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!

[Ouroboros]

17 hours ago, ianman said:

On the other hand, sorry frogfish, but I don't like your photos at all. Headless bride ? Overexposed ghostlike image? I find them quite morbid. I like it that you have the guts to do something different but do brides really like these ?

I strongly suspect that Frogfish is playing to a different audience than prospective wedding clients with these images.

I think Frogfish is a clever photographer.  As much as I hate these three images, they did pull me in to look deeper at what he does and there are some really nice documentary images on his website that say more about him as a wedding photographer than these over-processed, badly contrived images do.

Bravo, Frogfish.  If you're ever in the UK, I'd like to meet you for a chat about something that might be of interest to you. 

Keep an eye on your message inbox

[d.s.]

Is the discontinuation of the M7 at all related to M6 TTLs metering irreparability?

 

Heiko, Perhaps it's due to the high contrast nature of the examples you posted, but I see little if any noise. I trust you're prepared for the grain and high contrast of HP5+, especially if you're pushing. Do you have a planned workflow? Just curious.

Edited October 16, 2018 by d.s.

[earleygallery]

If I were looking to use film M's for regular paid work I'd invest in a pair of MA's. New, so a more accurate set of shutter speeds and less chance of mechanical problems or light leaks due to failed seals etc., plus the warranty/service support that is still available for them.

Why the MA? Fully mechanical so always repairable, and you shouldn't need an in camera light meter. Hot shoe for triggering flash, if using that.

[wlaidlaw]

I have done weddings with both M4 and M7. The M7 is way easier with auto aperture and TTL flash. I use the Motor-M which is virtually silent. The Winder M4-2, which I use on my M4-P, is far from silent. My favourite lenses for weddings would be either the 35 ASPH Summilux or 50 Summilux III (e46). The Summilux III is much kinder to faces than the current Summilux 50 ASPH. 

Wilson

[pico]

14 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

If I were looking to use film M's for regular paid work I'd invest in a pair of MA's.[...] Why the MA? Fully mechanical so always repairable, and you shouldn't need an in camera light meter. Hot shoe for triggering flash, if using that.

Considering frogfish's style, I enthusiastically agree. I think an M7 would just get in the way of his highly selective exposure.

[wattsy]

1 hour ago, earleygallery said:

MA's. New, so a more accurate set of shutter speeds and less chance of mechanical problems or light leaks due to failed seals etc., plus the warranty/service support that is still available for them.

I don't think so.

It is also worth pointing out that Leica only have one individual servicing film cameras nowadays and he (I believe it is a he) often seems to be on holiday.

[earleygallery]

40 minutes ago, wattsy said:

I don't think so.

It is also worth pointing out that Leica only have one individual servicing film cameras nowadays and he (I believe it is a he) often seems to be on holiday.

I know there's been reports of faulty out of the box M's on here before but if I was relying on the cameras for my living and reputation, I'd choose new over a vintage M any day. Just as if I was going to be a taxi driver I'd buy a new car not a 1970's Ford Cortina. YMMV.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[frogfish]

Thank you so far for all your competent input. I am away for two days giving a workshop.

I'll respond when I am back.

 

heiko