Jump to content

Film Leica vs M10-P


raj

Recommended Posts

On 12/25/2019 at 11:11 PM, Nowhereman said:

raj - As you haven't stated what you want to do in photographic terms, I doubt anyone's advice, including my own, will be helpful. Ultimately, I feel it doesn't matter since the photographer is more important than the type of camera he or she uses. As for me, I love photography, film of digital. While I like film, my attempts at going back to film have run into snags because I can't do my own film development: I move annually between the Washington, DC area and Paris and Bangkok and Chiangmai. I'm too much on the move to develop film in various places. Back in 2012, I bought a pristine Hasselblad SWC 903 in Paris with the intention of having film developed and darkroom enlargements made by the then best darkroom printer in Bangkok. But when I got back, he had died in a freak car accident. I tried several other Bangkok labs, but the results in just film development weren't good; so I sold the SWC and got my money back.

I've had an M6 since 1988, but two years ago bought an M3, the camera I like to shoot with the most — and had film developed in both Bangkok and Chiang Mai. I "camera scanned" with the Leitz BEOON stand and a Focotar II lens, and liked the results. Then, last year, the guy who owned the tiny Bangkok lab, where he used a Kodak film processing machine that he kept scrupulously clean, died at the age of 50 from sleep apnea. And this year, the young woman who ran the small Chiang Mai hand processing and printing lab closed up shop because of strong advice from her doctor, after results from two sets of blood tests over the past year. Now, I could probably find a good small lab in Bangkok, but it would involve some searching and some trials — instead, when I left Washington for Thailand in September, I just brought my M10.

So you know where I'm coming from, below are two film shots followed by two M10 shots. Often, one of the charms of film is the contingent nature of the experience. For example, the first image below is the result of a processing error: the lab developed two rolls in the same tank and did not put in enough Rodinal to reach the required minimum amount of developer needed. 

M3 | DR Summicron 50 | Tri-X | ISO 400 | Stand development with Rodinal

Wiang Pa Pao

M3 | DR Summicron 50 |  | Tri-X | ISO 400 | Stand development | Yellow filter
Chiang Mai 

But chance and contingency can also strike with digital. Everything I like about the first image below was caused by chance. I was trying out the Nikon Z7 at a camera store in Chiang Mai. While I was looking at the Nikon, the two salesmen asked to try out my Leica M10. When I got it back, this little Valentine's Day procession was walking by — never mind that there's a sign for Christmas in the background. I didn't know that they had changed the settings on my camera, so that, when I used the meter to set the shutter speed, I didn't realize that I was setting it as slow as 1/45 sec. It was lucky that the aperture was at f/11, or nothing would have been in focus.

M10 | Summicron 35v4 | ISO3200 | f/11 | 1/45 sec
Chiang Mai 

M10 | DR Summicron 50 | ISO 200 | f/5.6 | 1/350sec
Wiang Pa Pao 

Incidentally, all four pictures are in my book project: Frog Leaping.

Wow, Mitch, the photos in Frog Leaping are so great! Talk about even the digital ones having soul. I can't tell your film or digital photos apart at first glance, and that I really love. You're really good at what you do :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have both the MP and M10, and as they share lens, the kit remains relatively compact (compared to say a DSLR) with both bodies in a bag and a couple lenses in the middle.  To further differentiate output between film and digital, I mostly put b&w in the MP.  I enjoy alternating and shooting both when walking a city.  In other settings, I leave one or the other at home  but both are getting used!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, 01af said:

Yes, it definitely is.

.

Just because you cannot handle digital, doesn't mean no-one can.

Keep drinking that Kool-aid...  It helps take the edge off, although it doesn't do much for your laziness to make "beautiful" photographs.  

Did Pamela Anderson in her prime have more "technically better" breasts than Sophia Loren in hers?

Maybe to some, but who really cares!!?!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wattsy said:

Jesus wept, do people really still care what type of camera other people might be using to take photographs?

I am actually quite impressed with the quality of the iPhone 11 pro.  It has taken any ounce of desire or need for a digital camera.  The portrait mode with the ability to change the aperture up to f1.4 is really very useful for the quick snaps that impress my friends and family 🙂.  

Edited by A miller
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, wattsy said:

Jesus wept, do people really still care what type of camera other people might be using to take photographs?

Probably not. And I think some of the very successful fine art guys don’t care either ....last time I went to an Andreas Gursky exhibition, I believe he possibly had produced his large scale images from large format film, digital medium format, and even iPhone! And I believe Greg Crewdson is continuing with his masterful work, apparently ditching his 10x8 (since Beneath the Roses series) to all digital (Phase One backs on a tech cam to best of my knowledge). What I find interesting about Crewdson is just how well he’s maintained a pretty constant “look” to his images across film to digital (eg, the latter exemplified with his Cathedral of the Pines series), IMHO ....

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, A miller said:

no, you said digital is technically better, which is crazy wrong.  

I wouldn't be so absolute as to call it wrong, but it is true that getting optimal results from film is a different skill set from getting the best from digital.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I wouldn't be so absolute as to call it wrong, but it is true that getting optimal results from film is a different skill set from getting the best from digital.

That sounds fair and reasonable to me, Jaap. ✌🏻

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

When do I use a digital M and when do I use a film M?

Good question.  I don’t use colour negative film at all.  If I want slide film, it’s Velvia 50 in my SWC.  So, I tend to load my M-A with Tri-X 400 and use my M10-D for colour.  You may be more disciplined than me, but I have a growing stack of unprocessed and unscanned film.  The other issue for me is there are too many variables in the film > chemical > scan process.  Adam may be very precise, but I know I’m not; and I prefer taking pictures to watching YouTube videos and fooling about with chemicals trying to maintain consistent results.  I finally sold my darkroom equipment after years of neglect.

Developing and scanning Tri-X is as far as I’m prepared to go, and to be honest, I prefer my Monochrom most of the time.

Good luck - I’ve had an M9P and have an M0-D.  The latter is a better camera hands down. Yes, there’s an image quality difference, but it’s subtle and really not that relevant.  Good lenses and good LR technique, and you’ll get the images that please you.  The CCD CMOS debate has little to do with the reality of taking photos and processing them the way you like. 

John
 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 3 Stunden schrieb A miller:

... you said digital is technically better, which is crazy wrong as a flat objective statement of fact.  

Well—this means you consider yourself the only person who has access to the truth while everybody else on this planet is a moron.

Have you ever browsed through a printed magazin recently? A catalogue, a product brochure, an ad campaign? Seen a Netflix serial? Why do you think all these are made with digital imaging? Because it's cheaper? Or quicker? No! When image quality is paramount then photographers use digital these days because it's better—as simple as that.

Film imaging can be more beautiful ... to those who are able to see. That's what I said from the beginning, and that's the part of my post you decided to ignore, for some incomprehensible reason. But then, beauty and technical quality are two different things. Maybe you're going to understand some day ... I hope so because while I don't like your posts, I do like your pictures.

Edited by 01af
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 01af said:

Well—this means you consider yourself the only person who has access to the truth while everybody else on this planet is a moron.

Have you ever browsed through a printed magazin recently? A catalogue, a product brochure, an ad campaign? Seen a Netflix serial? Why do you think all these are made with digital imaging? Because it's cheaper? Or quicker? No! When image quality is paramount then photographers use digital these days because it's better—as simple as that.

Film imaging can be more beautiful ... to those who are able to see. That's what I said from the beginning, and that's the part of my post you decided to ignore, for some incomprehensible reason. But then, beauty and technical quality are two different things. Maybe you're going to understand some day ... I hope so because while I don't like your posts, I do like your pictures.

“technical quality”?  There you go again... 🤦🏻‍♂️

Have you seen The Godfather II recently?   Or Chinatown?  You might want to as they will remind yourself of the prowess of real film cinema.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 20 Minuten schrieb A miller:

Have you seen The Godfather II recently? Or Chinatown?  You might want to as they will remind yourself of the prowess of real film cinema.  

I guess you should watch "Kill Bill Vol. 2." That motion picture has parts that were taken with digital cameras and parts that were taken on film. Maybe that will teach you the difference between (analog) beauty and (digital) perfection ... provided you are able to tell the different parts apart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Nowhereman

The" prowess of real cinema", in terms of the cinematography and the story as well can also be seen in Pawel Pawlikowski's Cold War, shot in beautiful digital B&W — there are interesting web articles on the cinematography. And with quite a different look, the same for Alfonso Cuarón's Roma
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...