M246 replacing film?

[bdolzani]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all, my first post. My 240 is in repair now for a few weeks, and have been shooting even more film lately (I've been about 50/50 since getting the 240 in October). I love it on one hand, and feels overly tedious on the other. 

In my missing of the 240, and GAS, I'm looking at a 246. Perhaps getting one and then deciding if I'd sell the 240. I'm in love with B&W, and have an Xpro-1 that I could still shoot color with if need be (and of course color film - M6 + M2).

My question is, did a Monochrom dispel your love of film? Did it replace it? I find film hard to let go but at the same time wishing to be a little more modern for a change...with the expense of a 246 I almost feel it needs to completely change my shooting style (film to digital, mostly) and not just be a cool option. My M lenses are mostly vintage and I feel that would keep me a bit nicely still in filmy history. 

Having said this - if the answer is 'no', I can easily re-dedicate myself to film. Or at least, be patient to get my 240 back and stick with 50/50 or so.

thanks-

brian 

Edited February 16, 2021 by bdolzani

[a.noctilux]

Welcome Brian.

My short answer is "give it a try".

I don't know if the M246 would replace film, you would be the first to know that, after using theM246.

If you don't use it how would you know.

Feel free to visit this thread (link)

and this one, of course

maybe (or not) you can see what can Monochrom 246 do.

...

this is with M246 and old LTM Elmar 9cm with green filter

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!

 

I would not be able to obtain that with film (lack of skills)

[a.noctilux]

And first Monochrom is also very nice,

 

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!

 

Don't tell people that I keep and use the two Monochroms 😇

(this thread ...)

 

one more

Edited February 16, 2021 by a.noctilux

[jaapv]

Neither replaces the other. Both film and Monochrom have a distinctive look. Which one you prefer (if any) is for you to decide. 

[pippy]

2 hours ago, bdolzani said:

...Having said this - if the answer is 'no', I can easily re-dedicate myself to film. Or at least, be patient to get my 240 back and stick with 50/50 or so...

Until you know your own mind stick with the 50/50. When the 50/50 isn't working for you it is time explore a different avenue.

Philip.

[bdolzani]

1 hour ago, a.noctilux said:

Welcome Brian.

My short answer is "give it a try".

I don't know if the M246 would replace film, you would be the first to know that, after using theM246.

If you don't use it how would you know.

Feel free to visit this thread (link)

and this one, of course

maybe (or not) you can see what can Monochrom 246 do.

...

this is with M246 and old LTM Elmar 9cm with green filter

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!

 

I would not be able to obtain that with film (lack of skills)

Hi a.noctilux, I appreciate your quick reply. I've been lurking here for quite a while and always appreciate your posts and insights. True that this subjective question is impossible to really answer without trying it, and perhaps that's what I'll do. My question is somewhat spurred by watching a recent Ralph Gibson Leica interview where he shared how once he tried the 246 he never loaded another roll of film. I like the drama of that and I guess I'm wondering if I'd have the same revelation. However, he could have been very ready to drop all the work that film requires. Yet, and somewhat like me, if your work is based in film, how could one just change mediums so quickly? It looks quite different! 

I realize my question also embeds photographic philosophy - what medium does one use, for what reason, and how much 'ease' does one look for when making their art/work/art? Can one's guilt be assuaged if a certain camera cuts out half of the work/process? It's something I'm wrestling with. 

 

[bdolzani]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

41 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

And first Monochrom is also very nice,

 

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!

 

Don't tell people that I keep and use the two Monochroms 😇

(this thread ...)

 

one more

you are blessed to own both! 😉 

[bdolzani]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Neither replaces the other. Both film and Monochrom have a distinctive look. Which one you prefer (if any) is for you to decide. 

Understood. I guess I'm in the in-between. I've always disliked digital (meaning dslr's) until recently, until Leica, until I've become pretty good at it (post-processing). I realize I'll never be fully analog (enlarging/printing) so I'm at the devil's crossroads. As a musician I'm familiar ;-). 

[bdolzani]

15 minutes ago, pippy said:

Until you know your own mind stick with the 50/50. When the 50/50 isn't working for you it is time explore a different avenue.

Philip.

Thanks Pippy. I've enjoyed your posts as well. Are you a musician as well? (guitar in your photo?)

A b&w only digital camera has had my name written all over it, it's certainly special, however I do have b&w cameras with b&w film...(I know, not a new thought). 

I only started photographing 5 years ago, and started with film. I was in love, and yet find myself at a crossroads because 'film or digital' has such a weight to it due to social media, and I'm afraid I feel right in the middle of it. As in, 'what statement am I making?' Surely very ponderous, I know. That's why I'm pushing myself for a sturdier philosophy. 

 

 

[a.noctilux]

Thanks,

Some years ago, we are lucky to have Ralph Gibson exhibition in Montpellier, La Trilogie ...

This exhibition opened my eyes to b&w photography and "seeing showing appreciations" are mainly individual.

 

I was upset with the pictures showed (never tell anybody, even not my wife who was with me ),

those pics are the well know pics I've "seen" for decades, printed  in good size exhibition formats.

In those, I can detect some "pixels" that I never thought of.

Pixels ruined the photos.

So I know by then that photography would be pixelized from then, whatever we do.

 

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!

 

I like this blur surprise

 

 

33 minutes ago, bdolzani said:

you are blessed to own both! 😉 

I think it was Ralph Gibson blessing.

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by a.noctilux

[bdolzani]

7 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Thanks,

Some years ago, we are lucky to have Ralph Gibson exhibition in Montpellier, La Trilogie ...

This exhibition opened my eyes to b&w photography and "seeing showing appreciations" are mainly individual.

 

I was upset with the pictures showed (never tell anybody, even not my wife who was with me ),

those pics are the well know pics I've "seen" for decades, printed  in good size exhibition formats.

In those, I can detect some "pixels" that I never though of.

Pixels ruined the photos.

So I know by then that photography would be pixelized from then, whatever we do.

 

I think it was Ralph Gibson blessing.

 

 

Very interesting. Even though it ruined it for you - perhaps took away the mystery....do you mean you've come to expect the pixels? I'm not sure if you are saying 'all is good' or that you were disappointed that Gibson turned to digital.

I always am struck when legendary photographers say 'in the days of film'. It always irks me - don't they realize you can still buy and shoot film?! ;-). I don't understand why they say that. They should say, 'when I used to shoot film'. Not that the 'days' are somehow gone. 

 

[a.noctilux]

Films do what films do never replaced or replaceable by digital means.

But now time of film comeback has done the unthinkable "renewal of film", very good thing for new (and older) film lovers.

 

As side note, for me,

film died with Kodachrome only films which we used for very long.

Now I discover b&w in films (I own a good stock)  AND digital Monochroms.

Edited February 17, 2021 by a.noctilux

[bdolzani]

18 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

 

Now I discover b&w in films (I own a good stock)  AND digital Monochroms.

Well said, I didn't mean to be so divisive in my title...I just have a personality of extremes, all or nothing. Thanks for the conversation! 

I'd buy a 246 then the next day a brick of weird film...;-) 

[colint544]

I saw an interview with Alan Schaller where he said flatly that he would never shoot black and white film because he was more than satisfied with his M Monochrom, and he didn't want to spend hours in the dark room. I really like Alan's work, and I completely understand that point of view.

Me, I could never give up my film M cameras. Although film is much more of a pain to have to process and print/scan, it does have its own look. I like shooting fine-grained emulsions like Delta 100/400, or T-Max 100 in daylight. You can get beautiful images that way.

Equally, I could never give up my M Monochrom. I do find - with the Monochrom -  that base ISO in daylight is a little too clean and sharp for my tastes. However, It's great for pictures when the light is bad, when you can push the ISO up to 1600 or 2000 ISO, and get beautiful, atmospheric images of a type I can't get on film. 

So - for me - Leica M film camera in the daytime, M Monochrom at night. 

 

[pippy]

9 hours ago, bdolzani said:

Thanks Pippy. I've enjoyed your posts as well. Are you a musician as well? (guitar in your photo?)...

Hi Brian.

PM sent!

Philip.

[plasticman]

A lot of old photographers have this pattern of switching to digital. Let's face it, the energy runs out, the need for a challenge dissipates, excitement about the medium dies away. I think the biggest thing is laziness. I've personally become a lot lazier about shooting film after just maybe 8 or 9 years - and that's without even the darkroom work (I take my film to a lab to be developed). So I'm never surprised by people who've spent maybe 50 years of their life shooting film suddenly finding digital, and being excited by it. 

What does surprise me is the number of young photographers who not only took up film when it became trendy again, but who are sticking with it after many years. And as for me, no matter how much digital I shoot it never gets near to the film experience or the film look. I even bought a medium format digital the other day, in the hope it might get closer - but I have my doubts.

As to the look of prints in real-life: I went to the big Salgado retrospective when it came to Stockholm, and the overblown post-production of the digital images vs. the subtle rendition of the film images was incredible, and totally destroyed Salgado as a photographer for me.

[a.noctilux]

9 hours ago, bdolzani said:

Well said, I didn't mean to be so divisive in my title...I just have a personality of extremes, all or nothing. Thanks for the conversation! 

I'd buy a 246 then the next day a brick of weird film...;-) 

Yes, if you can for M246.

You can sell it later if you want with small money lost.

 

But I don't understand why "brick of weird film" ?

Ralph Gibson Gallery

Funny, I didn't know I was influenced by him (

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!

...

when I took this Kodachrome, Creta "portrait"

😉

not as nice as the Master's, of course

Edited February 17, 2021 by a.noctilux

[a.noctilux]

28 minutes ago, plasticman said:

A lot of old photographers have this pattern of switching to digital. Let's face it, the energy runs out, the need for a challenge dissipates, excitement about the medium dies away. I think the biggest thing is laziness. I've personally become a lot lazier about shooting film after just maybe 8 or 9 years - and that's without even the darkroom work (I take my film to a lab to be developed). So I'm never surprised by people who've spent maybe 50 years of their life shooting film suddenly finding digital, and being excited by it. 

What does surprise me is the number of young photographers who not only took up film when it became trendy again, but who are sticking with it after many years. And as for me, no matter how much digital I shoot it never gets near to the film experience or the film look. I even bought a medium format digital the other day, in the hope it might get closer - but I have my doubts.

As to the look of prints in real-life: I went to the big Salgado retrospective when it came to Stockholm, and the overblown post-production of the digital images vs. the subtle rendition of the film images was incredible, and totally destroyed Salgado as a photographer for me.

Plasticman,

have you seen this TED ?

we can choose the language...

 

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by a.noctilux

[convexferret]

Unlike Colin I find that I shoot digital for its cleanliness and sharpness. It's a format that just gets out of the way. Unless I'm using a 50s Sonnar or similar lens my digital images are fairly faithful (B&W yes ...) renditions of what was in front of me, and that's exactly what I want a lot of the time. Yesterday I was comparing some HP5+ scans and an M10M shot at 32,000. The HP5+ was slightly grainier.

But, I find myself loving a bit of the chaos, the mess, the imperfection of film and for this I shoot a roll or three a month, dev it, scan it, remind myself what a hassle it is, leave it for a week and then do it again. The images are way less sharp, much noisier and yet I love the look. I've started using Delta 3200 as my daily film because I love big grain. There's no reason to favour one or the other, it's a case of what suits you.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bdolzani]

I really appreciate all these responses, thank you all - and I found late last night a film vs digital thread in the Film forum, which was very enlightening. I like to hear everyone's approach. I'm certainly a film lover first, and yet new to photography (5 years). And I'm not young lol. Late 40's. 

I'l reply specifically soon. Cheers- brian