New M6 article by Jono.

[dem331]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

OK, I have to wonder if we are overthinking all this....

I have stated that in all my film camera experience (mostly Leica/Nikon/Canon/Pentax) I have never seen scratches on my negatives that were caused by a camera.  BUT, I never printed an image at the sort of enlargements that are being shown in some of these posts to demonstrate the scratches.  And I never thought to carefully examine a roll of film looking for scratches.  IOW, maybe there WERE some scratches on my negatives that weren't noticeable in the final image.  Almost all of the 'scratched images I have seen posted here show a lot of film grain that indicates a pretty extreme enlargement/crop.  In the last set of posted pics, I couldn't see any scratches until an extreme enlargement with the specific intent of looking for scratches revealed them in a subsequent post.

Scanning negative film is, in itself, a 'corruption' of the process of producing a final image from film.  Scanning/digitizing film has no relation at all to how film was designed to be processed/printed.   Has anyone with these scratches printed an image in the darkroom as film images were inherently designed to be?  IOW, if you take  35mm negative, enlarge it to whatever print size in the darkroom AND view it at normal viewing distance, are the 'scratches' visible?  Maybe yes, maybe no but if you work at microscopically examining a film surface, there WILL be scratches...heck, maybe from the film production itself.  It's like looking at a nice portrait photo of pretty/handsome face and then enlarging/cropping to see all the flaws in the skin...🤮  The flaws were always there but you don't notice/see them until you look for them.

I absolutely agree that some of the scratches I have seen in posted images of the film strip itself clearly indicate some defect in the camera involved.  But in reviewing many of the images, I'm wondering if the scratches would visible/noticeable in a print that was produced by the method that film was designed for and viewed at a normal viewing distance.  

Heck, maybe all of our film cameras scratched film but it was never noticed until scanning/pixel peeping became the way we evaluate images. 🙄 

 

 

 

Surely such rational observations that make total sense have no place on this forum.😉
 

For what it’s worth I only started noticing scratches and dust on my negatives and slides when I started scanning them. 
 

Having scanned about 8000 shots personally, I can say that there was unwanted “noise” on the vast majority of them, which I had never really noticed when printing negatives or viewing the positives. This was particularly noticeable in the B&W ones, and not just because of the lack of ICE. 

I’m not saying that the current M6 does not scratch. What I am saying is that we cannot view the scanned film at 300% and expect it to look like a digital file. 

 

 

[jonoslack]

1 hour ago, Steve Ricoh said:

Leica have held there hand up at the back of the class, admitting the build suffers from a defective batch of pressure plates. It’s batch related and if (big if) I was buying I would want reassurance the deceive batch had been recalled from the dealers, thus minimising the likelihood of receiving a scratcher. The manufacture should have records.

Some people see the scratches some don’t, but the brain is good at filtering constants in a scene. Probably evolutionary survival techniques to filter out static objects. If a tiger moves, especially in your direction, you know you’re in trouble. 

HI There Steve

They have held up their hand, but reading through this thread it doesn't sound like a batch - people with MPs and other cameras have the same issue. Like Silas's 15 year old MP - he has young eagle eyes, but had never noticed before, but looking at his images now (also 30mp scans) you can clearly seem them when zooming in . . 

2 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

OK, I have to wonder if we are overthinking all this....

I have stated that in all my film camera experience (mostly Leica/Nikon/Canon/Pentax) I have never seen scratches on my negatives that were caused by a camera.  BUT, I never printed an image at the sort of enlargements that are being shown in some of these posts to demonstrate the scratches.  And I never thought to carefully examine a roll of film looking for scratches.  IOW, maybe there WERE some scratches on my negatives that weren't noticeable in the final image.  Almost all of the 'scratched images I have seen posted here show a lot of film grain that indicates a pretty extreme enlargement/crop.  In the last set of posted pics, I couldn't see any scratches until an extreme enlargement with the specific intent of looking for scratches revealed them in a subsequent post.

Scanning negative film is, in itself, a 'corruption' of the process of producing a final image from film.  Scanning/digitizing film has no relation at all to how film was designed to be processed/printed.   Has anyone with these scratches printed an image in the darkroom as film images were inherently designed to be?  IOW, if you take  35mm negative, enlarge it to whatever print size in the darkroom AND view it at normal viewing distance, are the 'scratches' visible?  Maybe yes, maybe no but if you work at microscopically examining a film surface, there WILL be scratches...heck, maybe from the film production itself.  It's like looking at a nice portrait photo of pretty/handsome face and then enlarging/cropping to see all the flaws in the skin...🤮  The flaws were always there but you don't notice/see them until you look for them.

I absolutely agree that some of the scratches I have seen in posted images of the film strip itself clearly indicate some defect in the camera involved.  But in reviewing many of the images, I'm wondering if the scratches would visible/noticeable in a print that was produced by the method that film was designed for and viewed at a normal viewing distance.  

Heck, maybe all of our film cameras scratched film but it was never noticed until scanning/pixel peeping became the way we evaluate images. 🙄 

I wonder about that as well - whilst I acknowledge scratches in my images I don't think I'm going to rush to send the camera back to Leica - incidentally, there is also a scratch on some of the colour pictures:

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!

 

All the best

 

[Advertisement]

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

[logan2z]

2 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

 In the last set of posted pics, I couldn't see any scratches until an extreme enlargement with the specific intent of looking for scratches revealed them in a subsequent post.

I didn't see them either until I clicked the images in the post to view the full-res versions.  They then became a lot more obvious, even without grossly enlarging them.  However, I don't know if they would be visible in a reasonably sized print (wet or inkjet).  It would certainly be interesting to know if anyone who has had their camera scratch their negatives has printed an affected image and can see the scratch in the print. 

What I do know is that I often zoom in on my scans in order to clone out tiny dust spots and have never seen evidence of scratches, so these new M6s do seem to be abrading the film surface more than is typical - and Leica has confirmed that the problem does exist.  

If I saw these scratches on my negatives I'd certainly want my very expensive camera to be repaired, even if I didn't immediately see evidence of the problem in my prints.   

[jonoslack]

4 minutes ago, logan2z said:

I didn't see them either until I clicked the images in the post to view the full-res versions.  They then became a lot more obvious, even without grossly enlarging them.  However, I don't know if they would be visible in a reasonably sized print (wet or inkjet).  It would certainly be interesting to know if anyone who has had their camera scratch their negatives has printed an affected image and can see the scratch in the print. 

What I do know is that I often zoom in on my scans in order to clone out tiny dust spots and have never seen evidence of scratches, so these new M6s do seem to be abrading the film surface more than is typical - and Leica has confirmed that the problem does exist.  

If I saw these scratches on my negatives I'd certainly want my very expensive camera to be repaired, even if I didn't immediately see evidence of the problem in my prints.   

HI there

I've printed some of these and given them to people - I didn't notice the scratches, and nor did they. I won't get a chance to print any more for a week or so, but Silas has made lots of A4/A3 sized prints with his MP and not seen the problem - although obviously it would be different knowing there was a problem!

Best

 

[Huss]

3 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

OK, I have to wonder if we are overthinking all this....

I have stated that in all my film camera experience (mostly Leica/Nikon/Canon/Pentax) I have never seen scratches on my negatives that were caused by a camera.  BUT, I never printed an image at the sort of enlargements that are being shown in some of these posts to demonstrate the scratches.  And I never thought to carefully examine a roll of film looking for scratches.  IOW, maybe there WERE some scratches on my negatives that weren't noticeable in the final image.  Almost all of the 'scratched images I have seen posted here show a lot of film grain that indicates a pretty extreme enlargement/crop.  In the last set of posted pics, I couldn't see any scratches until an extreme enlargement with the specific intent of looking for scratches revealed them in a subsequent post.

Scanning negative film is, in itself, a 'corruption' of the process of producing a final image from film.  Scanning/digitizing film has no relation at all to how film was designed to be processed/printed.   Has anyone with these scratches printed an image in the darkroom as film images were inherently designed to be?  IOW, if you take  35mm negative, enlarge it to whatever print size in the darkroom AND view it at normal viewing distance, are the 'scratches' visible?  Maybe yes, maybe no but if you work at microscopically examining a film surface, there WILL be scratches...heck, maybe from the film production itself.  It's like looking at a nice portrait photo of pretty/handsome face and then enlarging/cropping to see all the flaws in the skin...🤮  The flaws were always there but you don't notice/see them until you look for them.

I absolutely agree that some of the scratches I have seen in posted images of the film strip itself clearly indicate some defect in the camera involved.  But in reviewing many of the images, I'm wondering if the scratches would visible/noticeable in a print that was produced by the method that film was designed for and viewed at a normal viewing distance.  

Heck, maybe all of our film cameras scratched film but it was never noticed until scanning/pixel peeping became the way we evaluate images. 🙄 

 

 

 

The problem with that is that, job #1 is the camera should never scratch the film.  Ever.  No matter the brand.  There is not an acceptable level of scratching, and an appropriate viewing distance for scratching.  With 35mm enlargement size is basically determined by what we think is acceptable from a grain view point, not a scratch viewpoint.

Currently I am using 35mm cameras from Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Ricoh, Hasselblad, Fuji, Agfa, Olympus and Leica.  Every single one of those has its images scanned with my Nikon Z7 at something like 8000x6000 (or whatever the resolution from that sensor is).   Every single camera does not show scratches at that resolution, APART from the new M6.

And here's the thing, if I used a lower resolution camera I would still see the scratches as all the resolution does is determine the final maximum print size, not if scratches appear or not.   So saying that the film was not designed to be used in such a way is not a correct statement.  Film was just designed to record an image, that is it.  How the end user uses it is up to them.

These two prints are going to clients.  They are printed at 24 inches by 36 inches, and are sharp.  And not a scratch in sight. The one on the left was taken with my beater M4-2, the one on the right with an MdA.   But the camera doesn't matter, as I print and sell similar taken with all sorts of other cameras.

Excusing a $5500 camera for scratching film because the claim is the final output is beyond design parameters does not hold up when a $20 camera using the same film has no issues.

But of course what has made it worse is Leica's total incompetence in fixing the situation, and their apparent disregard for any quality checks in their processes.  When you have to ask the question "Did you check to see if that fixed it?"  and Leica NJ's answer is "No" -TWICE!!!!! - we know we have a serious fundamental problem in how they are running the show.

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!

[hdmesa]

@Huss, are all your non-scratching Leica M and other brand cameras ones without a clutch on the rewind mechanism? And/or – did rewinding film on your M6 seem tighter than that of your other cameras? On my M-A that scratched, the rewind felt very heavy. The non-M film cameras I've used over the years from 35mm to medium format were always very loose and low-tension when rewinding.

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"The problem with that is that, job #1 is the camera should never scratch the film."

I completely agree and have stated in a previous post that no camera should scratch film.  My point now is that maybe with scanning and the resulting pixel peeping we can find scratches that weren't visible in a darkroom-processed image.  OF course, if you have done the same scanning with other cameras and they do not show scratched film under the same conditions, clearly the camera in question is faulty.

[Huss]

6 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

"The problem with that is that, job #1 is the camera should never scratch the film."

I completely agree and have stated in a previous post that no camera should scratch film.  My point now is that maybe with scanning and the resulting pixel peeping we can find scratches that weren't visible in a darkroom-processed image.  OF course, if you have done the same scanning with other cameras and they do not show scratched film under the same conditions, clearly the camera in question is faulty.

 

That's exactly it.  I handle/scan the film exactly the same from all my cameras.  Only the M6 shows scratches.  And Leica has stated it is defective.  There is a batch of them.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Huss

[Huss]

9 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

@Huss, are all your non-scratching Leica M and other brand cameras ones without a clutch on the rewind mechanism? And/or – did rewinding film on your M6 seem tighter than that of your other cameras? On my M-A that scratched, the rewind felt very heavy. The non-M film cameras I've used over the years from 35mm to medium format were always very loose and low-tension when rewinding.

I actually tried to see if I could feel a difference, but could not.  They all feel sorta the same.

[tightsqueez]

The more you look, the more you find. 
 

The promotional pics from the M246 Monochrom had a dead pixel line through all of them. Who knew? Did you? 

I’m not discrediting new M6 owner by any means… a Grand Canyon scratch is unacceptable. But when you scan, be prepared, every artifact will be multiplied. 30 years ago we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The purity of digital did this; Our perception has changed. 
 

I’ve been shooting film for +35 years. Almost every frame I’ve shot exhibits a discrepancy. 

[Anbaric]

ChatGPT, is it acceptable for a Leica M6 to scratch film? If so, what level of damage can be tolerated?

No, it is not acceptable for a Leica M6 (or any camera) to scratch film. Scratches on the film can ruin the image captured on it, which can be especially frustrating when using a film camera since the images cannot be reviewed immediately after taking them.

Any level of film scratching is undesirable and should be avoided. Even small scratches can be visible in the final image, especially if they are in a critical area of the photograph. Therefore, it is essential to handle the film carefully and load it correctly to avoid scratches caused by mishandling.

If you notice that your Leica M6 is scratching film, it may be necessary to have it serviced by a professional to identify and correct the issue. Additionally, it is important to regularly check your camera's film transport mechanism, film guides, and other components for wear or damage and address any issues promptly to prevent scratches and other damage to your film.

[Huss]

50 minutes ago, tightsqueez said:

The more you look, the more you find. 
 

The promotional pics from the M246 Monochrom had a dead pixel line through all of them. Who knew? Did you? 

I’m not discrediting new M6 owner by any means… a Grand Canyon scratch is unacceptable. But when you scan, be prepared, every artifact will be multiplied. 30 years ago we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The purity of digital did this; Our perception has changed. 
 

I’ve been shooting film for +35 years. Almost every frame I’ve shot exhibits a discrepancy. 

When my $50 junk plastic Kodak Ektar H35 that I bought off Amazon new last year doesn't scratch film, but my $5500 Leica M6 does - both treated/used and printed from in the same way - that doesn't hold water.

It doesn't matter how things were in the past.  This is now.  When a $20 (including film!) Fuji Quicksnap doesn't scratch film, but a $5500 Leica does, there is a problem.

When Leica admits there is a problem, but have not been able to correct it but just send it back, there is a problem.

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, tightsqueez said:

The more you look, the more you find. 
 

The promotional pics from the M246 Monochrom had a dead pixel line through all of them. Who knew? Did you? 

I’m not discrediting new M6 owner by any means… a Grand Canyon scratch is unacceptable. But when you scan, be prepared, every artifact will be multiplied. 30 years ago we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The purity of digital did this; Our perception has changed. 
 

I’ve been shooting film for +35 years. Almost every frame I’ve shot exhibits a discrepancy. 

30 years ago we didn't have this conversation because:

1. None of us would have known each other, and 
2. MY FILM CAMERAS DIDN'T SCRATCH FILM

The only thing that ever scratched my film in those days was the occasional bad squeegee when drying the film.

1 hour ago, tightsqueez said:

...I’m not discrediting new M6 owner by any means…

If you have to disclaim it, you're probably doing it.

[BradS]

Unreal. Totally unreal. Now we're trying to rationalize some level of scratching? As if scratching negatives were ok? Seriously?

No. It is absolutely, categorically NOT ok for a camera to scratch film!!!   It is not now, never has been and never will be acceptable.

Try printing an 8x12 or 11x14 from a 35mm negative with a condenser enlarger. You'll see.  It is NOT OK...not at all.

Edited February 27, 2023 by BradS

[earleygallery]

It seems that a lot of people - who I think aren't familiar with film photography - seem to think that film photos should look like they were made with one of those build yourself Lomo kit cameras - light leaks, fuzzy, and poorly processed so full of scratches and dust spots. Yes, that's a film shot!

A film camera must not (not should not, must not) scratch film in normal use. Careful handling during processing (and scanning if you will) must also not result in scratched film.

There's no debate to be had as far as I'm concerned. If film is getting scratched then there's a problem, be that the camera or the processing, or a kack handed photographer handing their negs.

 

[tightsqueez]

1 hour ago, Huss said:

When my $50 junk plastic Kodak Ektar H35 that I bought off Amazon new last year doesn't scratch film, but my $5500 Leica M6 does - both treated/used and printed from in the same way - that doesn't hold water.

It doesn't matter how things were in the past.  This is now.  When a $20 (including film!) Fuji Quicksnap doesn't scratch film, but a $5500 Leica does, there is a problem.

When Leica admits there is a problem, but have not been able to correct it but just send it back, there is a problem.

You seem to have a dysfunctional relationship with Leica. 

Spouse abuse counseling will help you more than anything. 

[Anbaric]

I blame those woke millenial snowflake films we have today. Back when we had real films like Kodachrome, it was the pressure plate that would get scratched.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Anbaric

[Al Brown]

LUF forum is not only educational, it is also entertaining and is teaching us a lot in forensic science via the detailed and thorough analysis of analog film image material.
This could be my next career after all this photography business goes south due to too frequent contemporary analog cameras QC issues.

[lmans]

A camera shouldn’t hv scratches…. Agreed. But at the same time, are we over analyzing film and zooming in several hundred % after scanning, which in many cases film was never designed to be viewed at. 

Are we trying to make film equal to digital? … a new norm because we have been groomed to think of perfection ‘as in’ digital?

What % of scratches are caused by us? IE: Jona… as he claims a scanning issue. Cannot others also be attributed to?

How many scratches are the fault of film canisters with shoddy materials inherent within them that cause scratches ( poor felt or less quality felt or something inside the actual canister)? Shoddy materials brought on by manufacturers trying to save a penny per canister on cheaper material.

Are the recent surge in scratches ( as evident by this forum), due to quality control of Leica or simply COvID related inability to get the right material to make the same quality products placed into the camera which in prior years had materials which differed in quality 

Everyone speaks of Leica quality control but other than Hus who suffers from other issues, perhaps look at other causes other than just Leica quality control.

Also if Jona’s images show scratches , are they in the identical spots within each negative / image showing a consistent problem—- and if not, why not( as Hus states his are)?

lots to ponder….. personally knowing manufacturers I might start looking at the canister spoils themselves as the place to start as all film has to go thru / come from that first

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hdmesa]

58 minutes ago, lmans said:

A camera shouldn’t hv scratches…. Agreed. But at the same time, are we over analyzing film and zooming in several hundred % after scanning, which in many cases film was never designed to be viewed at. 

Are we trying to make film equal to digital? … a new norm because we have been groomed to think of perfection ‘as in’ digital?

What % of scratches are caused by us? IE: Jona… as he claims a scanning issue. Cannot others also be attributed to?

How many scratches are the fault of film canisters with shoddy materials inherent within them that cause scratches ( poor felt or less quality felt or something inside the actual canister)? Shoddy materials brought on by manufacturers trying to save a penny per canister on cheaper material.

Are the recent surge in scratches ( as evident by this forum), due to quality control of Leica or simply COvID related inability to get the right material to make the same quality products placed into the camera which in prior years had materials which differed in quality 

Everyone speaks of Leica quality control but other than Hus who suffers from other issues, perhaps look at other causes other than just Leica quality control.

Also if Jona’s images show scratches , are they in the identical spots within each negative / image showing a consistent problem—- and if not, why not( as Hus states his are)?

lots to ponder….. personally knowing manufacturers I might start looking at the canister spoils themselves as the place to start as all film has to go thru / come from that first

🤨

• Leica has confirmed a bad batch of pressure plates (they think) are causing this issue across some units of M6, M-A, and MP models. Are you saying Leica is wrong?
• The scratches are clearly noticeable at modest print sizes and on-screen magnifications. 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by hdmesa