Any M11 shooters get the itch to shoot film?

[rich_]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I purchased an Black paint MP thinking i'd shoot more on film (and really because it looked and felt so nice to shoot). But i've been far too lazy to use it enough, so eventually sold it and kept an M3 I had purchased for cheap which works just as well for those occasions where I want to scratch the itch (and use a 50mm). I have a little Canon Selphy 1500 printer if i want to replicate an average 6*4 developed photo in 30 seconds or so! 

[Warton]

22 hours ago, thrid said:

LOL I know. I did the same math and checked it twice, because there was no discount on the 50 pack. Which is sort of weird.

If you need to shoot a lot of film bulk loading is the cheapest way to go, but we all know that there are drawbacks to going that route.

It's just a frustrating situation and unfortunately I don't see it improving anytime soon
 

BH is also sneaky about pricing.

Once I saw a 5-pack of Ilford xtol about $25, but a single pack is selling for less than $4. So I emailed them asking why I would buy one 5-pack for $25 when 5 of one-pack is only $20. Dead silent for 2 weeks and then sending me an email saying my math is wrong because one pack is $5.29.

Fuck them.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Warton

[TheEyesHaveIt]

16 minutes ago, rich_ said:

I purchased an Black paint MP thinking i'd shoot more on film (and really because it looked and felt so nice to shoot). But i've been far too lazy to use it enough, so eventually sold it and kept an M3 I had purchased for cheap which works just as well for those occasions where I want to scratch the itch (and use a 50mm). I have a little Canon Selphy 1500 printer if i want to replicate an average 6*4 developed photo in 30 seconds or so! 

Time will tell if I follow suit, but I'm hoping not! I'm happy to keep the MP, even if I only use it once in a while - the beauty of it is I'll never have to "upgrade" (unlike my M11). So assuming you're ok with the upfront cost, it's a product for life.

 

How do you like that printer by the way? I've also been thinking about that as I think it'll be valuable and interesting to start printing my work for fun.

Edited September 17, 2023 by TheEyesHaveIt

[Mute-on]

On 9/15/2023 at 5:10 AM, TheEyesHaveIt said:

This resonates with me. Photography is my hobby and enjoyment is the chief criteria. I had never shot with an RF prior to my M11 and I’ve taken more photos this year that any other year I can recall. I’ve never shot film but I’ve met people who do and there’s a different photographic approach and type of enjoyment from that it seems, from taking shots with different film stocks, from developing, from scanning, from printing even. I don’t know if it’ll be for me until I try it.

So I did the only reasonable thing - and picked up a new BP MP.

Perfectly sensible and reasonable step to take. Having always been an M film shooter and now trying digital M (M 262) I can say the film shooting experience is what I really enjoy. The images are a byproduct. 

[Nitnaros]

shooting M11 and GFX100/100S

Went on a 11 months remote working trip thru the US, and shot mainly Fuji 100S and a bit of M-digital plus film

I have an M7 that I love dearly, but since we went mostly into national parks, I wanted maximum film quality and easy scanning - chose my Mamiya 7 over my Leica M7. Sorry Leica. 
 

the M7 will be back for people, street; 

film because of the different color palette compared to digital 

 

[DadDadDaddyo]

I've spent my life straddling the analog and digital worlds across numerous media. 

At the age of eight I learned to load a Nikor reel successfully. I revisit the thrill I got from that first glimpse of those first negatives every time I unload a reel. There was never any question that I'll keep shooting film as long as they let me. 

Forum member Thrid touched upon one of the reasons way back in this thread; film is inherently archival. If processed and washed and stored correctly film will outlast us all, and that's important. Like, really, really important. 

It's just one of the reasons I continue to shoot film, in sizes from 35mm to 120 (6×6,6×7,6×8 cm), 4×5 inch, 5x7 inch, and 8x10 inch. 

I still have the full darkroom, though the enlarger sees a lot less use now that I got have two things: an Imacon Flextight Precision II scanner (hardly the latest model, but glorious), and the Canon ImagePROGRAF Pro-2000 24 inch printer. A hybrid process (shoot and develop film, scan and print negatives) works very well and is immensely more convenient, especially at large print sizes. I can print photographic paper to 16x20 using a drum processor, but the Canon effortless cranks out mind blowing prints at its full size, fed by a pair of paper roll loaders each with 100 foot capacity. I keep Glossy on one, Matte on the other. 

Really the question was whether I'd shoot digital at all. This is perhaps not the time to bring up the technical comparisons as relates to the images. Digital can be gorgeous.

But Thrid touched on the issue: archival considerations. My background, in its latter days, was in the information sciences, collaborating with researchers and university libraries on matters of information representation. You can't get a National Sciences Foundation grant these days without including a plan for digital preservation and archiving of research data. 

The NSF include that requirement because digital information, while capable of flawless reproduction (at least to the limits of its original encoding), is *fragile!

Have any hard disks from the 90's you're still using?

Neither does the world of research.

By moving to digital we have made the commitment to migrate all the data, or at least, all the data we wish to keep, every few years, from disk to disk, forever. If I had been an investing type in the 90's I would have invested not in processors, but in storage. 

So to bring it back home: I've got 60 year old negatives that look great, but how should I preserve my digital images?

In the digital information archive world one approach that's used is through the concept of LOCKSS: Lots Of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe. 

So. RAID arrays. RAID 1 is simple and pretty effective. Two drives tied together in a mirrored relationship, the pair represented by a single drive letter. Copy to that drive and you're making two copies, one on each drive. If one of the drive goes bad you can pop it out and insert a new drive and the RAID will copy everything from the good drive to the new drive, restoring the mirrored state. 

I keep all my digital images on three separate RAID 1 drives, in separate parts of the house. To do it properly I would rotate, keeping one at the office, but I don't have an office anymore (yaaaaaay!!!) so they're in separate parts of the house.

On those drives are scanned film images going back to the 1960's (plus some from earlier generations going back even further), along with the born-digital stuff I shot this week. 

Please note: naming conventions take on increased significance as you manage one of these over time. But that's good old Information Representation, and I used to do that, for others, for a living. A thorny piece of cake. 

So anyway, yeah, still shooting film and always thinking about preservation issues and archival practices, even when also shooting digital. 

My involvement in analog and digital audio belongs in another forum. There are similarities and parallels to what's involved with images. 

Oh, and the Cloud? Heh heh, that's just rental space on somebody else's storage. They aren't even with talking to unless they're taking data preservation and migration seriously. Many seem to be, but are they willing and ready to do it forever?

"Maybe my family pictures don't matter to anyone but me..." Nope. Flat wrong. The preserved images we have, going back to the beginning of photography, are priceless beyond value for figuring out things, even things we have even figured out to ask about yet.

Sorry to go on and on, but this is important stuff. Suffice it say that preserved images, in any format or medium, *matter*.

Edited September 17, 2023 by DadDadDaddyo
Typo

[la1402]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am now and then tempted about film - until I see the cost and remember the annoyance. I sold my lab long ago and don't miss the experience either. To me, it would be more nostalgia than sustainable enjoyment, and adding an M6 or MP for that is a bit costly. Still loving my Vinyl, though 🙂

On Storage - i am used to swapping / Upgrading disks since 20 years, and compared with the cost of film over that period those investments are cheap.

[rcusick]

I shoot film and digital interchangeably.   M11, sl2s, M6 and Hasselblad 500cm depending on the mood. 

[rich_]

On 9/16/2023 at 10:40 PM, TheEyesHaveIt said:

Time will tell if I follow suit, but I'm hoping not! I'm happy to keep the MP, even if I only use it once in a while - the beauty of it is I'll never have to "upgrade" (unlike my M11). So assuming you're ok with the upfront cost, it's a product for life.

 

How do you like that printer by the way? I've also been thinking about that as I think it'll be valuable and interesting to start printing my work for fun.

I'm sorry for the late response. I truly understand the whole not needing to upgrade drive. It was my main reason too, but i also purchased an M3 on a whim (My MP had B&W film in and I was going to a carnival! arggh!)  which has been perfectly fine for my needs so i figured it was a bit unnecessary for my infrequent usage to own both. I used the money to put towards purchasing a watch I wanted which i wear more often!

The quality is pretty good! Certainly for the $100 they go for on BHPhoto at the moment! I purchased (i think) 100 photos worth of paper and ink for around 25usd too (the ink/paper was 'open box' but perfect condition) which will keep me going for a while until the ink no doubt dries up. Finally i purchased a knock off battery from Amazon for 35usd (instead of 100+ for the canon version) which works well and means I don't need to plug the tiny thing in for the infrequent usage.
I can print directly from my macbook or phone. The app is a bit limiting so i just set the printer up like a regular one wirelessly.

Something I'm finding challenging is matching the colors. The M11 photos are far richer than the output of the printer, but it seems a bit random. Some photos match, others do not. So I need to trial with more shots to figure out how to process for the printer. I have probably only printed 15 or so photos. We recently welcomed our baby boy so life is a bit busy but hopefully in time i'll get more usage out of it! 

In summary i'd say the printer is definitely worth a punt for the outlay. I hope that helps! 

 

[Topsy]

On 9/13/2023 at 7:53 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

I don’t have a m11, but the m10m. Went back to film as well, but not with Leica, as I don’t see an advantage. I went medium format, cause this is in digital not really available for the money I have, and though great, gfx or x2d is not full size mf.

 

On 9/15/2023 at 6:54 PM, marchyman said:

Me too.  I don't shoot film that often and use medium format when I do.  I've an RB67 w/90mm lens that is perfect to scratch my film itch.

Likewise I don't have the M11 though but I do have 3 M9s and I much prefer the output from them to 35mm film plus I don't have to wait to finish a roll before seeing and sharing the images. I recently sold my MP because I wasn't using it (I kept my M2 (and M4-P which I will likely sell)) for the odd time I may want to use 35mm but for film I use Bronica SQ-Ais Medium Format with my favourite film Provia 100F or Portra 160/400 where the light is going to be contrasty. The output from the 120 films id IMO equal to or better than my M9s but I love using them. I also have Fuji GFX 50S and the output (image quality, sharpness, clarity) is better than 120 film IMO so I will use them when I want that kind of quality but I enjoy my using Bronicas more than my GFXs.