LADP Posted October 16, 2006 Share #101 Posted October 16, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) One point that I keep thinking about when I read threads like this is the rock solid reliability and capability of capturing images on film with minimal battery requirements compared to digital acquisition. A few years ago I shot a couple of shows for a series on the National Geographic channel. I was shooting digital video for the show, but the Nat Geo photographer accompanying us used both Digital and Film cameras. We were in a remote part of Mongolia for one episode living with a nomadic herding tribe that subsists on raising goats and yaks, and hunting the occasional marmot. In another episode, we were in the rainforest of Panama (the Darien Gap) living with a Wounan Indian tribe. Electricity was non existent for both of these peoples, and we had to bring in a portable generator to charge the batteries for our video cameras, and satellite phone for the production. The Nat Geo photographer was quite happy not having to rely on his digital kit in order to cover the story. That's one of those advantages of shooting film that may not be common, but do arise in some situations. I, for one, hope that 35mm still film lives on as an available and viable format for quite some time to come. A few short years prior to shooting that particular series, I would have been shooting 16mm (or Super 16mm) for a project like that. The final product would have been much more beautiful albeit at a higher cost for acquisition. I look forward to the day when digital formats are able to match motion picture film in image quality and ergonomic ease. We are not there yet. This coming from a guy that just shot two feature films on digital HD formats for the big screen (oen low budget and one medium). I wish I could have shot them both on film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 16, 2006 Posted October 16, 2006 Hi LADP, Take a look here The Future for Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lambroving Posted October 16, 2006 Share #102 Posted October 16, 2006 A few short years prior to shooting that particular series, I would have been shooting 16mm (or Super 16mm) for a project like that. The final product would have been much more beautiful albeit at a higher cost for acquisition. I look forward to the day when digital formats are able to match motion picture film in image quality and ergonomic ease. We are not there yet. This coming from a guy that just shot two feature films on digital HD formats for the big screen (oen low budget and one medium). I wish I could have shot them both on film. That beauty of film is something which has been forgotten by some here who've gone over to "the dark side". Certainly there is a place for both media, but frankly, often digital capture fails to record the magic. This blindness seems to be contributing to the dumbing down of photography IMO. Interesting story. Nice to have another expierienced pro here. We had another camera man here a while back but he didn't get on with his Leica. More of an SLR man. Couldn't deal with focusing and not being able to see his DOF. How are you getting on with your ASPH lenses and what sorts of film stock do you enjoy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LADP Posted October 16, 2006 Share #103 Posted October 16, 2006 I've got a relatively good handle on estimating and visualizing my DOF from having been an Assistant Cameraman in years past. Back then I would frequently have to refer to DOF charts and calculators in order to determine split focus settings and hyperfocal distances. Shooting a RF is new to me for stills. I started out in the mid 70's with an old Nikon F body, and for years stayed with Nikon SLRs. I sold my last FM2 and F3 bodies and a number of nice, manual A.I.S. lenses last year. I also got rid of a Mamiya TLR that I had. The M6 is new to me, although I've wanted one for over 20 years. I'm still getting to know the system and my lenses, but the first several rolls I've shot with the system have impressed me quite a bit. That Leica look is unmistakable, and shockingly better than anything I shot with my Nikon SLR's in years past. The sharpness, bokeh and 3 dimensional feel that I am managing to capture with this camera and the ASPH lenses are qualities I've always wanted to achieve in 35mm stills, but I used to think I had to turn to MF to get. I'm looking forward to shooting a lot with this camera. As for stocks, I am doing some experimenting at the moment. I have always prefered Tri-X for B/W, but I am shooting some T-Max 400 and I will probably look to test some other manufacturer's offerings too. For color negative, I have been trying out some Portra 160 and 400 in both VC and NC. I've got some Fuji Superia 1600 to try out too. I used to shoot a lot of Kodachrome years ago, but I have not been shooting any reversal lately. I'll have to see what's out there and do some experimenting. I will probably shoot primarily B/W though, as I love BW prints. I'm glad to have found my way to this forum, and I'm looking forward to getting to know you all and learning from you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambroving Posted October 16, 2006 Share #104 Posted October 16, 2006 I'm glad to have found my way to this forum, and I'm looking forward to getting to know you all and learning from you. Expect that "learning" will be a two-way street! You seem to be getting on well with the gear. Do you find the viewfinder helps you "see" better? Yes, the 3-D and the tactile quality are special, with the 50 ASPH particularly. Don't shoot B&W myself any more because I haven't the time and I'm never satified with the prints unless I do it all myself. Portra is good; so is 100 UC. Remember, the Leica lenses have fabulous color correction, so you'll want to take advantage of that too. Great to have your expertise here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LADP Posted October 16, 2006 Share #105 Posted October 16, 2006 William, thanks for the warm welcome. As for using the viewfinder, and seeing better with it (as opposed to SLR finders), yes, I love being able to see the actual instant the shutter fires, and it also enable me to see with my naked eye up to the moment right up to taking the exposure. At the risk of sounding like I'm dropping names, I'll tell you a story from about 10 or 11 years ago. Back then I used to do a lot of 16mm shooting for the in-house advertising wing of Calvin Klein, called CRK. I would often shoot motion picture footage concurrently with photo shoots for print campaigns. As you might imagine, many of the photographers shooting the print campaigns were big names in the industry, and I was just a young cinematographer starting out and making the transition from AC to DP. In any case, some of these photographers were quite friendly and some were not. One of the really friendly ones was Peter Lindbergh. He primarily shot a variety of medium formats on most of these shoots, but he always had an M6 nearby, and often would grab it to shoot with too. I remember watching him work, and talking to him about the M6. He showed me why he likes shooting with it from an ergonomic standpoint, and showed me one of the great benefits (in his opinion) of the Leica RF viewfinder. He explained that he liked to direct the subject and view them with his bare eyes right up to the moment before taking the exposure. He would hold the M6 up just to the right of his eye, so that he could see the model without looking through the viewfinder, then at the last second, he would slide the camera just a half inch or so to the left to place the viewfinder in front of his eye, and then he would snap the shot. He told me that having the viewfinder all the way over on the left side of the camera was one of the many beautiful things about the Leica RF that he loved over SLRs. With an SLR, he couldn't manage to watch the subject with the naked eye right up to the instant of when he wanted to take the shot. SLRs were just too cumbersome, and the distance he would have to move the SLR's body to get the viewfinder to his eye was too great... he would miss too many shots with SLR's. I've never forgotten that lesson, and I've incorporated that style of looking with my eye to some degree when shooting with my Leica. It is a pretty beautiful system, and I'm thankful that I have been able to glean some good lessons from various pros over the years. Anthony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 16, 2006 Share #106 Posted October 16, 2006 LADP - can I welcome you to the forum too? Your friend's "bring the viewfinder in front of the eye at the last second" technique, pre-supposes that one shoots with the right eye. As a left eye using, spectacle wearing person, I'm afraid any advantage that an M gives in this regard is lost, unless one peeps round the side of the camera. This does mean that the right eye is still shielded from the subject. One does have the advantage of being able to see beyond the frameline, it's true, unless using wides on certain magnification viewfinders, in which case, it is extremely difficult to see the entire frame (try a 35 on an M2 like mine for example). This "beyond the frame" advantage, is also available, at the compromise on the crop factor, to DMR users, of course. IMHO, every option that Leica offers its customers has its advantages and disadvantages, whether they be traditional film Ms and the CM, an M8, the compact digitals, film Rs or the DMR option. Some are better at some things than others, but I believe none should be dismissed out of hand as being intrinsically inferior. Yes, film looks different from digital - I see it as the difference between watercolour and oil painting, i.e the same, but different. However, I believe that it is too easy to be dismissive of folk who prefer to use one medium over another (or even, heaven forbid, who use both ) I hope that you are able to share more of your experiences and particularly some of your work with us. (I know that this can be an issue for pros). Anything from Mongolia would be particularly welcome! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LADP Posted October 16, 2006 Share #107 Posted October 16, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Andy, Thank you too for welcoming me to the forum too. You are right about the presupposition of shooting with one's right eye to benefit from that technique, but fortunately I do so. I am not right eye dominant by nature, but I have used my right eye for operating motion picture cameras for so long that I am comfortable, and feel "ambi-occular" (if that's a word ) by now. I found out about being left eye dominant some years ago when I was having some trouble with accuracy while shooting trap and skeet. When I operate motion picture cameras hand held, I leave my left eye open as I walk around. My brain has gotten used to "switching" back and forth between seeing through each eye. It's a good technique to help avoid walking into thingsby allowing you to see the terrain around you, and in the case of documentary style shooting, it allows you to see what's going on outside your frame, and therefore can help you to anticipate action. As for sharing some photographs, I will definitely do so soon. I do not consider myself a "pro" still photographer, even though I am a professional cinematographer. They are certainly closely related fields with many shared technical and esthetic apsects, but there are some significant differences. I would call myself a serious amateur photographer. Another point is that I have never been paid to shoot stills. Most of the stills I shoot are travel related documentary style photographs. I often shoot them while on a motion picture project abroad, and mostly on my days off. Because I was working really long hours on that particular project, I have only a few "snapshots" from Mongolia taken with a Contax T2, and they have been scanned rather poorly a few years ago from a mediocre lab. I will post a shot or two, but I really should take the negatives to get higher quality scans some time. I have some stills I shot in Nepal some years back that have never been scanned, and are more representative of the type of photography I like to engage in. I will have to get around to doing that soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 17, 2006 Share #108 Posted October 17, 2006 LADP: I'd appreciate knowing who the NG photographer was. Are his initials DLB by any chance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LADP Posted October 17, 2006 Share #109 Posted October 17, 2006 LADP: I'd appreciate knowing who the NG photographer was. Are his initials DLB by any chance? His name is Jeff Hutchens: http://www.jeffhutchens.com/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 17, 2006 Share #110 Posted October 17, 2006 I can't believe this thread is still going. I hope film is still available when it finally runs its course. Anthony--welcome to the forum. Your stories have been quite interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing your b&w work. As you know, there aren't many people who still shoot b&w--probably because its so easy to convert the color images with any of a number of software programs--so it will be a treat to see some work originally shot in that medium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbesz Posted October 18, 2006 Share #111 Posted October 18, 2006 Watching the news last night, I noticed a local guy (in his seventies) graduate in Law, ..now that's what I like, ..someone with a positive attitude, and with many new ideas! What we don't need are people with doom and gloom in their mind. If we continue to use the film camera, there will always be film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambroving Posted October 18, 2006 Share #112 Posted October 18, 2006 I can't believe this thread is still going. I hope film is still available when it finally runs its course. Anthony--welcome to the forum. Your stories have been quite interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing your b&w work. Brent, Perhaps not quite EVERYONE here has gone totally blind... Anthony, Your friend certainly has a good eye. His color travel shots which are not unnecessarily tilted appeal most to me. Some of those images are extremely strong. While you are not a still photographer, we'd like to see what you can get out of an M6. You can't do what you've been doing without developing an eye for unique and dramatic framing. By now, for you, it must be instictive.Sometimes I watch a documentary and see a frame which is outstanding. Hopefully these images are stored and can be recovered when a situation presents itself. I look forward to seeing your POV because I believe we can all learn something from this. And I prefer the color travel stuff... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 18, 2006 Share #113 Posted October 18, 2006 Anthony, welcome and thanks for the Jefflink. Look forward to seeing your M6 stuff. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted October 18, 2006 Share #114 Posted October 18, 2006 William B. I thought he was 91 years, which is a remarkable affort. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LADP Posted October 18, 2006 Share #115 Posted October 18, 2006 Okay, probably not the best thread to post some photos in, but since Andy asked to see some photographs from Mongolia, I thought I'd post a couple. Just a reminder that these are snapshots taken with a Contax T2 when I would take breaks from shooting documentary footage for the assignment. The color ones were shot on Kodak GC 400 Negative, and the scans are reatively low res, and cheap. I need to take them back in for better quality scanning one of these days. The B/W's were shot on Tri-X (I think), and are also cheapo scans. None of these images has been PS'd at all (I'm not saying they couldn't use it). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LADP Posted October 18, 2006 Share #116 Posted October 18, 2006 Two more... self portrait with the Matriarch of the Ail (nomadic village). I wish I had taken a portrait of her without me in it, but for some reason I didn't. She has a great face. this last shot I think may have been taken with a Canon Elph (3.2 mp), and I only include it because I am pretty certain it is the same dairymaid that Jeff Hutchens has a photograph on his website under "People You Don't Know," photograph # 9/10. His photograph is much, much better, obviously! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 18, 2006 Share #117 Posted October 18, 2006 hi anthony ... i love the self portrait with the old woman and the photo of family(?) with the bike very much... the b/w is not scanned well i suppose and doesnt look that good peter lindbergh - well, this is one of my fave photographers in field of fashion and one of my inspirations in fashion with his magic touch :-)))) ive got a huge book of his works and i look at it from time to time - everytime to different generes he makes :-))))) about using rite ya and all that stuff... i had extended conversations here on the forum with some memebrs and u might be intrested to look at it - it is in "sean reids street photography" thread... very good stuff was in discussions by me and other members who participated there.... welcome to the forum :-)))) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LADP Posted October 18, 2006 Share #118 Posted October 18, 2006 vic vic, thanks for telling me about the sean reid street photography thread. I'm reading it now, interesting stuff. That was a family on the bike. The whole family rode up on that motorcycle, with the mom on the very back, and they stopped to talk with the gentleman in the beret. As for the B/W, yes they are rather poor. The scan quality is part of it, but as mentioned above they were really just snapshots taken with a Contax T2 loaded with Tri-X, when I would have preferred something a little slower. I'll still see if I can't salvage a more palatable image from the negative through a better scan. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum. There's a lot to learn here, and plenty of good discussion about photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted October 19, 2006 Share #119 Posted October 19, 2006 This thread has become so long I can't stand to look at the computer screen that long. It seems like that's all I do from before dawn until after dusk. If film becomes a niche market, and an art practiced by a handful of diehards ... I'll be one of them ... the last one if I have to. The more it comes under fire, the more I want to use it. I love being different than all the others ... it's part of the creative drive IMO. As far as I'm concerned the rest of the world is becoming progressively blind. It's just more homogenization of the brain. Don't get me wrong, I produce what my clients consider stunning wedding prints from my H2D/39 and all the other digital wonders in "Felix's digital bag of tricks" ... but come on people, is slick, smooth perfection all there is? Where's the soul? Where's the grit? I'm putting the M7 in the 1DsMKII bag for this Saturday's wedding, and the Canon can KMA if it doesn't like it ... because I NEED to shoot the M, feel it, thread film into it, cock the damned shutter, not gawk at an LCD screen like some insecure school kid ... and let some lab rat sit in front of the computer instead of me. (can you tell I'm a digital guy fed up with digital?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddawn Posted October 19, 2006 Share #120 Posted October 19, 2006 This thread has become so long I can't stand to look at the computer screen that long. It seems like that's all I do from before dawn until after dusk. .... (can you tell I'm a digital guy fed up with digital?) u see, if u spend less time in the forum, u'll have more time for digital post processing :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.