will the m9 kill film?

[holmes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No. The film manufacturers are spending big bucks every year to improve or bring out a completely new film, color or B&W. Look at the listings of films. Forget the films that are gone and concentrate on the ones we have. I don't know what the M9 will cost, but don't look for me standing in line. I will be outside the line making pictures of those with DEEP pockets waiting to get in.

[andybarton]

There are currently three active threads about this subject. That's interesting in itself.

[earleygallery]

Will the M9 kill film? Sorry but I didn't realise the M9 was capable of highest quality video recording, and obviously has extra features which have made it so appealing to cinematographers, amazing!

 

What a coup for Leica, to kill off the the 'competition' from the motion picture industry, especially considering that it was motion picture film that made Leica what it is - quite ironic.

[marcusperkins]

One of the most salient features of this discussion has been left unsaid. Like all modalities of art, there is a fusion and strong impulses to merge the best features of imaging creation, regardless of the origin. As we get software that allows more & more creative work to be done out of the camera, the source material may indeed become secondary. I shoot an equal amount of film & digital. I shoot a lot. What interests me is to create an image that’s not a copy of reality, but to express what I want others to see. The format is less & les of importance, the end result is the only thing of value. With engineering systems that will soon make a virtual variable lens system available within software, image making will reach a different creative space. Artists won’t be constricted by price & hardware to deliver their images. It’s on the horizon and I’ve witnessed some pretty amazing things in some University labs. It won’t be about film or digital. It will be about imagination.

 

Another very interesting point, but this already exists, and has done for some time - it's called illustration.

 

I may be completely wrong, but I can't really imagine anybody shooting film in order to then produce something entirely different. Surely that's the realm of digital photography or illustration (digital or otherwise) where such working practices are far more efficient.

 

Artists have made some weird and wonderful images using whatever they can lay their hands on, but an oil painting is an oil painting, film is film. Of course nothing stops anybody using anything as a starting point, but why would a painter sketch out the shape of their intended oil painting using genetically reconstituted dinosaur blood when a pencil will do.

 

In short, if photography develops entirely into a form where the 'original' is not important, then film will almost certain die out. However, I think serious photographers choose a particular 'original' because of the intrinsic qualities associated with it, regardless of whether it is film digital, or dinosaur blood for that matter.

[noah_addis]

No, of course not. The M9 represents such a small niche market (as do the film Leica M cameras), that it will have little to no impact on the greater market of film photography. I suspect that there will be more than a few Leica M shooters who decide to go digital for the first time with the M9, but it won't have an impact on the film manufacturers.

 

 

...

 

We know that digital B&W doesn't compare at all well with film B&W.

...

 

I respectfully disagree. I think I've mentioned here lately that I was considering a switch back to film for the majority of my non-deadline work. All of the hype surrounding the M9 intro was a bit crazy, and got me thinking that I should just go back to using tools that aren't rendered obsolete every year.

 

I went over the financial numbers and determined that it would be more expensive, but that wasn't important for me since I could afford it. The investment with film is more spread out over time so it would have been very feasible. (Though at the same time, despite the high initial outlay, getting two M9s is also feasible and would be cheaper in the long term.)

 

I much prefer the working method of film. I love the rituals of working in the darkroom, which are much more satisfying than sitting behind a computer. And most importantly I prefer to have an original negative for archival purposes. A few weeks ago I sat down and compared some work shot on film M cameras and Tri-x and printed on fiber darkroom paper with some M8 work printed in B&W on Hahnemuhle Baryta paper on my Epson 4880.

 

I was surprised, but I actually preferred the look of the M8 prints. The blacks are just as rich, the highlights are smooth and there is much more control over tonality and local contrast. The paper itself is beautiful, and there are many choices these days for very high-quality inkjet paper.

 

Black and white film is beautiful, but I think it's wrong to say that digital B&W can't compare. I always liked the character and grain of film, I did much of my work with Tri-X in Rodinal because I loved the sharpness and the grain.

 

I think it's true to say that if you want the 'look' of film you can't match that with digital, no matter how many fancy photoshop tricks you use. But digital has its own look, and if used correctly the results can be just as aesthetically pleasing as film. The M8 in particular produces images that aren't quite as 'smooth' as other digital cameras, so while they don't necessarily look like film, I find the look to be quite pleasing.

 

I was having a talk with an art student the other day who said he doesn't shoot digital because lots of bad photographers and lazy photographers shoot digital, he said just look at flickr and other forums--which he claimed are full of bad digital photography. He then proceeded to show me a portfolio of some of the most boring and technically bad prints I've ever seen, which he was proud to declare were all shot on large-format film. They showed no sense of composition and no knowledge at all of how to use light.

 

I tried to explain to him that just because SOME photographers use digital poorly doesn't mean that you can't use the same tools to make finely-crafted photographs. If you can make meaningful work using mass-market cameras, it doesn't devalue your work just because your grandmother shoots family snapshots with the same camera you use.

 

There has been something of a resurgence in film. I was at a major news event the other day and was joking around with another shooter (with digital cameras). We were having a great time spotting all of the 'alternative' cameras. We saw a few holgas, a speed graphic, some panoramics and even a few old screw-mount Leicas. I find it interesting that, since digital can produce images with a very high technical quality, that many shooters are using older cameras of different formats or toy cameras to really stress the analog and imperfect nature of film.

 

I think some of the results from such uses of older and toy cameras can be quite beautiful. But they are, after all, being used as gimmicks.

 

In the end, I decided to stick to digital. I'm pretty committed to the format at this point, and I'm very happy with both the published output as well as the quality of my exhibition prints. I enjoy the workflow of film better, but the results are what matter to me and, while I know it may seem heretical to some, I like my digital prints better.

 

I do agree that if you want the look of film, then genuine film is the only way to go.

 

I also agree with M'ate--I've yet to see any really great work done with the M9. But look around at the other threads and you'll see why--very few people and even fewer working pro photographers actually seem to have one.

[M'Ate]

I respectfully disagree. I think I've mentioned here lately that I was considering a switch back to film for the majority of my non-deadline work. All of the hype surrounding the M9 intro was a bit crazy, and got me thinking that I should just go back to using tools that aren't rendered obsolete every year.

 

I also agree with M'ate--I've yet to see any really great work done with the M9. But look around at the other threads and you'll see why--very few people and even fewer working pro photographers actually seem to have one.

 

That's OK, Noah. I'm wise enough to know my global statement shouldn't go unchallenged.

 

My experience is limited, I'll admit, I've yet to see a digital print that had real beauty in the article itself. I've seen many fine digital photographs, as we all have, where the content and composition are spectacular, but in many silver prints I've been affected by the skill of the printer in delivering an amazing piece of coated paper. Tell me it was the silver that did it, or it was medium, or even large format and I'll quietly nod my head.

 

To the contrary, I've seen many thousands of digital prints displayed at national exhibitions and I don't every recall being 'affected' by the drawing of the image. The best way for me to define it is the difference between a John Sexton silver original and a fine print in one of his books. That's maybe too extreme, but the point is offered.

 

TBH, I think the same is true about colour as well. I'm not talking resolution - digital can have that, Rembrandt didn't worry about resolution, I don't believe. It's about feel and depth and impression. 35mm digital, for me doesn't have these. Artists (and I mean photographic artists, are using all media, but I believe there's a lot sticking with MF and LF film for these attributes.

 

There's a photographer here that I truly admire and whilst her digital work is excellent, using the same lenses and Tri-X her work was incredible, world class, top drawer ....... Something changed with the tool and the materials and I'm so sorry.

 

Regarding your economic comparison, it's foreign to me. Two M9 will cost $15,000. In 30 years of shooting, largely B&W, I haven't spent anything like $15,000 on materials and processing and that's 35mm, MF and LF. Nowhere near that amount. Again conversely, in the last three years I have shot many thousands of digital images that would have cost me $15,000+ if I'd processed them in film ..... but I didn't and I wouldn't have.... no way. If I'd shot those same events in film, I wouldn't have shot the volume, I would have delivered the end result to the same standard, for sure. I'm talking about me, not what you would/should do.

 

Re current M9 images, I acknowledge it's very early days and good work will follow & I'm sure it won't be long. I look forward to it.

 

Have an exciting day.

[Gentleman Villain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was having a talk with an art student the other day who said he doesn't shoot digital because lots of bad photographers and lazy photographers shoot digital, he said just look at flickr and other forums--which he claimed are full of bad digital photography. He then proceeded to show me a portfolio of some of the most boring and technically bad prints I've ever seen, which he was proud to declare were all shot on large-format film. They showed no sense of composition and no knowledge at all of how to use light.

 

I tried to explain to him that just because SOME photographers use digital poorly doesn't mean that you can't use the same tools to make finely-crafted photographs. If you can make meaningful work using mass-market cameras, it doesn't devalue your work just because your grandmother shoots family snapshots with the same camera you use

 

Thanks a lot for this personal story, it's an excellent example of the phenomenon that I described in previous post #10

 

Photographers can debate the aesthetic differences between film vs digital all day long. But in the end, cultural resistance to digital is going to drive future film sales. Rightly or wrongly - digital is being associated with bad craftsmanship and this is causing a cultural backlash against digital. This backlash is going to continue to grow.

 

It's not so hard to understand this when we think in terms of cultural phenomena. About 10years ago, there were very few photographers shooting digital. I bought one of the first commercially available DSLRs with interchangeable lenses (the Kodak DSC520) and it cost about twenty thousand dollars as a lease. At the time, I was the cool guy amongst all my film shooting friends. I was an early adopter and on the cutting edge of available technology. Fast forward to 2009, and every housewife has a digital camera and every college student has a DSLR with the ability to change lenses. Digital cameras are now inexpensive and easily accessible. Digital photography has become so common that it's not even cool anymore.

 

"The reports of my death have been exaggerated" - Mark Twain The more "death of film" threads circulating the internet only serve to convince me that the exact opposite is happening. Digital may actually be peaking in terms of cultural cool-factor since it is now universally accepted and easily accessible to a mainstream audience.

[noah_addis]

...Digital photography has become so common that it's not even cool anymore...

 

I'm not sure if I get your point about color negative film. Actually, while there may have been a backlash against it among pro photographers at one time, very many photographers use color negative films now. Especially among medium- and large-format fine art photographers making large gallery prints, it's very common these days.

 

Right now film is much 'cooler' than digital. But who cares? Will the photographs stand the test of time just because they were captured on film and printed in the darkroom?

 

I know that I don't care what's cool. I just use the tools that work for me. I'm not threatened by the fact that I use the same tools that are readily available to the average joe (enough picking on housewives, right?).

 

The increasing accessibility of digital photography has implications far beyond the survival of film (and I do believe film will outlive us all, by the way). The media, and ways in which people view photos, and who are making those photos, has all changed. The fact that a guy in his basement can publish photographs (or writing, or video, etc.) that can instantly have a worldwide reach is what's really new. And the idea that, at least in the US, major newspapers will probably continue to fail is somewhat alarming. Meanwhile the magazines are too busy talking about celebrity gossip to care about what's really happening in the world.

 

All of this means that more and more photos are viewed online. While I personally would rather see a beautiful print (and have people see my work in this way), this may soon be considered an antique notion. Young people these days are used to seeing pretty much everything on screens. So instead of worrying about how images are captured, I spend much more time thinking about how they are shared and viewed.

 

Which is slightly ironic since, while I liked my M8 prints better, I prefer film images when viewed on-screen. The grain adds some atmosphere to what would otherwise be a flat medium.

 

There is a school of thought among photo people these days that because the film image is more precious...that maybe it took more care to make and more investment of time and effort to print...means that film shooters may be more hung up on the process and not on the content and meaning of the photograph. This also gets into the issue of photography as a conceptual art vs. a tactile craft. But books could be written on that topic...

 

M'ate--I shoot a lot I guess, I'm fairly busy:D Trust me the numbers work for me. But I don't want to steer the thread in the wrong direction...the aesthetic concerns were my main reason for sticking with digital.

[Gentleman Villain]

I'm not sure if I get your point about color negative film. Actually, while there may have been a backlash against it among pro photographers at one time, very many photographers use color negative films now. Especially among medium- and large-format fine art photographers making large gallery prints, it's very common these days.

 

 

That's right...Color negative was not the preferred medium for "art" photographers and other discerning professionals when it's look was commonly associated with housewives and the mainstream public. But, now color negative is popular with "art" photographers since it's look is no longer considered common. Color negative experienced a resurgence in popularity with the art gallery crowd partly as a backlash to the digital look that is now the new mainstream.

 

I'm not arguing that one is better than the other....I'm just saying that more people will continue to adopt film because they'll see it as a backlash against what is becoming the mainstream digital look.

[kenneth]

i've got an m6 and i love it, but i never even considered the m8 because it didn't have a full frame sensor. i'm not in a position to buy more lenses cause we know how much that can cost.

 

plus, because i've only been shooting with a leica since 2007, i'm not very good at it, i've been using slr and dslr the whole time. the only way to get better on the leica is to shoot more. in australia, film isn't cheap, developing and printing is $10AUD/roll if you want your film done properly. which i am happy to pay because i love shooting with the m6.

 

but now, the m9 has come along, and when i eventually can afford one, i can shoot as much as i like, practice/learn as much as i like and not pay a single dollar to see results.

 

am i the only one in this position? is the m9 going to kill film? or at least put a big dent in its existence? i personally hope not, but it's a dieing medium. for someone like me who isn't very good, it's easier, and cheaper to shoot in digital knowing the m9 gives quality like the traditional leicas. what your opinion?

I too am an M6 owner and, no I do not think the M9 will kill film but if it did we can always stockpile film in a fridge and use coffee as a film developer

 

Shutterbug: Coffee, Tea, Or Vitamin C

[hamey]

No.

 

if there is anything the M9 will kill, is the M8.

 

Going by the used prices asking for the M8, it's

started already.

 

Ken.

[cheewai_m6]

ok, what i meant was, will the m9 kill film amongst leica users. from what's been said, obviously it won't die. there is a smoothness and charm about film which i know digital can't replicate. digital is just 0 and 1 code/signal. analog is analog.

[kenneth]

ok, what i meant was, will the m9 kill film amongst leica users. from what's been said, obviously it won't die. there is a smoothness and charm about film which i know digital can't replicate. digital is just 0 and 1 code/signal. analog is analog.

I should say that very quietly if I were you unless the digital police will be at you. I do agree with you however. I am certainly glad I don't have any money tied up in an M8

[storybrown]

I agree with hamey: it won't bother film, but it has finished the M8s. And it will help Leica.

[noah_addis]

That's right...Color negative was not the preferred medium for "art" photographers and other discerning professionals when it's look was commonly associated with housewives and the mainstream public. But, now color negative is popular with "art" photographers since it's look is no longer considered common. Color negative experienced a resurgence in popularity with the art gallery crowd partly as a backlash to the digital look that is now the new mainstream.

 

I'm not arguing that one is better than the other....I'm just saying that more people will continue to adopt film because they'll see it as a backlash against what is becoming the mainstream digital look.

 

I'm not sure I totally agree, but it may just be a difference of opinion. It may be that art photographers (along with some fashion and commercial shooters) switched to color neg for other reasons. First, there was a shift in the conceptual/fine-art photography world back to color from B&W. Second, inexpensive and good scanning equipment made it possible to make very good, very large digital C prints. (And many C-prints you see in galleries these days were made digitally, not on a traditional enlarger.) And finally, the popular look these days is mostly a high-dynamic range, soft color look at which color negative film excels.

 

But anyway, you may be right. But based on your ideas, film will have a resurgence once digital becomes too mainstream. But after a while digital will be so 'uncool' that it will be cool again and have its own resurgence!

 

I can't keep track of it all. Think I'll go take some photographs.

[Janet]

The additional price of an M9 is about equal to 300 rolls of film bought, developed, printed 5x7, and scanned at my local lab using a fuji frontier mini lab. The 10x15's are absolutely fantastic. When I calculate in the additional printing of 3600 5x7's from the M9 this takes the rolls of processed film out to about 450 rolls of 36 exposure.

 

I have not even touched on the loss of time in my life an M9 would suck out of me as I am chained to a computer doing raw development and then self printing.

[ndjambrose]

The M9 is not going to kill film. It's not even going to dent it.

 

In comparison to the amount of film sold worldwide, the penetration of digital relative to the size of the film market, and the miniscule size of the the M9 market relative to the digital market as a whole..... it's impact will be absolutely imperceptible.

 

Don't forget also that the photography sector is the smallest user of film. The cinema sector is where the action happens, and any economies of scale or trends in supply are felt in that industry long before the average home photographer makes any kind of impact.

 

Plus I think it's misleading to think that camera formats or choice of media are an either/or thing. I have an M8 (and will probably get an M9 in time) but it doesn't stop me using film. In fact, for the last two years I've shot an average of two rolls a day, every day, even though I have more digital cameras at my disposal than many other folks.

[xjr]

On he contrary......it will revive it !

[Guest AgXlove]

I'd say it is another nail in the coffin, but not the final one.

 

There are still reasons for shooting film, and the M9 does not replace those (e.g. the "look" and "feel" of the whole process, the initial $$$ outlay, people who like "real" B&W, and those who shoot chromes - at least those are my reasons why I'll still be keeping my film cameras).

 

Agreed.

 

I doubt that digital will ever cause film to become 100% extinct. I expect more emulsions to go the way of Tech Pan and Kodachrome but some emulsions will soldier on (Tri-X and Velvia, perhaps).

 

7x17 sheet film is still available; so is 8x10, 5x7 and 4x5. If those emulsion sizes can survive, select 35mm emulsions should survive.

 

120 and 220 have taken the worst beatings of all thanks to digital; if any formats of film disappear, I'd expect it to be 120/220. But then there's a viable market for used medium format cameras & lenses, so 120/220 may well survive, albeit in a smaller number of choices in emulsions.

 

I read somewhere that the M9 has taken the U.S. Leica market by storm - but that in the Asian markets, the M7 & MP prevail over the M9 in terms of sales numbers. I would imagine that the number of Leica buyers/users in Asia is larger than their U.S. bretheren (perhaps not, although I have no numbers to base that on) - but it would appear that sales of new M7s and MPs is far from over, thanks to our friends in Asia.

 

The fact that film Leicas outsell the M9 in Asia says something about the American mindset (as well as the Asian mindset) in regard to photography equipment, process, astetics and worldview. As regarding the European market for new Leica camera bodies, I would guess that it is roughly similar to the U.S. market; again, I have no statistics available - does anyone else have these numbers?

 

Make of that difference what you will, but it represents some kind of commentary on the "digital is better/film is better" debate.

 

Just my thoughts on "the death of film photography," which we have been told is imminent - in every monthly issue of certain photography magazines for the last ten years...

 

As for me, I'm still wrestling with the question: Would I rather have an M9, or another lens and a few hundred rolls of Tri-X for my MP?

 

Devil of a choice, that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Rolo]

Just watched a programme on Sky Arts 1 where the artist John Myatt was painting a portrait of the world famous photographer David Bailey in the style of Albert Giacometti. Don't shoot the messenger, as I struggle to upgrade my M8 ! :

 

Myatt asked Bailey "what do you think of digital photography ?"

 

 

Bailey responded - "it's like socialism, it brings everyone down to the same level".

 

He went on to say - "digital photography is good because it's enabled the general masses to take better photographs".

 

Who the hell does he think he is ? Let him come here and say that !