Somehow I missed this thread. Just wanted to chime in from a fellow DSLR photographer (5D/1Ds + great glass) that after I bought a M7 and 35mm Summilux I wound up reaching for my Leica for almost every situation where I was taking pictures for some reason for keepsakes, for a looong time. Friggn' love it. Only downside was I got to taste Kodachrome for a couple years right before it was taken away
Somehow I missed this thread. ...after I bought a M7 and 35mm Summilux I wound up reaching for my Leica for almost every situation where I was taking pictures for some reason...
I'm experiencing the same thing. Having trouble finding the enthusiasm for SLR photography these days. It's as though my interest has undergone a serious distillation. Thanks for sharing!
I'm experiencing the same thing. Having trouble finding the enthusiasm for SLR photography these days. It's as though my interest has undergone a serious distillation. Thanks for sharing!
Wait till you try Large Format, that had a massive impact on the way I photograph
This is a 100% crop from a Planar 45mm F2 wide open and handheld (no artistic intent)
Bit of a pig to focus with just a "squidgy" little wheel to operate but I understand a new full focusing wheel is now available from a few manufactures and indeed I have one on order. More on this later.
Got some more pics back. Shot quite a few rolls of Kodak BW400CN chromogenic film (like XP2 Super) but I definitely see a difference in the response of the two now. There's something about the curve of BW400CN that is not quite right, to my eye:
That was the magic 90mm Summicron ASPH. I like the photo, but I had to actually add contrast to the skin to make a lot of middle-grey tonality go away, you know how when you remove too much contrast and everything becomes middling and it looks wrong? I think I'll stick with XP2.
I swear I didn't jack with the contrast! It's a much different curve than Tri-X.
I was reading the little paper than comes in a box of XP2 and Ilford tell you you are free to expose between 50 and 800 and you should just develop normally and—somehow—it all works out in the end. I'm not positive how. They actively discourage and push/pull processing believe it or not. I'm trying to do more testing on this, but it could be like them saying to adjust your ASA like you would a digicam and if it's within that range, there should be enough info there to make a print. Now this doesn't assume I'm scanning without ever making a print, but I have to say, of the 5 rolls of XP2 I got developed, they all looked correctly exposed and a couple of them were exposed for 800 and even 1600.
It's not magic film, but it's great to be able to adjust your meter bias on the fly
From the XP2 Fact Sheet:
"No matter which film speed is chosen, standard C41 processing is recommended."
Interesting. I somehow got it in my head that ISO 6400 was mandatory for the poorly lit interiors I shoot. Having just sold all my DSLRs, I'm finding I have plenty of light at ISO 640, f/1.4 or 2.0 and 1/60s on XP2. Is it the spot metering of the M6 or have I just grown up? I seem to have all sorts of memories of my Canon 30D with f/1.4 lenses choking at 1600 ISO and 1/15s or 1/30s. I'll post pics when I'm back in the states and get these boys developed.
Thinking about it for a minute, I think the automation I was using (aperture priority probably) was yielding all kinds of wrong exposures. Honestly, I'm loving all-manual.
Xp2
Just shot my first couple of rolls of XP2. Very fun, I don't think I've seen digital b&w's that were this appealing to me.
shot with my Pentax K1000 and 3 different SMC-M lenses.
I'm interested to hear about people such as yourself who have gone back to film. Sometimes when I'm shooting my K1000 and I get the results I think man, this is all I need. But then I remember that film is useless above ISO 400, lol. And even 400 film looks about like 3200 on my 5DII. And at the rate I shoot digital, I'd be bankrupted by film and processing costs. Although my kids would probably prefer me to shoot less!
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Nice tonality in those. I got excited that that was XP2 until I scrolled down further. I truly haven't gone back to film out of some love for film, mostly just to get in on the ground floor of Leica M.
Nice tonality in those. I got excited that that was XP2 until I scrolled down further.
What is that supposed to mean?
I truly haven't gone back to film out of some love for film, mostly just to get in on the ground floor of Leica M.
Makes sense, and it is tempting, although I'm not there yet financially. But if I was, I'd go for a film Leica too. I mean if it's full manual, it may as well be film, right? Leica digital bodies aren't able to hang with Canikon in the upper ISO's, but I wonder how the M9 compares from 100-400.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Makes sense, and it is tempting, although I'm not there yet financially. But if I was, I'd go for a film Leica too. I mean if it's full manual, it may as well be film, right? Leica digital bodies aren't able to hang with Canikon in the upper ISO's, but I wonder how the M9 compares from 100-400.
What I meant was that I was expecting the really nice photos you posted to be film. I had thought, "What nice tonality and resolution" and was slightly crestfallen when I scrolled down and read it was the digital Pentax.
on the ISO front, I had thought that ISO 6400 was essential. I've since revised this "requirement".
What I meant was that I was expecting the really nice photos you posted to be film. I had thought, "What nice tonality and resolution" and was slightly crestfallen when I scrolled down and read it was the digital Pentax.
Oh, haha. Pick your crest back up and check out the blazing glory of the Pentax K1000. Those shots were XP2 400.
on the ISO front, I had thought that ISO 6400 was essential. I've since revised this "requirement".
Well it is if you want to shoot night or indoor sports. High ISO definitely has its place, which is why I'll never leave digital.
ISO 1600:
ISO 3200:
But I will continue to shoot film every now and then for a change of pace. It definitely has a unique look.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Earlier this year, I went to Cambodia for about a week. I had been bitten very badly by the film bug (its a cyclic thing for me) and I decided to go back to the day when I had a minolta SLR and film. Only now I had a Nikon N80 (which I wanted ever since I wanted one.)
I sincerely intended to shoot the entire trip on film, but by the end, I realized that digital is way better for me. For one thing, during the day, ISO200 speed film is great, but then at night, I was unable to find anything over ISO800, or even worse, I'd have switched rolls earlier and then wind up in the dark with 27 shots of ISO200 left in the camera and a desire to shoot some dancers without calling it "abstract art." Being able to switch ISO at any time is something I can't live without. Eventually I shot digital at night and film during the day. Worked pretty well for the most part.
But then there is the editing ability as well. Film has a great look, and one that I often spend 10 minutes trying to recreate on a photo, but at the same time, it is great to be able to change a color photo to black and white or fix a color shift, or even do something creative.
And finally, with digital, I have complete control over the entire process. How many people still have a dark room ready to go? I move around too much to do that though it was fun.
Still, for me, film cameras give me a bad case of Iwantitus. I've got an N80, an FM2, two Holga 135's, a canon kit that I don't use much,
but I still want an F4, a Rollie35, a FED3, a TLR camera, a . . . . .
and the list goes on. Fliping actually switchs and levers and dials is so much more cooler than pressing a button. I do enjoy shooting film!
Agreed, the need to switch it up is a constant bring-down. I think that's why I've more or less standardized on XP2, since I can successfully switch from 50-800 on the fly with good results. Having said that, I'm about 2/3 saved up for an M9 (which I'm half-hoping will be an M9.2 by that time) so I should hope to have my cake and eat it too.
Agreed, the need to switch it up is a constant bring-down. I think that's why I've more or less standardized on XP2, since I can successfully switch from 50-800 on the fly with good results. Having said that, I'm about 2/3 saved up for an M9 (which I'm half-hoping will be an M9.2 by that time) so I should hope to have my cake and eat it too.
Yes, I do have a desire for an M9 as well too! It is too bad that it is so expensive. I wasn't interesting in the M8 since it was only an APS sensor, and I'm tired of the "zoom" effect of smaller sensors on lenses. I'm a bit of a wide angle guy favoring the 20-30mm range (as shot on a 35mm film camera.) Once Leica went FF, I was a lot more interested save for the price tag. About $2K more than I'm willing to spend right now, especially since I don't have a lens for it!
Goood luck and can't wait to see what you do with you M9 when you get it.
Comments
Sam
I'm experiencing the same thing. Having trouble finding the enthusiasm for SLR photography these days. It's as though my interest has undergone a serious distillation. Thanks for sharing!
Wait till you try Large Format, that had a massive impact on the way I photograph
Here's a link to a few shots http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4foto_grafs/sets/72157623122625175/
This is a 100% crop from a Planar 45mm F2 wide open and handheld (no artistic intent)
Bit of a pig to focus with just a "squidgy" little wheel to operate but I understand a new full focusing wheel is now available from a few manufactures and indeed I have one on order. More on this later.
That was the magic 90mm Summicron ASPH. I like the photo, but I had to actually add contrast to the skin to make a lot of middle-grey tonality go away, you know how when you remove too much contrast and everything becomes middling and it looks wrong? I think I'll stick with XP2.
I've not used XP2. Are you saying that on one roll you can alter the ISO according to the conditions and within set parameters i.e. 200-800?
Intrigued.
Just ordered a batch - thanks
Thinking about it for a minute, I think the automation I was using (aperture priority probably) was yielding all kinds of wrong exposures. Honestly, I'm loving all-manual.
Just shot my first couple of rolls of XP2. Very fun, I don't think I've seen digital b&w's that were this appealing to me.
shot with my Pentax K1000 and 3 different SMC-M lenses.
I'm interested to hear about people such as yourself who have gone back to film. Sometimes when I'm shooting my K1000 and I get the results I think man, this is all I need. But then I remember that film is useless above ISO 400, lol. And even 400 film looks about like 3200 on my 5DII. And at the rate I shoot digital, I'd be bankrupted by film and processing costs. Although my kids would probably prefer me to shoot less!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
What is that supposed to mean?
Makes sense, and it is tempting, although I'm not there yet financially. But if I was, I'd go for a film Leica too. I mean if it's full manual, it may as well be film, right? Leica digital bodies aren't able to hang with Canikon in the upper ISO's, but I wonder how the M9 compares from 100-400.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
What I meant was that I was expecting the really nice photos you posted to be film. I had thought, "What nice tonality and resolution" and was slightly crestfallen when I scrolled down and read it was the digital Pentax.
on the ISO front, I had thought that ISO 6400 was essential. I've since revised this "requirement".
Oh, haha. Pick your crest back up and check out the blazing glory of the Pentax K1000. Those shots were XP2 400.
Well it is if you want to shoot night or indoor sports. High ISO definitely has its place, which is why I'll never leave digital.
ISO 1600:
ISO 3200:
But I will continue to shoot film every now and then for a change of pace. It definitely has a unique look.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I sincerely intended to shoot the entire trip on film, but by the end, I realized that digital is way better for me. For one thing, during the day, ISO200 speed film is great, but then at night, I was unable to find anything over ISO800, or even worse, I'd have switched rolls earlier and then wind up in the dark with 27 shots of ISO200 left in the camera and a desire to shoot some dancers without calling it "abstract art." Being able to switch ISO at any time is something I can't live without. Eventually I shot digital at night and film during the day. Worked pretty well for the most part.
But then there is the editing ability as well. Film has a great look, and one that I often spend 10 minutes trying to recreate on a photo, but at the same time, it is great to be able to change a color photo to black and white or fix a color shift, or even do something creative.
And finally, with digital, I have complete control over the entire process. How many people still have a dark room ready to go? I move around too much to do that though it was fun.
Still, for me, film cameras give me a bad case of Iwantitus. I've got an N80, an FM2, two Holga 135's, a canon kit that I don't use much,
but I still want an F4, a Rollie35, a FED3, a TLR camera, a . . . . .
and the list goes on. Fliping actually switchs and levers and dials is so much more cooler than pressing a button. I do enjoy shooting film!
Yes, I do have a desire for an M9 as well too! It is too bad that it is so expensive. I wasn't interesting in the M8 since it was only an APS sensor, and I'm tired of the "zoom" effect of smaller sensors on lenses. I'm a bit of a wide angle guy favoring the 20-30mm range (as shot on a 35mm film camera.) Once Leica went FF, I was a lot more interested save for the price tag. About $2K more than I'm willing to spend right now, especially since I don't have a lens for it!
Goood luck and can't wait to see what you do with you M9 when you get it.