Are we Leica users kidding ourselves??

R

rayfoxlee

Raymondo
Local time
7:14 PM
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
258
After many years of looking and wondering about Leica, 18 months ago I bought a really nice M2 with rigid Summicron and 90 mm screw Elmar, having owned and sold 4 rolleis, 2 nikons and many others besides in 40 years of photography. After an expensive overhaul, I have been seduced by the quality of the M2 and the optics. It is simply a dream to use - apart from slip-ups with forgetting to focus in the heat of the moment (yes, as an slr user, I found this easy to do!), forgetting to transfer settings from CV meter to lens, forgetting to set the correct shutter speed etc etc., the results do do justice to the fine engineering. At least, they do when I look at the prints produced by the mini-lab. The problems start when I try to get top-notch enlargements from scanned negs (Coolscan V ED), and here the inevitable question arises about the quality from all of the expensive glass when compared to my Samsung GX10 digital slr RAW digital negs. Up to my max size of A4, it is difficult not to be impressed with the digital output, even in B&W. I have read all of the arguments about digital vs analogue mono work and sometimes I have struggled with getting the tonality of digital mono to look 'right', but recently I have started to question whether the film-based Leica 'story' can hold it's own much longer against the digital revolution - unless one pays the arm-and-a-leg prices demanded for an M8. A RAW file shot inside the Louvre and converted to B&W and printed on Ilford Galerie Smooth Fine Art paper has all the wonderful creamy tonality of a wet process print.:bang:

So, my question is this: Is the experience of using a film Leica rather like driving a luxury car - is the benefit all in the driving, rather than arriving at the destination? For those who seek the best quality final result, can the cost of Leica analogue equipment be justified against the new boys from the digital revolution?

And reason for this post? I am trying very hard to resist the siren call of an M7! All that lovely in-built metering and aperture priority technology. I'm not convinced that 'because it's worth it' cuts much ice, apart from the user experience. What do you all think?

Happy New Year to you all!

Ray
 
A lot of points in there to answer but I will touch a few. Justify? No, I cannot justify the many thousands of dollars I have spent on my M6 and my Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses, it is a lot of money for something that basically you can get from a much cheaper camera but there are perks of course. Think of it like this, one fellow drives a Ford Focus, a really fun car to drive and something everyone can have and will get you where you are going. Fellow number two drives a Maserati Gran Turismo and I guess you could say its a fun car to drive too, and those looks will melt your skin, not to mention it will also get you where you are going. Why buy the more Maserati? Because it touches something in you that the Focus might not. Same thing for the Leica. I have a Bessa r2a and in some ways it is technically better then my M6 but it just did not push my buttons and even as I considered being more practical and selling my M6 and just using the Bessa I could not do it. I like the heritage a name like Leica or Zeiss evokes, I like the way the equipment handles, and as I was using my M6 today out in the streets I feel at one with the camera, all the functions during taking a picture are second nature and I dont ever really remember focusing or setting exposure or that anymore, yet my pictures come out perfectly exposed and in focus. When I use my Canon 20D and even my Ricoh GRD I often feel the camera is in my way and that is bad for my "zen".

The camera and lenses just snap with me, maybe it cant stand up to the image quality of digital now a day mostly because you are comparing a 35mm negative to an imaging sensor that is able to touch medium format film quality, but still....from my cold dead hands.
 
Last edited:
You need to get to the point where your eyes, your brain on a subconcious level, and your hands become the automation. You get to the point where you know what the light is in Walmart or on the shady side of the street. It's the same as it was the last 852 times you were there. Why waste time metering? Always keep your lens focussed near infinity when you're out and about. Now you always know which direction to turn the lens. When the images in the rangefinder coincide stop fiddling with the focus. User experience is no big deal. Remember the first time you tried to drive a car? The first time you drove a stick shift? Compared to that shooting a Leica is simple and there's no chance of killing anybody.

Then ask yourself where those raw files will be in 50 years. I can quickly look through a stack of contact sheets from the 1960's, the strips are numbered to match the negative sleeves, the negatives print as well as they used to, and I can have a damp RC print ten minutes later, or a double weight fiber print in the wash. In the last couple of months I've sold a dozen prints of Miccosukee and Seminole Indians shot in the mid 1970's and hardly a month goes by when I don't sell a print of Janis Joplin that I shot in the 60's.

The digital revolution has made it possible for more people to find the pictures. If they ONLY existed as digital files I'm not sure that I could find them. Or that they'd still exist.
 
Last edited:
I am driving a used Mercedes or BMW [it seems] as it pertains to cameras and lenses. It still is fun to do, and it gives me the "Maserati Feel" without getting a Maserati. I have been buying vintage lenses and not new lenses for Leica.
 
I've been using 35mm since i purchased a Contaflex used in 1958 becuase I couldn't affird an M3.
After using two nikon F's for News Photogrphy I eventually acquired an M3 kit just becuase I wanted one for low light people work.
My prgression was M3 to M6 Classic to M7 of which I now have two.
It's really a matter of how you do your photography and what you like. In my case I like to concntrate on the right moment, composition and not concern myself with exposure and I like an internal meter.
You need to figure out how you want to do your photogrphy and if something in your M2 hinders that, than an M7 could possibly help.-Dick
 
raid said:
I am driving a used Mercedes or BMW [it seems] as it pertains to cameras and lenses. It still is fun to do, and it gives me the "Maserati Feel" without getting a Maserati. I have been buying vintage lenses and not new lenses for Leica.
Click to expand...

Most of us are it would seem, all my Leica stuff is used too, which takes some of the bite out of those prices. And besides, the older Maserati's were better ;)
 
rayfoxlee,

The minute you mentioned scanned negs and enlarged prints based on them you have already missed the point. You have forced a modern technology onto something of yesteryears which it was not designed for. Ask the same question again once you have done some hand prints the old fashioned way then you are qualified to ask the same question again. Then you will also appreciate what we meant by shadow details and creamy effect. Then you can compare them to your RAW images and come back to this thread again. Do some 16x20 prints (or bigger) and talk again. A4 size can hardly get the best out of your lenses. We await your response.
 
I used an M6 this past summer And have to say the way the camera functions in the hand made me think more about the photographs I was taking.You have to acually work with the meter in the camera instead of the meter and camera doing all the work as with a modern say DSLR.The M6 just had a mystique all its own.
 
I agree with Windscale. If I did not have the capability to do wet prints, I'd probably sell my film cameras. Honestly, I get nicer digital files by scanning a wet print than by scanning the neg.
 
As far as I am concerned, the most beautiful B&W comes from the darkroom.
I have tried the hybrid way (Coolscan VED). For me it was no way.
VED sold. I know it is all subjective and personal but I love those (matt) wet prints.

PS : go for the M7 :)
 
I'm of the opinion that b&w negatives, especially conventional chemistry' negatives and scanners are not a happy mixture. I once read a convincing explanation in AP (by Roger Hicks) as to why scanned negs are likely to appear extremely grainy, and this matched my own experience (at that time using Canon EOS film SLRs, good quality (L) zooms and good primes, and Delta 100/400 film). You'll get better scans with chromogenic b&w film. But all that said, it's quite likely that your best mono prints will be via wet printing.

When it comes to colour, however, it's quite possible that having a slide professionally scanned & then printed may well be better than traditional 'prints from slides' techology, e.g. Cibachroome. (Can you still get Cibachrome, in fact?)
 
No, we are not kidding ourselves. I use kit that 'feels right' because I enjoy it more and am more inclined to shoot pictures. The Leica M is a PITA for some tasks but perfect for others - far better than any SLR or DLSR for that matter, just as the converse can be equally true. If the end result is an image that you would not have taken otherwise it has to be working for you. I also prefer wet prints on a number of levels and the best way of achieving those is to shoot film. It does not have to be a comparative thing; this is how I like to work, with my hands and away from a computer. If the results stand up then it is fine. I do not need to know whether I would be better off using a DSR because I dont want to use one. It would interrupt the organic feel to what I enjoy doing if that makes sense. The film M takes the shots I want and I can therefore produce the work I wish to. It ends there. And when I am not shooting the M I am shooting something else with film in it unless forced otherwise.
 
You can get Ilfochrome, which is the new name for Cibas. It is often said, that Ilfochromes are among the best possible color print techniques... But a bit expensive. I have done a couple too and I would say it looks great.

Sure there are nice new techniques for "digital" printing too, some are said to be in the same category or maybe better. I've never seen a "digital" print that is close to good traditional prints (except maybe for some exhibition of Polish(?) old steel factories which was like 2m high photos from 4x5 scans).
 
rayfoxlee said:
After many years of looking and wondering about Leica, 18 months ago I bought a really nice M2 with rigid Summicron and 90 mm screw Elmar, having owned and sold 4 rolleis, 2 nikons and many others besides in 40 years of photography. After an expensive overhaul, I have been seduced by the quality of the M2 and the optics. It is simply a dream to use - apart from slip-ups with forgetting to focus in the heat of the moment (yes, as an slr user, I found this easy to do!), forgetting to transfer settings from CV meter to lens, forgetting to set the correct shutter speed etc etc., the results do do justice to the fine engineering. At least, they do when I look at the prints produced by the mini-lab. The problems start when I try to get top-notch enlargements from scanned negs (Coolscan V ED), and here the inevitable question arises about the quality from all of the expensive glass when compared to my Samsung GX10 digital slr RAW digital negs. Up to my max size of A4, it is difficult not to be impressed with the digital output, even in B&W. I have read all of the arguments about digital vs analogue mono work and sometimes I have struggled with getting the tonality of digital mono to look 'right', but recently I have started to question whether the film-based Leica 'story' can hold it's own much longer against the digital revolution - unless one pays the arm-and-a-leg prices demanded for an M8. A RAW file shot inside the Louvre and converted to B&W and printed on Ilford Galerie Smooth Fine Art paper has all the wonderful creamy tonality of a wet process print.:bang:

So, my question is this: Is the experience of using a film Leica rather like driving a luxury car - is the benefit all in the driving, rather than arriving at the destination? For those who seek the best quality final result, can the cost of Leica analogue equipment be justified against the new boys from the digital revolution?

And reason for this post? I am trying very hard to resist the siren call of an M7! All that lovely in-built metering and aperture priority technology. I'm not convinced that 'because it's worth it' cuts much ice, apart from the user experience. What do you all think?

Happy New Year to you all!

Ray
Click to expand...


Hi, Ray...

First of all, it seems that you are trying to compare digital results with the results from the Leica of your choice/film of your choice/lens of your choice...etc. That is a very slippery slope.

Since moving to rangefinders (film-based only), my photography is changing considerably. I just received my Christmas family photos where I used my D2X with both flash and without flash. Comparing them to the images I made with the M3 and 400 color film, I can see why you might be confused about enlarging the film images, etc.

Change your way of thinking. I am using a Summarit 50mm 1.5 lens which allowed me for the first time ever to shoot an event with no flash. I am getting an entirely different look (very retro, with the "leica" glow) and I like it so much better. The softness, the glow, the bokeh, all work together for an image that will not enlarge to 16 x 20 and present itself the same as the images from the D2X...but they are better to my eye!

If you are bent to have large prints, then your selection of lens, film, flash, tripod, location, lighting, etc. will all affect your final image.

That is a road that you can go on if you like...for me, it is more of using the tool available to produce what you want...if the digital results work best for you for certain results, then go for it! I do...but I do not limit myself. I still use the D2X for most of my professional work if the client expects it.

The M3/Summarit/film combination is a heavenly match for me and I will be spending a lot of time getting to know it.

Good luck with resisting the M7, though...it is futile.:D
 
try your negs on fibre based paper and you may have a diff take on the matter. As they say, long after your Samsung becomes a door stop your Leica gear will continue to produce.
 
Trying to find somebody these days who is a master printer at a reasonable price? You want somebody who understands what you're trying to do and what you're expecting to portray with the image. Even if you are the one who shot the image you might make 4 or 5 or more variations before you get what you really want. You won't have many negatives that'll print 8x10 through a number 2 filter, 10 seconds at f/8, and you're done. Not if you want a great print compared to a print that's good enough for your company's newsletter. While it's true that some photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson didn't do their own printing he worked with just one printer for many years and his photographs have a light airy feel to them. The printer knew what Henri wanted. At the other extreme W. Eugene Smith insisted on doing his own printing and would often work for hours printing just one image until he arrived at a print that met his standards, with lots of dark areas with a hint of detail and he'd apply potassium ferracyanide to to lighten some areas while bleaching others back to pure white.

We all do a lot of burning in and dodging, often darkening the edges a bit compared to the majority of the picture. Many of us will use several different variable contrast filters on the same print to change the contrast in various areas of the picture, or go for an essentially low contrast image with a number 1 or 2 filter throughout the lighter and mid tones, then give just enough additional overall exposure through the number 4 filter to get the blacks black rather than dark grey. Like choosing your exposure in the camera it all becomes instinctive after awhile. You give the same negative to five printers and they'll give you five different images because they each see different things in the image. They want to impose their vision on the photograph because they have no idea what your vision is.
 
Yep, it is not automaticly so that you get great prints from the darkroom. You need skill (training) to do that and of course some kind of (good) vision about what you want.
Still wet prints are usually very different from the scanned images, even printed but of course even more when viewed from a monitor. Scans from prints also often differ from neg-scans because of grain aliasing issues with scanners etc...

I wouldn't shoot film with great trouble and passion if I would not print it myself in a dakroom (because it is not realistic in my and many others' case to think I got someone to do it for me as Al kind of told us)... But I guess someone would want to do it anyway and everything doesn't have to be so rationally justified (and maybe there could be some points still, but it is hard for me to understand or agree to them ;) ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom