Black&White Emulsion or Light Sensors?

LeicaLike

Newbie
Local time
6:16 PM
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
8
Location
North-East Dales, UK
Yes, I am now the happy owner of an M7. ...and I've taken some great photos of Jersey (Channel Islands)... but my real passion is Black & White photography.

Now, I would also consider buying an M8 if I could justify it. ...but how can you use an M8 for black & white photography?

...emulsion or light sensors?
 
a light sensor can't match up to the tones you can get on film. That said with the money you have you'd be better thinking big (medium or large format) . Suddenly black and white doesn't exist, there are millions more subtle grey tones than you'd ever seen before. emulsion for me 😉
 
ManGo you forget another point; to prevent further loss of quality, you need to be working in RAW, or else the file is lossy from the outset, so chances are a digital camera doesnt have more capacity than a pocketful of film (else, how many 2GB cards are you gonna need when you could bundle 10 films in your pocket?).

The more and more you alter the image, the more quality is lost - a negative doesnt lose quality if you expose, develop, and archive it correctly.
 
Let us not forget that film has a history of 100 years or so ... digital (light sensor) around 20 years.

Bad comparison! :angel:
 
Yeah, stick with film for now; Leica glass is at the top along with Zeiss M and CV has some great lenses if you need something specialised and don't want to be as spendy. If you need larger print sizes, just use a slow film such as Pan F+, Adox 25, etc., and get meticulous with your processing. Pan F in Rodinal (1:50 or 1:100) or a pyro developer ... or any number of other good developers is lovely stuff.

Larger format is another ballpark of course. If it were me, I would skip medium format and go 4x5. With MF you're on a tripod anyway (at least for scenics, architecture, etc.,) so whynot go 4x5 where you have a wide range of cameras at good prices, huge lens choice and ... once you start working with those big negatives, you'll be hooked.

Just happy to help with the GAS!!! 😀
 
In fact for MF my first camera was the Rolleicord III, cost me £120, and I've shot everything with it handheld, or against my chest, or with the photo's of Tonia in my gallery on a tabletop. So a tripod isn't necessary, but I guess perfect horizon is only possible when everything is nailed to the ground and bubble-levelled.
 
My only issues with the wet process (both film and printing) at home is the disposal of chemicals when depleted and the effect that home processing could have on the septic system (I live in a more rural location).

How do others here, in similar settings, address these issues?..or is it a non-issue?
 
LeicaLike said:
Yes, I am now the happy owner of an M7. ...and I've taken some great photos of Jersey (Channel Islands)... but my real passion is Black & White photography.

Now, I would also consider buying an M8 if I could justify it. ...but how can you use an M8 for black & white photography?

...emulsion or light sensors?

If you already own a M7, film is waaaaaaaay less expensive than a new M8 and I think all would agree that film is the standard to which digital strives currently! [ Also the M8 has a number of issues right now, so I would hold off until the teething pains are over. I estimate it will take 3+ months for all the bugs to be worked out. To hit the Christmas rush, they are letting their most loyal customers pay to Beta test their new camera IMnsHO! 😱]

Also, if you buy a good film scanner, (~$750 for Epson 750 for example), and scan your negatives, you will have a killer digital setup if that is your wish.🙂
 
Mark: "Work" is an offputting word..

Mr. Roberts: That's a good question. Most darkroom chemicals are used in dilutions such that it's not an issue when you are on municipal sewer, but I don't know about septic systems. Most towns/counties have hazardous disposal officers, I would suggest calling your local authorities and asking their recommendation. Also, extension services from a nearby college/university might be a resource.

At the very worst, you might have to store spent chemistry to take to a disposal facility every month or so. Fixer is long lasting, so the amount of spent fixer to be stored would be less than developer. And as far as stopbath goes, just use water. The spent water from that should be no problem, I am thinking.

Earl
 
I think you can get the best tones with oil on canvas, with horsehair brushes.

Some people can do very interesting things with watercolors; acrylics, though, not my thing. Not my kind of emulsion 😀
 
mr. roberts,

If you go to the "Photo Techniques" magazine website an search
'septic system' you'll be offered (at $5.00 ea.) old articles on
just your question. Sorry, I'm still learning about providing links.

I don't have my old copies handy but I do remember reading
in that magazine several times over the years that typical
home darkroom waste volumes pose no threat to your
septic system.

regards
 
Mr. Roberts-
I have a darkroom, a septic system, and a private well, and live above a river... Needless to say I don't want to damage any of those things.
After reading and reading, I decided I was O.K. as long as no fixer goes in the drain, no toner, and developer and stop are mixed together to neutralize them beforehand.
From what I've been able to gather, heavy metals are the largest threat to the biology in your septic tank and the groundwater around your home. Fixer is loaded with silver and selenium toner contains selenium, so they're the largest threat. I take my fixer to a one hour joint that is gracious enough to have it recycled for me, at no cost(!) I save my toner and take it to local household waste pickups. This is not free, of course.
The next threat is PH imbalance. Neutralizing the developer and stop together roughly eliminate this threat to your septic tank. If this doesn't seem like a complete enough solution to you, some printers mix these chemicals together, then allow them to dry and oxidize outdoors. The dried waste is then taken to a landfill.
I also limit myself to two printing sessions per month to minimize my impact.
Unfortunately, really good information on the subject is hard to find. There have been endless discussions on Pnet and APUG about it. I suggest you read everything you can find and decide for yourself.
If you learn something the rest of us should be aware of please post!
 
even though film has that "look" that everybody loves with bw, I think that with resonable amounts of practice you can get results from digital that are ok for bw stuff. I shoot a lot with a 20D and find that my bw conversions after tweeking levels and contrast looks fine for me:

U3840I1163213451.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Ash said:
In fact for MF my first camera was the Rolleicord III, cost me £120, and I've shot everything with it handheld, or against my chest, or with the photo's of Tonia in my gallery on a tabletop. So a tripod isn't necessary, but I guess perfect horizon is only possible when everything is nailed to the ground and bubble-levelled.
Ash: Yes, a MF, esp. TLR handheld is quite workable. I wasn't suggesting it wasn't possible, but it sorta came off that way. Plus, I sorta assumed (yeah, I know ...) that LeicaLike would be doing some work where ultimate quality might necessitate a tripod, anyway, esp. with larger gear.

I find 120 film to be a bit of a PITA. If I'm going large, I prefer sheet film, for a variety of reasons. I do have a roll film adapter for my 4X5 for the times I might need roll film.
 
...thanks for a very interesting synopsis - for somebody who holds his hands up as being new to B&W photography. The reason why I like film is (...and I know that this is a very old debate) because composition is what (I think) photography is all about.

For me; it isn't necessarily the intricate and fine detail that b&w offers - it is the chance to produce something unexpected. When you use a rangefinder like the M7 (in my opinion) you don't have to "select" the best picture you have already taken (as with a digital camera); instead, it is the results that you see - when you receive the prints back - that enable you to reflect upon the image (or visual experience) that you were trying (often unsuccesfully) to capture in the first place.

...otherwise, there would be no purpose in the art of photography. B&W does it for me - maybe its because I'm old enough to remember an entirely b&w world - when TV and 50's photography were both imperfect and b&w. I would be very interested tp hear the opinions of a relatively young photographer - particularly with regard to the relevance of b&w in the modern world.

...sorry if this all sounds a bit Arty!
 
Back
Top Bottom