Glad I decided to get an M7 instead of the Fuji X-T1!

[Godfrey]

Hi everyone. I'm not sure who to respond to first, but I guess I'll thank everyone for looking and commenting, and especially mfogiel for the Diafine developing tip.

Maybe I should clarify that I'm not getting rid of my digital cameras, and I'm not saying I'm unsatisfied with all the image captures I get with them. So, yes, I came across with a little too much newbie enthusiasm, but it was well intentioned.

What I found most interesting was that as far as ease of use goes, I was surprised that a manual focussing rangefinder camera loaded with a classic film utilized in manual exposure mode was really easy to get used to, and the images from day 1 were pretty much good to go without any more effort than with the latest in camera technology. Pure IQ comparisons may be a lost cause, but i previously thought that the the simple snapshot taking process had improved more than this over the last, what 80 years or so?

It seems I may have been wrong, but I also assumed that the general consensus on the forum here was that basic manual rangefinders are not anachronisms, they actually work extremely well.

Since the only readily available digital rangefinders are pretty much unattainable to most people because of price issues, the film vs. digital thing probably got a little more emphasis than I intended. Yes, i probably would like an M or ME, but it ain't happening anytime soon.

Anyway, thanks and happy shooting!

Bravo! Sensibly stated.

Frankly, I find the hullabaloo over fancy convenience features like triple-whammy-continuous-follow-focus-tracking-AF much ado over nothing a great deal of the time, and far more intrusive into my working methodology than whether my camera has a digital sensor or film in it. The basics of a fine, working 35mm type camera pretty much jelled and formalized sometime between the 1950s and 1970s; most of what's come after has been convenience, automation, and the change of capture medium.

Tri-X has a particular look and feel that, if you like it, is unique and difficult to simulate. So why simulate it? Just use Tri-X if that's what you want.

Rendering B&W is very different from shooting with B&W film, but what comes out of the process is equally rewarding to me, when I've done it right. I find it just as easy to do it wrong with film as I do with digital, if not more so.

onwards,
G

 

[Takkun]

Bravo! Sensibly stated.

Frankly, I find the hullabaloo over fancy convenience features like triple-whammy-continuous-follow-focus-tracking-AF much ado over nothing a great deal of the time, and far more intrusive into my working methodology than whether my camera has a digital sensor or film in it. The basics of a fine, working 35mm type camera pretty much jelled and formalized sometime between the 1950s and 1970s; most of what's come after has been convenience, automation, and the change of capture medium.

Tri-X has a particular look and feel that, if you like it, is unique and difficult to simulate. So why simulate it? Just use Tri-X if that's what you want.

Rendering B&W is very different from shooting with B&W film, but what comes out of the process is equally rewarding to me, when I've done it right. I find it just as easy to do it wrong with film as I do with digital, if not more so.

onwards,
G

Agreed. I think this thread is more about RF versus advanced AF compact and the effect on shooting style, and not film/digital. As I posted in another thread, I traded up my Fuji for an M8 and worried a lot if I'd miss AF, or even the clever features like in-camera panorama, built-in flash, macro modes, etc. Turns out I probably don't. I'm no luddite, but I'm a minimalist and really fussy about learning new gadgets despite my youthful age, and since I've been doing just fine with a film RF, a digital one suits me fine. I personally hate developing, printing and scanning, but the ease of use is why I come back to RFs over even my old Nikon film cameras. Modern rangefinders and the early-70s-era SLRs hit that sweet spot between convenience and being a pain to figure out the 'convenient' features.
I've gotten plenty of great shots with Nikons, disposables, and iPhones, but for some of us, half the fun of photography is the joy of using a fun camera.

And I never could really get evaluative metering on the Fuji to work for me, anyway...

 

[cosmonaut]

What Godfrey said. I find myself shooting more film lately as digital is getting so easy it's not as challenging as film. I just ordered some Velvia 50 and Ektar for my Mamiya and also a wide lens. Time to slow down and use the old brain some.

 

[Pete B]

I will give you an idea. You seem to be working as lot in strong light, just like me, and you seem to like Tri X and M7, like me.
Here's the idea:
1- set your M7 to AE
2- set EI to 500, or if not satisfied with shadow detail, to 250
3- Put Tri X inside
4- buy 4 1 liter bottles with swing cap
5- buy a gallon pack of Diafine
6- dissolve separately part A and part B, pour each into the bottles and label carefully. Use the first bottle for developing and the second bottle for adding liquid to the first one as it becomes depleted over time.
7- buy some coffee filters for filtering the developer every now and then
8- this is the most important part: when developing, agitate 10 secs every 30 secs, otherwise you will get bromide drag
9- I develop most films 4+4 mins, Acros 5+5 mins, you can test 3+3mins for Tri X, should be sufficient
10 - let me know how you like the results

Tri X in Diafine, EI 250

2008080305 by mfogiel, on Flickr

Aaaargh! This has me confused! I've seen countless posts excited about Tri-X at EI 1000-1600, and had settled on trying it at EI 1250. Now here you are advising EI 500 and even 250. There's no denighing these excellent results, and those of your previous posts. What am I missing??
Pete

 

[Ansel]

Film and digital have completely different aesthetics and completely different cameras/processes. They will always be discussed and compared.

 

[Pete B]

Well, regarding tri-x in Diafine, lots of opinions on EI rating here. So, not so off topic as you may initially think. I sold 2 M9s replacing them with 2 MPs because I prefer the form factor of the film Ms, and the simplicity of using film. Sunny 16, TriX and Diafine - simpler still.
Pete

 

[GaryLH]

Yes... yes we DO!!

*gets popcorn*

Dave

Lol. After Joe's comment it will stay civil at least 🙂. Pass the popcorn.

Gary

 

[mfogiel]

@Pete B
It's not that Diafine can do everything well, but if your primary interest is to compress wide tonal range into what film can reproduce, then it does the job. Without going too much into technicalities, people in the know claim that true EI of Tri-X in Diafine is 400. I have shot it down to EI 100, and I could still extract the tonal range through scanning. Then, you can adjust the contrast in PS. Obviously, you are bound to get a somewhat denser negative and less sharpness. The tonal compression is often resulting from use of two bath developers.

 

[GaryLH]

i'm glad that you are pleased with your decision…but this stuff has been hashed out in great detail already…do we really need another digital vs. film thread?

I think constructive critism is fine. I just don't appreciate it when it gets to the point of flame wars and bashing.

There are merits to film and digital.. At the end of the day as Godfrey has basically said it is all about the image and how comfortable u are w/ the equipment.

Gary

 

[GaryLH]

To op

I like first shot the best

Gary

 

[MCTuomey]

Areyukas - glad you're pleased with your M7 and Tri-X. Like you, I shoot a lot of digital and also recently returned to shooting B&W film in an M-body. Joy to use and delightful results. I'm playing with higher speed films, T-Max and Delta 3200, for even more "imperfection" that can't be emulated digitally, at least not by me. And, yes, better detail and luminosity in the highlights.

 

[kbg32]

“…move into the future with some excitement rather than fear and with a more empowered sense of choices, rather than the sense of being of less value.”

- Susan Meiselas

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...p=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=2

 

[Dave Jenkins]

With all respect, the OP's Tri-X shots look overexposed to me.

 

[noisycheese]

I think I unintentionally convinced myself that shooting tri-x and manually setting exposure on my "new" (lightly used) M7 is actually giving me better results in extreme lighting situacions than either of the matrix metered cams I've had for the last couple years.

I go to the Treasure Island flea market from time to time, and have shot there with the em5 + PanaLeica 25/1.4, the Ricoh Gr, and just last weekend with a recently acquired M7 + Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 using Tri-X...

I hate how lifeless the sky looks compared to film, and while I can crank up contrast, the digital noise that I see even at base iso is just not pleasing...

The whole roll just looks awesome, even when going from f/16 outside to f/1.5 inside with mixed lighting, all it took was a few seconds readjusting...

I should also mention I had never shot a rangefinder until a couple weeks ago, so i think i can do better after exploring this Leica/Zeiss/Kodak combo a bit more.

I could have used a filter outside and gone with a little less contrast, but the Tri-X grain adds such nice texture to bits that would just be blown out pixels in a digital capture, that little imperfections seem to add rather than detract from the look...

Wow, now I understand why rangefinders are fun! Why exactly is it that digital is supposed to be an improvement over film?

Congratulations on acquiring you M7 and lens and welcome to the outstanding worlds of rangefinder and film photography!

As you are discovering, Tri-X is a wonderful film for difficult lighting situations - some would contend that Tri-X is the best B&W film for hard, bright light such as direct sunlight and for capturing shadow details in low light.

Tri-X has a legendary ability to record subtle shades of gray and a long exposure curve. It also pushes well up to ISO 1600 and the grain is not objectionable (IMHO) when enlarged to fairly large size (11x14 inches or possibly even larger, depending on the negative).

 

[Keith]

I think it was intended to be an improvement, after all, if it's not, why transition at all? Whether it actually turned out to be an improvement in any way other than convenience (which I think is undeniable, even from a film-only guy like me), is a matter of opinion.

To me it's more to do with a general shift into the electronic era where cars are fuel injected and have computer controlled engine management systems and virtually everything we use has influence from this type of technology.

If the digital sensor hadn't been developed where would film be ... would we be shooting grainless colour images at ISO 6400 if there was no digital? Quite possibly I suspect because the boffins in their labs would have kept trying to improve film emulsions because that's what they do!
😀

 

[Wburgess]

To me it's more to do with a general shift into the electronic era where cars are fuel injected and have computer controlled engine management systems and virtually everything we use has influence from this type of technology.

If the digital sensor hadn't been developed where would film be ... would we be shooting grainless colour images at ISO 6400 if there was no digital? Quite possibly I suspect because the boffins in their labs would have kept trying to improve film emulsions because that's what they do!
😀

Now that's a depressing thought, and an interesting thread.

Where would film be now if digital photography hadn't gate crashed the party?

To the op, grab yourself some darkroom equipment, that's where the real fun/frustration begins!

 

[YYV_146]

Congratulations on your good eye and getting an M7. Great camera. I don't think it's a film vs digital thread at all. It's a thread on how to get great B&W images. By any means necessary should be the point, not by any photography philosophy. Those are a dime a dozen. The first thing that jumps out at me is that the Tri-X shots are black and white, while the digital is grey and white. No surprise there, and if you gave me a free paid trip to Paris to come up w/ a reason why people shoot digital B&W, I'm afraid I would not be on that jet. Convenience? Cost? Fear of learning developing (which is not THAT hard and is a blast to do). Nothing resolves the quality issue. That digital landscape shot above is nice, but come on, look at the tonal range. It just isn't there, nor are the deep blacks. And you can't print it on photographic fiber paper, and on and on. But, I should give up on pointing this out. So many people on this forum see what they want to see when it comes to this subject, and that is that.

That wonderful Diafine developed shot reminds me of what I get w/ Acufine, Diafines' kissing cousin. Tight grain, and sharp as a tack w/ beautiful blacks. I still prefer D76 for the tones, but Rodinal, D76 and Acufine are my holy trinity of developers, not necessarily in that order.

By any metric modern digital sensor have a wider dynamic range compared to film. Yes, the forum debates are there - but simply try recovering six stops of shadow without noticable noise from any 135 film. This would simple with a sensor such as that of the A7r and D800. I will agree that film holds more highlight detail than digital, but as long as one meter for the brighter parts of the image, digital has the upper hand in the dynamic range department.

One boosts tonal range on a digital image the same way you tweak contrast on a color image. With digital the advantage is greater since you are shooting in color (M Monochrome aside) and have three channels to work with. Fine tweaking eliminates the need for color filters, and can give files immense, rich tonality.

Also, why is it impossible to print digital files on any type of photo paper? I've made 20*30 digital prints on at least five or six different types of matter paper alone, and of course there is a world of paper offerings out there.

A photo with the Sony A7 and a e43 Summilux. Conversion with Silver EFEX Pro. I might have been going for the tri-X look, sans noise which must be added in the plug-in.

 

[cz23]

By any metric modern digital sensor have a wider dynamic range compared to film. Yes, the forum debates are there - but simply try recovering six stops of shadow without noticable noise from any 135 film. This would simple with a sensor such as that of the A7r and D800. I will agree that film holds more highlight detail than digital, but as long as one meter for the brighter parts of the image, digital has the upper hand in the dynamic range department....

I'm just now dabbling with film, after using it for many years, but being digital-only for the last twelve or so. So although this is an old and tiresome debate, it's new and important for me.

I'm seeing what you say about the difference in post flexibility. But what appeals to me more than shadow treatment is film's expression of lighter tones. I shoot BW only and am completely enamored with the way film handles the upper zones. I've owned many digital cameras, but none (the GR get's closest) has delivered the rich, creamy light grays and whites that I like to see. That, to me, is what sets film apart and has me interested.

John

 

[Spanik]

Or you could have doe the same metering with your digitals or you are compensating the exposure for the film in developping or printing. Incident or reflective of a grey card is essentially the same. There must be a reason photographers have been doing this for ages.

 

[mani]

“…move into the future with some excitement rather than fear and with a more empowered sense of choices, rather than the sense of being of less value.”

- Susan Meiselas

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...p=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=2

Just to be clear, that discussion is not about film vs digital: Susan Meiselas is not equating the past with film and the future with digital, she is talking about the transformation in the definition of a (professional) photographer, and how they need to adapt to a changing photographic landscape. When she happens to mention film at one point, she is using it as an analogy.

Film and digital are no more 'past and future' than oil painting vs Paintshop Pro.