If you shoot 35mm film and scan, would love your input.

R

rf1552

Member
Local time
12:02 PM
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
44
Hi guys,
Im struggling over switching from digital to film. Im lucky to be able to choose between the M9 and the M6 classic. I've used mostly digital cameras (currently have M8) but the experience of shooting with a RF film body really interests me. I own a 35mm 'cron ASPH and a 28mm elmarit ASPH.

The problem is that the scanning process and developing negatives seems cumbersome. I hear repeatedly that scanning negatives is really annoying.

My plan is to develop my film at Costco with a low res CD scan, then pick the best ones and scan negatives in a plustek 7600 SE scanner at home. I understand the benefits and disadvantages of shooting film and the benefits and disavantages of digital.

So i'd love to hear thoughts from anyone that has been or is in the same situation. Would you go M9 or would you go M6?

by the way, I do exhibit in galleries occasionally and will enlarge photos to around 20x30"and im guessing that I would shoot about 2-3 rolls per week.
 
Don't rely on Costco being around forever.

I shoot film because I like developing B+W. I scan most myself, with a Nikon 5000ED and automatic roll feeder. If you know your ways around computers, scanning is no big deal, really, and serious editing and post takes just as much time as with digital. The scanning part is the least of the work.

Roland.
 
I don't quite understand the either/or scenario, especially since you will be staying with Leica anyway, and for the most part the same lenses can be used on both the M9 and M6. If this were my dilemma and I had the funds for an M9, I would look hard for a gently used M9 and use the money saved on an M6. I guess what I'm saying is that, for my perspective, anyone who can afford an M9 likely has the means to afford an M6 too.

On the other hand, the prospect of buying an M6 and having all that money left over for lenses and accessories for it does sound appealing!

I love shooting film and almost always grab a film camera when I go out to shoot, but I would never get rid of my dslr, even though I don't use it much. As much as I love film, I can't see why anyone would make a 100% move from digital to film in 2012 and leave him or herself without a digital camera of some kind.

But then again, that's just my 2 cents, and no doubt folks with much more informed opinions than mine will chime in soon enough. Good luck with your decision either way!
 
I shoot film with an m7, develop myself and scan (nikon 5000ed). Post process and print (hop printer). My scanning process is first low res scan of the entire film (it takes about 1 h, meantime I listen to music to make it more agreable). Than I choice the best shots (3 or 4 per film ) and rescan hi res. It's ok. But...
...Since i have beside the m7 an x1 (first digital camera I own) the benefits of digital are more evident. But you know this already. In my opinion if you shoot 2-3 rolls per week scanning becomes important. Than you need to de-dust the scans via PS and this can take time as well.
If money is not a problem in your position I would go for the m9...
If time is not a problem I would consider the m6...
I'm afraid this does not help so much, sorry, just trying to transmit my experience...
robert
 
Buy the M6 first but learn DIY developing. It is simple, inexpensive (less than a dollar/roll), investment is less than $100 and needs a place 20"x20" on any bench, table, corner.. The quality you will obtain is more decisive than the one Costco provides. At the end suppose that you figured out it's not for you, the M6 would go more or less the same cost you paid, the developing gear to a high school.

(FYI, DIY developing has been a real fun for me since 50 years next to wet printing..)
 
ferider said:
Don't rely on Costco being around forever.
Click to expand...

I'll second this. My Costco no longer does C-41 or any other film processing. I suspect film processing will disappear store by store depending on local circumstances. I can get process-only for C-41 at CVS for $3/roll, but I don't count on this staying either.

The best play at the moment in the US seems to be two outfits who will develop film (C-41 and E-6) and give excellent resolution scans to jpg. These are North Coast in San Diego and Precision in Austin TX (a sponsor here). The processing is excellent and I think the scans are about as good as it gets for 8bit output. North Coast will also process B&W in-house; Precision sends B&W out to others. All this applies to 120 as well as 35mm.

I use these scans for most of my work with film, and rescan particular frames on a CoolScan V.

Scanning negative film -- color balance is the tricky aspect. Expect scans to come out flat and need some adjustment to give the punch. Look at ChrisCrawford's tutorial on film scanning for starters. It's just like B&W developing; everyone has their own favorite way of doing things.

(I assume since you are using an M8 that you know the digital side and are looking for info on the film option.)
 
i have a mere epson 4490, and i don't mind scanning at all; the preview positives that pop onto the screen let me throw out duds right then before actual scanning takes place. i would hope your plustek allows the same thing ...
 
at 2-3 rolls a week and you want a quality scan of 20x30, I think you're gonna have to invest in a great scanner and learn to develop the film yourself. The cost otherwise will be ridiculous. I hate scanning negatives and editing them too, so I feel your pain. But unless you can print that big in the darkroom for your gallery shows, I guess you'll have to suffer and endure. If you're showing your work in a gallery, nothing short of the best quality and control should be the standard. In which case, you would want the most control out of the process by developing your own film and doing your own scans and edits.
 
I went from digital to film 7 months ago, from an M9 to a few M7s. Film scanning IS cumbersome, but not more so than doing post processing on your digital raw files. It probably takes me an hour or so to scan a roll of 36 exps. I would've spent that much time processing 36 raw files as well.

The pain in the butt for me is taking my film to a local lab and then go back a few days later to pick up. However, I use that as an excuse to go out and exercise.

Overall it takes more efforts to shoot film. But I am a masochist. I seriously think that photography is too easy these days with all the digital stuff. Sometimes the process is more fun if it's more time consuming and requires more efforts.
 
I should have mentioned, I do not have a lot of funds even though I am debating buying the M9. Im so into photography that I spend almost nothing on anything else. It took me about a year of hard saving to afford the M9.

Im 80% sure I will not be developing my own film but I know the M6 will last a lot longer than the M9. I plan on taking it to India/Thailand/Vietnam and im concerned the M9 might no hold up so well.

Also from what I see, there is unique quality of film that I cannot see in the M9 photos. I also heard film still has more dynamic range and better tonality. Image quality is very important to me and I dont mean just sharpness. I am a street photographer and sharpness is the last thing on my mind.
 
ok, seriously, this is awesome info and Im very grateful.

So I keep hearing that the time it takes to PP film and PP digital is almost the same so its a moot point. But my digital PP seems much quicker to me. Adjusting WB, exposure, levels, noise control, sharpness seems to take me only 3-4 min per photo. Am I missing much of what other ppl do in digital pp?

I try to nail everything in the camera to limit what I need to do in lightroom. I dont clone or do any heavy photoshop processing.

As example, yesteday I shot about 180 photos in Brooklyn. It took me about 40 mins to pick the keepers, edit them as stated above and Im done. How long would it take if it was 180 film negatives?

I guess Im weighing the convenience of the digital M cameras versus the image quality of 35mm film. Film blows me away. Larger than 8x10, I can usually tell a digital print versus film print. I guess I need to decide if the difference is enough to justify dealing with the film pp. Tough choices.
 
When I was shooting the M9, color processing was quick but it took me a lot of time whenever I wanted to convert a shot into B&W. But now with film, I simply put in a B&W roll and don't need any processing.

rf1552 said:
ok, seriously, this is awesome info and Im very grateful.

So I keep hearing that the time it takes to PP film and PP digital is almost the same so its a moot point. But my digital PP seems much quicker to me. Adjusting WB, exposure, levels, noise control, sharpness seems to take me only 3-4 min per photo. Am I missing much of what other ppl do in digital pp?

I try to nail everything in the camera to limit what I need to do in lightroom. I dont clone or do any heavy photoshop processing.
Click to expand...
 
Aim at a decent scanner, minolta Elite 5400 or Nikon 4000/5000/V(not IV).
sticking to film is a choice, yes, it takes more time, far more.
But the satisfaction can be high.
And with film M's, goodbye metal shutter noise, hello discretion ;)
 
Araakii said:
When I was shooting the M9, color processing was quick but it took me a lot of time whenever I wanted to convert a shot into B&W. But now with film, I simply put in a B&W roll and don't need any processing.
Click to expand...

May I ask what you do specifically with B&W from the M9 that took a lot of time and was software you use?

I love shooting. I dont think I will enjoy the developing/ scanning/ editing part of the pp. But I guess thats why film looks better to my eyes? Sounds like in order to get amazing prints, it takes a lot of time and patience and trial/error.
 
aldobonnard said:
Aim at a decent scanner, minolta Elite 5400 or Nikon 4000/5000/V(not IV).
sticking to film is a choice, yes, it takes more time, far more.
But the satisfaction can be high.
And with film M's, goodbye metal shutter noise, hello discretion ;)
Click to expand...


Seriously, the M8 shutter sounds like a stapler. discrete mode helps a little. The m9 shutter sounds much quiter and nicer to me.
 
rf1552 said:
As example, yesteday I shot about 180 photos in Brooklyn. It took me about 40 mins to pick the keepers, edit them as stated above and Im done. How long would it take if it was 180 film negatives?
Click to expand...

The same... Once you have a satisfactory scan as a starting point.

Well, not quite the same, your PP for a scan from film will involve more dust spotting and potentially a bit more attention to noise and grain. But, close to the same.

The issue will be the scanning. Some have said an hour per roll of 36. Certainly no less than that, I think it's more.

On the other hand, with film I shoot much less. With digital, I'll take a couple hundred shots. With film, it might be just 36. Hope this helps.
 
rf1552 said:
ok, seriously, this is awesome info and Im very grateful.

So I keep hearing that the time it takes to PP film and PP digital is almost the same so its a moot point. But my digital PP seems much quicker to me. Adjusting WB, exposure, levels, noise control, sharpness seems to take me only 3-4 min per photo. Am I missing much of what other ppl do in digital pp?

I try to nail everything in the camera to limit what I need to do in lightroom. I dont clone or do any heavy photoshop processing.

As example, yesteday I shot about 180 photos in Brooklyn. It took me about 40 mins to pick the keepers, edit them as stated above and Im done. How long would it take if it was 180 film negatives?

I guess Im weighing the convenience of the digital M cameras versus the image quality of 35mm film. Film blows me away. Larger than 8x10, I can usually tell a digital print versus film print. I guess I need to decide if the difference is enough to justify dealing with the film pp. Tough choices.
Click to expand...

Tough to say, because somehow we are comparing apples and oranges. Flows and editing criteria feel different. For example, I rarely shoot more than one roll on a week-end outing. The question is, of those 180, how many will you print ?

For example, I went to Alaska for a week last year. I shot 17 rolls (about 500 shots?), a combo of color and B+W. It took me the evenings of a full week and a week-end, to develop, scan, and edit. I came up with around 2 dozen keepers, several of them printed, others will be printed this year. All the other photos are scanned, filed on DVD, and negatives filed away. In retrospect a wonderful trip for photography, I feel I had good output. I also think the development and scanning process added to the satisfaction. I personally think it's great to watch the scanner operate, imagine which negatives will be keepers, mentally predicting different crops and light adjustments, etc.

My wife shot more than 1000 digital photos in the same period, and just copied the digital files to disk. She also came back with one corrupted SD card :(. A couple of her images are printed, but that's it. Note that I seriously think she has a better eye than me, so I'm not comparing her as a photographer, I just think that the digital tool leads to a different editing methodology.

It really depends what you do with your output. For your upcoming trips, how many keepers do you feel you'll bring back ? Is the LCD preview important to you ? Etc.

Roland.
 
I love film, but the scanning and PP drive me crazy. I doubt I'd ever get rid of my M6 for an M9, but it would surely be tempting. Also, I have access to a fantastic Flextight scanner. Were it not for this the M9 would win hands down.

I second the vote to find a used M9 and pick up an M6 along the way.
 
ferider said:
Tough to say, because somehow we are comparing apples and oranges. Flows and editing criteria feel different. For example, I rarely shoot more than one roll on a week-end outing. The question is, of those 180, how many will you print ?

For example, I went to Alaska for a week last year. I shot 17 rolls (about 500 shots?), a combo of color and B+W. It took me the evenings of a full week and a week-end, to develop, scan, and edit. I came up with around 2 dozen keepers, several of them printed, others will be printed this year. All the other photos are scanned, filed on DVD, and negatives filed away. In retrospect a wonderful trip for photography, I feel I had good output. I also think the development and scanning process added to the satisfaction. I personally think it's great to watch the scanner operate, imagine which negatives will be keepers, mentally predicting different crops and light adjustments, etc.

My wife shot more than 1000 digital photos in the same period, and just copied the digital files to disk. She also came back with one corrupted SD card :(. A couple of her images are printed, but that's it. Note that I seriously think she has a better eye than me, so I'm not comparing her as a photographer to me, I just think that the digital tool leads to a different editing methodology.

It really depends what you do with your output. For your upcoming trips, how many keepers do you feel you'll bring back ? Is the LCD preview important to you ? Etc.

Roland.
Click to expand...

I never look at the LCD preview. Incredibly hard to do but I think its worth it for the photographic experience and improving my skills.

Of the 180 shots, I have 30+ keepers. Back in the day when I used to spray and pray, I could have easily taken 600+ photos and only had 5-10 keepers?
 
Maybe just get an M6 and try ?

Just imagine your M8 + 28 is an M9 with 35 :) After a while, if you want to stick with film, upgrade your digital. Note that even though "I could afford" an M9 (and have 6 Leica film cameras), if I would go digital, I would first try the X-Pro1.

Roland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom