Moving to Leica M Film, a good idea?

[goamules]

I like the way you do things the old way, I'm like that too. To some, there is no reason to do wetplate collodion, or film, or an older digital camera. But to me, it's the journey, not the destination. I get extreme joy in riding saddle mules, old 1960s motorcycles, etc.

I also shot film many years ago, in the Navy and in College. Then got out of good cameras, bought some 35mm point and shoots for about 10 years, and then digital for 10 or more years. Finally about 2007 I decided to try film again, and it's been a great adventure. I shot a lot of Japanese rangefinders, but finally got an M3 last year. I have to admit, it's got a great viewfinder and is easy to shoot well.

By the way, I put a 35mm lens on it sometimes, it's not a big deal to guestimate the frame, beyond the 50mm lines, like you implied you would. The eye naturally centers things, and unless you are trying to do some pretty complex framing, 35mm lenses on an M3 work fine for me.

Again, enjoy your journey, and like any challenging craft, you will feel more rewarded with your process and results. Certainly more than just blazing away with some DSLR.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Finally, I got some film developed

Finally, I got some film developed

I got couple of rolls developed by TheDarkRoom.com who misspelled my email, but finally got it corrected. I am also waiting for the developing kit from Adorama, and I also got an enlarger. It will take time to use the enlarger, but the next few rolls will be developed and scanned by me. Here are few samples of my first shots with the M3:


Pianista by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr



Dos Amigos by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr



Dos by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr



TriX400-Esomeliae1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

 

[Nathan King]

They look over developed, or the scan could have been adjusted heavily.

 

[pepeguitarra]

They look over developed, or the scan could have been adjusted heavily.

This film was Tx-400, can you describe the look it should have? Higher, less contrast, more grays, etc? Thanks,

 

[dave lackey]

I got couple of rolls developed by TheDarkRoom.com who misspelled my email, but finally got it corrected. I am also waiting for the developing kit from Adorama, and I also got an enlarger. It will take time to use the enlarger, but the next few rolls will be developed and scanned by me. Here are few samples of my first shots with the M3:

Look fine to me!!!😀

 

[splitimageview]

Looking good. I like your sense of adventure.

Too many posts are filled with warnings like "you can't shoot a 35mm lens on an M3!" Or "you'll need to buy a goggled lens!" or many other suggestions that all seem to be about buying more gear. Just go shoot and learn from the experience and THEN decide for yourself. 🙂

 

[Eric T]

At this point, if you are going to dive into film, you might as well go medium format.
And just develop film yourself. It isn't hard.
There are some great deals now on many high quality medium format cameras.
I use a Fujifilm GF670 and GA645Zi. But there are many great ones out there that are fully manual including many folders and the hefty Pentax 6x7.

 

[pepeguitarra]

More: These are IlfordHP5 - No matter what the pic's name says

More: These are IlfordHP5 - No matter what the pic's name says


TriX400-IrvSta1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


TriX400-Info2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


IlHP5-T&JD2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


IlHP5-Emeliae1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


IlHP5-2lla1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

 

[Nathan King]

This film was Tx-400, can you describe the look it should have? Higher, less contrast, more grays, etc? Thanks,

Sure, and remember I could be wrong. The only foolproof way to determine proper development is to look at the negatives themselves on a light table. From the scans, it appears that you have lost your highlights very rapidly. Shooting Tri-X in very contrasty light, my highlights sometimes hit the shoulder of the film but don't go to maximum density on the negative.

If your shadows are close to base density then you didn't over expose and it's certainly development.

For example, here's a shot with 35mm Tri-X on a very sunny Louisiana summer day with harsh lighting. Granted, I used a yellow filter to darken the sky, but there's still highlight detail, more midtones, and less grain. I also tend to develop a little less because I print on a condenser enlarger. This prints grade 2 with no dodging or burning.

 

[Hatchetman]

Almost impossible to judge the exposure and development from a scan. The first set looks a little too contrasty. Who knows where that came in? could be underexposure, overdevelopment, scanner settings, who knows?

The second set looks about perfect to me. How do the two sets of negatives look relative to one another.

 

[David Hughes]

Traditionally, you ought to be able to read a newspaper through a B&W negative... But that was a long, long time ago.

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

B+W "real" photography (film, wet printing) is a lot more than empty nostalgia. There is a mystical dimension to it, as your point about tools makes, quite apart from the fact that trying to reproduce the look that comes inevitably with film requires a lot of fart-arsing around with Silver FX and the like to produce something that rarely looks quite the same anyway.

Recommending you get anything other than a Leica struck me as odd. People who use Leicas, like Leicas. Why would you want an elderly Canon or a cheap SLR instead?

Cheers,

R.

 

[pepeguitarra]

B+W "real" photography (film, wet printing) is a lot more than empty nostalgia. There is a mystical dimension to it, as your point about tools makes, quite apart from the fact that trying to reproduce the look that comes inevitably with film requires a lot of fart-arsing around with Silver FX and the like to produce something that rarely looks quite the same anyway.

Recommending you get anything other than a Leica struck me as odd. People who use Leicas, like Leicas. Why would you want an elderly Canon or a cheap SLR instead?

Cheers,

R.

Roger;
Thanks for pitching in this thread. For years you have bean my idol, after reading one of your books. In my previous life as Pentaxian, I bought one lens, the Super Takumar 85/1.9 because you recommended it in one of our books. I never looked back, it is a great lens. Since then, I have moved to Leica, and you are right, I cannot go back to anything else.

 

[leicapixie]

If your ad said "I want an M3!" I would have said "No"!
Ageing viewfinder, need of major service, yet, yes yet,
The M3 is my most used and loved Leica-M!!
Mine from 1966(next year it will be 50 yrs old!.
I had it NEW in 1967, unused. New in box.
Unusable! Rangefinder not properly assembled at Wetzlar..
A week later back from Leitz, South Africa.
The apology, sort of, mostly my fault!! :bang:
Yet done family, fashion, publicity, news, advertising, photojournalism,
traveled with me all over the world.
Yes, on the whole, The M3 the best.
Enjoy.
Oh! Read Ken Rockwell review.
well worth reading esp. comparison to my M6TTL.
I agree.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger;
Thanks for pitching in this thread. For years you have bean my idol, after reading one of your books. In my previous life as Pentaxian, I bought one lens, the Super Takumar 85/1.9 because you recommended it in one of our books. I never looked back, it is a great lens. Since then, I have moved to Leica, and you are right, I cannot go back to anything else.

Gosh, thanks for the kind words! The 85/1.9 is a lovely lens, isn't it? One that is touched by magic. I always get upset with people who attack "magic" and say it exists only in the minds of Leica-worshippers. I have several non-Leica "magic" lenses including the 85/1.9, at least one Vivitar Series 1 (200/3), a couple of Zeiss (38/4.5, 50/1.5), and a 21 inch Ross. One I used to have, and wish I'd never sold, was my original 58/1.4 Nikkor. And, it has to be said, not all Leica lenses are "magic", though several are. Then again, I'd never have been able to bring myself to pay that much money for lenses that weren't "magic", such as my pre-aspheric 35 Summilux, 75/2 Apo-Summicron and 90 Thambar. In all fairness, I find the absurdly cheap (by Leica standards) 135/2.8 to be "magic" too.

I fear I'm more idle than idol nowadays, with the decline in print journalism and book publishers' obsession with digital. This explains my new site, www.rogerandfrances.eu. And of course I still have my weekly column in Amateur Photographer magazine in the UK. Postage kills it for overseas readers, at for example $271 a year in the USA, but you can now get an online version. It's still pushing £80 a year (call it 100€ or $120) but at least that's for 51 copies a year (they do a joint Christmas/New Year copy).

Cheers,

R.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Roger; thanks for the info. Your website is wonderful. I will try to subscribe to the paper magazine. After all, I like to read, and not precisely on the screen of a computer.

Here are two more samples of my first (new era) shots with my Leica M3. These were taken with the Nikkor SC 50/1.4 (a wonderful lens).

LSy2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

LSy1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

 

[RicD]

Lose not loose

Lose not loose

Don't forget you can always change your mind and you won't loose much (if any) cash selling the body.

A very common spelling mistake, loose means something not tight. Lose as in lost, loss, losing. Some folks I have shared that with were shocked, some said "wow, I always spelled it as loose and loosing (loosing is not a word in the English language)". Others wondered why nobody else brought it to their attention. My guess, trepidation afraid of being called the grammar or spelling police.

Respectfully submitted

 

[pepeguitarra]

A very common spelling mistake, loose means something not tight. Lose as in lost, loss, losing. Some folks I have shared that with were shocked, some said "wow, I always spelled it as loose and loosing (loosing is not a word in the English language)". Others wondered why nobody else brought it to their attention. My guess, trepidation afraid of being called the grammar or spelling police.

Respectfully submitted

I hear you! I am an ESL speaker but my job required that I communicated (in writing and verbally) using good English. However, I do find myself making some mistakes from time to time, more that anything, for the lack of care when writing on a computer. I remember the 1980's movie "Footloose". 🙂

Luckily this is an international forum with hundreds of members who do not speak English as a native language. In a way, I appreciate the fact that they try to use English, helping make it the universal language. Nothing wrong with being a cop either ! 😛

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm impressed! Kudos for getting darkroom ready!!

 

[Ronald M]

Film M! Like buying a horse drawn farm wagon. IMHO

At least of you buy a Leica M , lenses can be used on digital.

Monochrome is on the down side, but still viable.

Color choices are disappearing fast. The processing chess are short lived, expensive, and hard to find.

Scanners for film are few good choices. top medium quality ones are used and perhaps used up although they will look good. Software not compatible with current computers.

Scanning by outside sources will not please you if you are fussy.

I suppose you can set up a darkroom.