astro8
Well-known
After a lot of GAS attacks, selling sprees, reading, pondering, studying images and questioning myself...I've ended up with the below as my main kit.
R-D1, M2, 21/3.4 SA, 35 'lux, 50 'cron rigid, 90 Elmarit
I have other stuff...DMC-LC1, Canon IIF, 50/3.5 Elmar, 90 Elmar and another M2/21SA combo that I will probably sell off.
I love my R-D1! After a year or so 'into' photography I am finally arriving at a point where it doesn't intimidate or bamboozle me. I pick it up with whatever lens is attached, no matter the light, and I find myself pushing buttons, twirling dials and rings without much thinking...it's a liberating feeling.
I'm finally getting some images that I think are worth posting to the gallery. I'm starting to feel that I can possibly 'create' an image as opposed to just pressing the shutter and hoping for the best, as was too often the case in the past.
I love my M2!...I love the feel of it and all that is Leica about it. I want to shoot b&w film and see with my own eyes if it's 'better' for me than the R-D1. Better as in full frame (for want of a better word), better as in tonality, better as in the subtleties that film can sometimes offer...but I have some real doubts.
I seem to shoot mostly b&w in low light and at night. I'm usually shooting 1/8-1/60@1600iso on the R-D1 with the 21SA (which has become my favourite lens of late). I shot a roll of 400BWCN test shots with my various lenses in daytime and had them developed and printed at the local 'photo shop'..they were ok, but I liked my R-D1 shots better. I feel I won't appreciate the M2 until I shoot 'real' b&w film and process myself.
Now we come to my problem and advice is sought.
In your opinion, if I buy a decent scanner and learn to process b&w film, will I 'see' why people still shoot film? Will I see a difference? Will I see more tonal range and subtlety? Or will I just see a larger field of view (using the same lenses) compared to the R-D1?
This also brings up other questions in my mind. As I seem to be always lurking around in the shadows, I will most likely have to push 400 film to 1600. Do I shoot it as if it's 1600 film? Will I lose tonality and what should I expect to gain by shooting film doing this? Man...so many questions!
As an example here's one from my gallery with the R-D1 that I'm fairly happy with. I like the look of it. If this was shot on Tri-X and pushed to 1600, do you think it would look similiar to this or would it have more tonality? Or would it be all grainy and am I expecting too much from film?
R-D1, 21SA/3.4, 1/15@1600
Am I overthinking all this and should just shoot some film, get someone competent to process and print, be happily surprised and go from there?
......or, am I going to waste time, money and effort and be disappointed in the end. Should I just get on with the business of taking photos and trying to improve using the R-D1?
Sorry guys, what a ramble! But I do seek and do appreciate your thoughts and advice.
Cheers,
Greg
R-D1, M2, 21/3.4 SA, 35 'lux, 50 'cron rigid, 90 Elmarit
I have other stuff...DMC-LC1, Canon IIF, 50/3.5 Elmar, 90 Elmar and another M2/21SA combo that I will probably sell off.
I love my R-D1! After a year or so 'into' photography I am finally arriving at a point where it doesn't intimidate or bamboozle me. I pick it up with whatever lens is attached, no matter the light, and I find myself pushing buttons, twirling dials and rings without much thinking...it's a liberating feeling.
I'm finally getting some images that I think are worth posting to the gallery. I'm starting to feel that I can possibly 'create' an image as opposed to just pressing the shutter and hoping for the best, as was too often the case in the past.
I love my M2!...I love the feel of it and all that is Leica about it. I want to shoot b&w film and see with my own eyes if it's 'better' for me than the R-D1. Better as in full frame (for want of a better word), better as in tonality, better as in the subtleties that film can sometimes offer...but I have some real doubts.
I seem to shoot mostly b&w in low light and at night. I'm usually shooting 1/8-1/60@1600iso on the R-D1 with the 21SA (which has become my favourite lens of late). I shot a roll of 400BWCN test shots with my various lenses in daytime and had them developed and printed at the local 'photo shop'..they were ok, but I liked my R-D1 shots better. I feel I won't appreciate the M2 until I shoot 'real' b&w film and process myself.
Now we come to my problem and advice is sought.
In your opinion, if I buy a decent scanner and learn to process b&w film, will I 'see' why people still shoot film? Will I see a difference? Will I see more tonal range and subtlety? Or will I just see a larger field of view (using the same lenses) compared to the R-D1?
This also brings up other questions in my mind. As I seem to be always lurking around in the shadows, I will most likely have to push 400 film to 1600. Do I shoot it as if it's 1600 film? Will I lose tonality and what should I expect to gain by shooting film doing this? Man...so many questions!
As an example here's one from my gallery with the R-D1 that I'm fairly happy with. I like the look of it. If this was shot on Tri-X and pushed to 1600, do you think it would look similiar to this or would it have more tonality? Or would it be all grainy and am I expecting too much from film?
R-D1, 21SA/3.4, 1/15@1600
Am I overthinking all this and should just shoot some film, get someone competent to process and print, be happily surprised and go from there?
......or, am I going to waste time, money and effort and be disappointed in the end. Should I just get on with the business of taking photos and trying to improve using the R-D1?
Sorry guys, what a ramble! But I do seek and do appreciate your thoughts and advice.
Cheers,
Greg
back alley
IMAGES
from my pov...a film image will not be 'better' but it will be different. you need to look at prints made from film and a digital file and see what difference you can see and then decide.
home processed (by you) b&w film will be much better than lab processed film...unless you are a complete klutz...after a few test rolls your film images will look much better than from a lab.
images from an rd1 are unique even from other digital sources...i have tried sony and nikon dslrs, a fuji x100 and i liked the images from them but there is something unique that comes from the rd1. it is the most film-like image i have produced short of using film.
as for using film...i would not rate a 400 film at 1600 unless i was stuck...try delta 3200 at 1600 or 1000 for a better look...imho.
home processed (by you) b&w film will be much better than lab processed film...unless you are a complete klutz...after a few test rolls your film images will look much better than from a lab.
images from an rd1 are unique even from other digital sources...i have tried sony and nikon dslrs, a fuji x100 and i liked the images from them but there is something unique that comes from the rd1. it is the most film-like image i have produced short of using film.
as for using film...i would not rate a 400 film at 1600 unless i was stuck...try delta 3200 at 1600 or 1000 for a better look...imho.
umcelinho
Marcelo
you might also consider shooting kodak portra 400 and converting to b&w on post if you don't feel like developing film yourself. it won't have the same soul as a true black and white film, but it has a very impressive dynamic range, you can shoot it as iso 100 or iso 1600 and it comes out fine (of course that the closest to 400 the better).
i'm a bit surprised that the 21SA is your fav lens on the r-d1, i tried one once at a shop and the images came out pretty weird, needed a lot of post processing to get them fine (which is why i didnt take it right away and i regret it now, it was a bargain).
i'm a bit surprised that the 21SA is your fav lens on the r-d1, i tried one once at a shop and the images came out pretty weird, needed a lot of post processing to get them fine (which is why i didnt take it right away and i regret it now, it was a bargain).
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
I agree with everything back alley said. I spent a couple of years processing my own black and white film in an abandoned darkroom in my college's science building, using Diafine and then D-76. I scanned the negatives. It was fun, but I don't think I know enough about black and white--how to print it or process it in digital. I'm not sure I know what to look for. I had to stop eventually...not enough hours in the day. I also realized that I liked the front half of the photographic process more than the back half. I love to think about angles and light, and work with the camera to get the best image. That's what I know more about, and that's what I enjoy. I like to keep my post-processing, wet or digital, to a minimum.
I wrote a long, long (even longer than yours!) post on this in the R-D1 forum. I went back to an R-D1 after an M8 because I really like the R-D1's JPEGs. Most of the time, I'm happy doing only very minimal tweaking of them. Like Back Alley, I've used lots and lots of digitals and the R-D1 has a unique look to it. I know people say the M8 does, too, but I can't see it as clearly. Same way all coffee tastes like burnt water to me.
I've been thinking about getting a film camera now that I've restricted myself to M glass: 25mm ZM, 40/1.4 nokton, soon to be 45/2 planar (need to fill in the ultra wide and zoomy parts of the spectrum at some point). I have a Ricoh GXR which does a few things that the R-D1 can't (ISO 3200, sequential shooting, 1:1 format image capture, intervalometer) but if I think the R-D1 can hack whatever it is I'm pre-visioning, then I grab that. So I've thought about a film camera.
I still have some black and white film in the fridge and freezer. But I'm not that drawn to it. Once I smoked some hashish in Slovakia and colors got all sparkly for a year, I'm less and less satisfied with black and white. Maybe also because I can't do it very well.
I'd shoot film for chromes. I love slides. Next best thing to smoking hashish, and sparkly colors was the only good thing about that, a supposedly fun thing I'll never do again. Nothing to me like a projected slide image.
But I haven't taken the plunge. I have a roll of Provia still in a bulk loader even. It's the expense of development, the time in scanning and cleaning up dust and scratches.
I hope some of my journey resonates with yours, hopefully not the silly hashish part. I think if you're getting a lot out of your R-D1, and you still have things to learn, then I wouldn't feel beholden to move more into film until/unless you really start to feel it, like it's where you need to go next. What can film give you that you can't get from the R-D1? That's the question and if you can't yet answer it there's no reason to shoot film. Yet. Or ever. Doesn't matter as long as you love what you're doing and find your results rewarding.
I wrote a long, long (even longer than yours!) post on this in the R-D1 forum. I went back to an R-D1 after an M8 because I really like the R-D1's JPEGs. Most of the time, I'm happy doing only very minimal tweaking of them. Like Back Alley, I've used lots and lots of digitals and the R-D1 has a unique look to it. I know people say the M8 does, too, but I can't see it as clearly. Same way all coffee tastes like burnt water to me.
I've been thinking about getting a film camera now that I've restricted myself to M glass: 25mm ZM, 40/1.4 nokton, soon to be 45/2 planar (need to fill in the ultra wide and zoomy parts of the spectrum at some point). I have a Ricoh GXR which does a few things that the R-D1 can't (ISO 3200, sequential shooting, 1:1 format image capture, intervalometer) but if I think the R-D1 can hack whatever it is I'm pre-visioning, then I grab that. So I've thought about a film camera.
I still have some black and white film in the fridge and freezer. But I'm not that drawn to it. Once I smoked some hashish in Slovakia and colors got all sparkly for a year, I'm less and less satisfied with black and white. Maybe also because I can't do it very well.
I'd shoot film for chromes. I love slides. Next best thing to smoking hashish, and sparkly colors was the only good thing about that, a supposedly fun thing I'll never do again. Nothing to me like a projected slide image.
But I haven't taken the plunge. I have a roll of Provia still in a bulk loader even. It's the expense of development, the time in scanning and cleaning up dust and scratches.
I hope some of my journey resonates with yours, hopefully not the silly hashish part. I think if you're getting a lot out of your R-D1, and you still have things to learn, then I wouldn't feel beholden to move more into film until/unless you really start to feel it, like it's where you need to go next. What can film give you that you can't get from the R-D1? That's the question and if you can't yet answer it there's no reason to shoot film. Yet. Or ever. Doesn't matter as long as you love what you're doing and find your results rewarding.
astro8
Well-known
Thanks Joe
I think, as usual, you are right on the money....in the same way as most lenses aren't 'better' than others, just different.
It was your images and enthusiasm for the R-D1 that got me into the hunt for one in the first place! I've followed your posts and read back into your past posts and you keep returning to the R-D1. In my opinion (and as others have mentioned) you've taken your best shots with it as well.
There's just something about the R-D1, the way it handles and the files it produces that I really enjoy.
My photos are getting better. I'm getting a few keepers so I won't impede that momentum with what for me is essentially learning a new medium.
I've been thinking maybe the smartest thing to do is 'Go Joe' and get another R-D1 and use the 2 with different focal lengths.
Hi umcelinho
I thought the 35 'lux was my favourite until the 21SA arrived.
I shoot 2 clicks faster than what the camera tells me. I do get the vignetting at large aperture, that I like. Colours can be crazy but in a good way. Skies can be blown out to white or cyan in the centre of the frame but with a deep blue at edges.
I thought that there might be some bad distortion with this lens. I know the 21 on the R-D1 is roughly a 32mm but I haven't had any 'egghead' shots. In the example I posted, the camera was so close to her noggin I thought it would be a terrible shot, but turned out ok.
Yes dreilly,
I've read your posts, most more than once and I do relate to them in many ways and I think the above are wise words. I think part of the allure for me is that I 'should' use film to take 'true' photographs....BUT I then reflect on my own working life. I'm a tradesman signwriter. My family have been signwriters for generations. I did a long apprenticeship. I can layout and hand letter with paint and brush anything, anything from a gold leaf window to a factory roof to a blimp. Computers have all but changed that, it's all large format printing and computer cut vinyl now.
Others coming into the trade want to learn hand lettering, some ask me do I miss it. No. Some want to work for me in exchange for me to teach them. I don't even entertain the idea as there is no joy in it for me. For some there is a mystique associated with it. Some don't think they are 'true' signwriters until they can hand letter. Not for me, the computer was the best thing that ever happened for me! I couldn't care less if never saw another sign brush or paint pot, ever!
I'm sure all I'd do is spend 12 months experimenting with film, sit back, look at my photos and think to myself "What the hell was that all about?...I should of just been out there with my R-D1 shooting all along."
I think I'll just shut up, sell some stuff, find a CV 15mm to play with and get on with it.
Thanks for listening.
Greg