dfoo
Well-known
Processing, drying and scanning= 2:20... that's over two good episodes of "House" or a 2 hr installment of "So You Think You Can Dance" (the American version; I'm not a big fan of SYTYCD Canada) with the wifey ....
Yes, but you only need to be present for 20 minutes of that... The remainder is fully automatic!
Philip Whiteman
Well-known
All I can say is that after five years of shooting and photoshopping digital, the last few weeks of photography using Kodachrome 64 in a second-hand Nikon FE (£100) and projecting the results on a secondhand Pradovit (£150) have been heaven. Yes, I got surprisingly good prints from my Nikon DSLRs and Epson RD-1 – but the Kodachromes have an almost 3-D sharpness, a luminosity and a tonal range that is magical.
Have to agree on the thumbs-down to home scanning of negs and trannies, mind. It's a pain and is no substitute for the drum-scanning all those old repro houses used to do for the magazines…
Have to agree on the thumbs-down to home scanning of negs and trannies, mind. It's a pain and is no substitute for the drum-scanning all those old repro houses used to do for the magazines…
David_Manning
Well-known
I guess Leica's introduction into the digital realm proves one thing right...that even Leica users "for life" can be convinced to upgrade every two years because they "need" some new feature.
I guess that's what drove me BACK to traditional photography...the M6 really IS a camera for life. What the statisticians above don't factor is the near-continual upgrade paradigm. We have seen it on the Nikon and Canon side of the house. It is now apparent in the Leica crowd. Sure, if you "shoot _ number of rolls a year, my M_digital is free!" Problem is, there will be an upgraded piece of hardware every two to three years, which people will feel the necessity to purchase to keep up their shooting. I saw it on the Nikon side of the house..."all I need is a high-ISO camera...that's it, then I'm set for life." Then, "I need a full-framer, to use my existing lenses." Then, "I need a more compact (or larger professional) body." Each iteration is $3-$5k. I did it for three cameras, and then gave up. I fell for it. And now, I'm fighting back by investing in a system (Leica M film) which WILL last a lifetime, work the same day one as day ten thousand, full-frame, works with ALL the M-mount lenses without coding or upgrading, is completely archival, light, works without batteries or cords or chargers or laptops, and I have my evenings free to drink and carouse. How does it get any better than that? And, best of all, I feel closer to my images while I handle the negatives in the semi-dark with my headphones on and a good whiskey in my hand. I LOVE glancing at glossy 8x10s hanging to dry, knowing that I MADE them, front to back.
I get tremendous satisfaction from all of the above. I don't get it from digital...I write big checks and get a mini-computer in my hands that I know I'd be happy with "if just..."
I guess that's what drove me BACK to traditional photography...the M6 really IS a camera for life. What the statisticians above don't factor is the near-continual upgrade paradigm. We have seen it on the Nikon and Canon side of the house. It is now apparent in the Leica crowd. Sure, if you "shoot _ number of rolls a year, my M_digital is free!" Problem is, there will be an upgraded piece of hardware every two to three years, which people will feel the necessity to purchase to keep up their shooting. I saw it on the Nikon side of the house..."all I need is a high-ISO camera...that's it, then I'm set for life." Then, "I need a full-framer, to use my existing lenses." Then, "I need a more compact (or larger professional) body." Each iteration is $3-$5k. I did it for three cameras, and then gave up. I fell for it. And now, I'm fighting back by investing in a system (Leica M film) which WILL last a lifetime, work the same day one as day ten thousand, full-frame, works with ALL the M-mount lenses without coding or upgrading, is completely archival, light, works without batteries or cords or chargers or laptops, and I have my evenings free to drink and carouse. How does it get any better than that? And, best of all, I feel closer to my images while I handle the negatives in the semi-dark with my headphones on and a good whiskey in my hand. I LOVE glancing at glossy 8x10s hanging to dry, knowing that I MADE them, front to back.
I get tremendous satisfaction from all of the above. I don't get it from digital...I write big checks and get a mini-computer in my hands that I know I'd be happy with "if just..."
Philip Whiteman
Well-known
Hear, hear, David. The endless update cycle on DSLRs drove me mad as well and it's been fun using both the FE and recently-restored-for-another-sixty-years-of-life IIIC pictured opposite
leicashot
Well-known
- Shoot film (unknown amount of time) - need to change film after 36 shots...can't change ISO at will to suite image/lighting.
- Develop film (20 minutes) this doesn't include driving time to lab, waiting time, could be hours, then driving back...wasting time approx 2-4 hours.
- Dry film (1 hour) - yes if you develop at home.
- Scan film (1 hour with my CS 5000). - this is dependent on amount of images, but processing digital images is much simpler and faster in comparison.
David_Manning
Well-known
Absolutely, but I feel like a pretty smart guy and the "upgrade siren song" is very powerful. I can only speak for myself, but I constantly feel insecure about whatever the last frame exposed was. In other words, I feel the desire to constantly look for the tool that will make an image just THAT much better. For the most part, I know it's just crap. So, step back, simplify, and return to the basics. Why did I first enjoy photography? It was a ticket to travel and satisfy curiosity. I can do that with an M6. Besides, what happens if someone surprises us with an updated scanner, too? I see negatives as much more future-proof. Case in point, the recently discovered Mexican Suitcase with Capa and Chim's negatives. Will my grandchildren be able to extract files from a dusty old hard drive fifty years from now? Hell, I have images I can't read that are essentially lost on ZIP drives!
MartinP
Veteran
Having worked in such a lab, it is not possible to run E6 at that price in a well controlled dip-and-dunk line while complying with the Kodak Q-Lab/Fuji pro certification scheme. Be worried . . . !
250swb
Well-known
Are you sure you aren't just equating photographic 'upgrades' with a camera, rather than what the camera can do? Upgrade to a digital camera, like an M8, and you still have a camera for life because it is as good as an M6 in output. But your life changes and is 'upgraded' at the same time. Even more time to carouse, even less money to spend on processing and therefore more on carousing, even less time in the darkroom and more time carousing.
If you shoot film at the rate of some of the worlds best photographers, like perhaps Winogrand, or Friedlander, your hit rate for a good photo would be miniscule in the scheme of things. Many rolls used to experiment and work out ideas and then the odd image that gets into the Guggenheim. Consider that rate of image making with digital, its not blasting away for the sake of it, its working, and the ability to work the subject, and all for no extra cost. How happy would that make you? After all what is important, ten good images, or boasting about how hard one good image was to make? As an ex press photographer (on a budget) I'd take the former, a glut over starvation any day.
Steve
amateriat
We're all light!
It's simple, really:
If you can afford an M9, and like what it offers (which sounds like a lot), you'll likely go out and buy one.
If you can't come up with the scratch for one, the answer is also obvious.
Then, too, you might actually prefer a film-based M (or two!) for various reasons. You could do far worse than getting one of those.
It's not a test or competition (or at least it shouldn't be). Simply sort out what works best for you (both technically/creatively as well as fiscally), and go for it.
Wouldn't mind an M9 myself (recently took someone's M8 for a very brief spin), but I won't won't waste my time pining for one.
- Barrett
If you can afford an M9, and like what it offers (which sounds like a lot), you'll likely go out and buy one.
If you can't come up with the scratch for one, the answer is also obvious.
Then, too, you might actually prefer a film-based M (or two!) for various reasons. You could do far worse than getting one of those.
It's not a test or competition (or at least it shouldn't be). Simply sort out what works best for you (both technically/creatively as well as fiscally), and go for it.
Wouldn't mind an M9 myself (recently took someone's M8 for a very brief spin), but I won't won't waste my time pining for one.
- Barrett
Philip Whiteman
Well-known
Isn't the point that buying an M8 or -9 or whatever is like buying a single camera/film combination 'for life'. I'm not disparaging the perceived quality of the M8 today, but in twenty or thirty years time it will seem like an M6 that only takes some Agfa film that we've long waved goodbye to.
user237428934
User deletion pending
For life? 20 to 30 years? Are you kidding?
For a digital camera even 10 years is a very long time. In 10 years you won't get a repair for that sensor or the electronic parts. But that's perfectly ok, at least for me. "Long lasting" is not an attribute that is very high on the list of attributes I expect from a product.
dfoo
Well-known
So, how do I print that digital image on my enlarger again?
dfoo
Well-known
This lab is in China... I had a few rolls done there and the quality was as good as the lab I use in Canada.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Indeed, why not just buy a film camera? It might not have all of the bells and whistles, but there is beauty in the simplicity of an all-manual camera in which the photographer only has to worry about three things: aperture, shutter speed and focus.
Aurance
Member
Not my Main Reason to Scan Film!
Not my Main Reason to Scan Film!
I agree with you on the wet printing but in relation to photography as a 'hobby' and I shoot digital as well as film and apart from scanning film for the web -
"One area that really concerns me is the ability to display images to family and friends without 'boring them to death'. Over the years I have tried the album route which does not seem to work because the viewing is planned and by its very nature can be boring - although 'very old' family photographs seem welcomed by the young family members. I have thought about the computer but again this is planned. For me images should be natural and 'in the background' whereby discussions about location and memories can be evoked. I have come to the conclusion that although pictures hung on the wall can achieve this, they have to be changed regularly to 'evoke new discussions' which are very pleasant but that's a lot of wall space and/or a lot of picture frames. I had thought about purchasing a printer but as I am not a photographer who sells pictures of my images then surely that would be an expensive option and perhaps a wasted one? My conclusion to this is a 'large' digital picture frame with about 100 images onboard - perhaps 2 frames in the main living-room. The other or additional option is one of those 50" HD televisions with a USB stick in a slot - I tried one out recently in a store and my images were 'WOW' on the screen. A TV could be used as a digital photo frame when people are having a quiet drink and a chat in the living-room" Already saving up!
Just a thought!
Richard.
Not my Main Reason to Scan Film!
I agree with you on the wet printing but in relation to photography as a 'hobby' and I shoot digital as well as film and apart from scanning film for the web -
"One area that really concerns me is the ability to display images to family and friends without 'boring them to death'. Over the years I have tried the album route which does not seem to work because the viewing is planned and by its very nature can be boring - although 'very old' family photographs seem welcomed by the young family members. I have thought about the computer but again this is planned. For me images should be natural and 'in the background' whereby discussions about location and memories can be evoked. I have come to the conclusion that although pictures hung on the wall can achieve this, they have to be changed regularly to 'evoke new discussions' which are very pleasant but that's a lot of wall space and/or a lot of picture frames. I had thought about purchasing a printer but as I am not a photographer who sells pictures of my images then surely that would be an expensive option and perhaps a wasted one? My conclusion to this is a 'large' digital picture frame with about 100 images onboard - perhaps 2 frames in the main living-room. The other or additional option is one of those 50" HD televisions with a USB stick in a slot - I tried one out recently in a store and my images were 'WOW' on the screen. A TV could be used as a digital photo frame when people are having a quiet drink and a chat in the living-room" Already saving up!
Just a thought!
Richard.
David_Manning
Well-known
Richard, you should look at AppleTV. I just push image files from my hard drive to AppleTV's hard drive...it then displays on the 47" like a slideshow, to music.
The advantages over an optical slideshow are many...daytime use, constant focus, no heat deterioration of slides, and not limited to 80 slides a tray. Also, at HD resolution, a quick scan of film images is limited to 720pixels vertically, and only 72dpi, so scanning is really fast for those specs.
Just an idea. We love ours for that reason at home.
The advantages over an optical slideshow are many...daytime use, constant focus, no heat deterioration of slides, and not limited to 80 slides a tray. Also, at HD resolution, a quick scan of film images is limited to 720pixels vertically, and only 72dpi, so scanning is really fast for those specs.
Just an idea. We love ours for that reason at home.
sunsworth
Well-known
dfoo
Well-known
I said on MY enlarger. I don't want to go buy a new one, mine works perfectly well!
mas
Member
The comments seem to consider the alleged M9 as the digital alternative to an M film camera. I consider this a mistake. I consider the M8 to be that alternative. The M9 should be compared to a medium format film camera, as are the D700 and the 5D MKII. Consider print size as the criteria for this comparison.
samoksner
Who stole my light?
There are good reasons to shoot digitally.
Daily cost is zero (shelling out $15 for developing and scanning every roll sucks)
Time sensitive material, lots of people would like to use a full frame Leica on deadline.
Versatility, images can be in color or black in white (also true if you shoot color film... although i always found converted color film to look odd)
Low light work, digital, in general, is quite well suited for low light situations.
The LCD, instant review is important in some people's workflow.
Although scanning film produces very hgh quality files, it is VERY time consuming, people compare it to the time used in photoshop with digital images, but a scanned negative will need just as much photoshop workflow as a native digital image (if not more, dust, scratches).
Daily cost is zero (shelling out $15 for developing and scanning every roll sucks)
Time sensitive material, lots of people would like to use a full frame Leica on deadline.
Versatility, images can be in color or black in white (also true if you shoot color film... although i always found converted color film to look odd)
Low light work, digital, in general, is quite well suited for low light situations.
The LCD, instant review is important in some people's workflow.
Although scanning film produces very hgh quality files, it is VERY time consuming, people compare it to the time used in photoshop with digital images, but a scanned negative will need just as much photoshop workflow as a native digital image (if not more, dust, scratches).