I’ve always viewed such confusion as a lack of clear cut objectives and I can’t judge myself by a different standard.
That said, with B&W there isn’t any confusion, I’m quite happy with the M11 Monochrom. Perhaps there is some inner discussion as to what lenses to pack for a trip, but with regards to color…that’s another matter.
Three months ago I was questioning why people were shooting film. I was impressed with the responses. I decided that 35mm lacked adequate resolution, so I shot 645 and 6x7 with Portra 160, Ektar and E100. Prior to selling my ‘M’ film cameras I thought that I best at least put some film in them and see if they work. What I discovered was that I was wrong about 35mm. Portra 160 in 35mm was quite appealing and the skin tones were to die for. 645 results were just more of the same and E100 in 6x7 has a look that approaches my Velvia 6x7 days. So, I’m attracted to slower color film.. Now trying Vision3 D50.
Now I’m planning a trip around Oregon, with unknown lighting, subjects.. visiting a friend, so the itinerary isn’t set. That said, am I wrong in thinking that what I need is (ISO) flexibility and that means digital? I ask because film diehards might suggest a different approach.
I treat Portra 800 as a 200-800 variable speed film, so that's what I'd pick for a trip like you're talking about. I don't mind the grain in 35mm, but you might if you're using a lot of slower films. You'd probably prefer it in 120 if that's the case.
For a lot of years the only two films I used were Portra 160 of 400. We have driven to just about every corner of Oregon and those films always delivered. The best accessory was a polarizer. Have a fun trip.
I’ve not shot Portra 400, or 800. I’m guessing that most shoot at ISO 200 and 400. It appears that the resolution of these two emulsions are almost the same, but with more granularity with the 800. So, might be a good choice in medium format. Personally, I don’t want less resolution in 35mm than Portra 160.
I live in Oregon, just depends on where you'll be and the weather if you need higher ISO or not.
I like Portra 800 (shot at 800) for handheld 120 shots in lower light, especially for overcast days on the coast or in the western forests. Something about the way it handles greens. Gold 200 is fine IMO in 120, also handles Oregon greens well and is nice for the desert color palettes on the east side of the Cascades. I also like Portra 400 in 120, but more for city shooting (bright artificial colors) instead of nature.
I generally only shoot Portra 160 or my dwindling stash of Velvia 50 in 120 from a tripod when I've got a worthy subject in good light.
I'll shoot Portra 800 in 35mm if I really need the ISO, but mostly I stick to ProImage 100 and plenty of light. I shoot a lot more B&W than color in 35mm. I've tried to like E100, but it hasn't really happened yet.
All pics taken in Oregon, hope you have a great trip!
Portra 800 - 120
Agfa Isolette II
Solinar 75mm f/3.5
I shoot film alongside digital so I am not the one to ask. Shooting both gives me the advantages of both at the cost of carrying a bit more gear, which i am OK with.
I haven't tried Portra 400 or 800. I probably should, but i am mostly happy shooting a combination of velvia, Ektar and ProImage.
Bring the film you like, shoot it when you can and accept that you start running out of film options once you get to ISO 800-1600. Portra 400 does well at 800 and 1600 and even 3200 with a push but you're kind of stretching it vs digital there.
Use the digital when you run out of film options or just enjoy the scene with your eyes!
Great images above. I do think there is something different with the E100, especially in 6x7/6x9.
I think that it is either a backpack full of gear, or accept that you can’t get every shot. I’m good with limited options. My other option is digital and an M6 with the new Voigtlander 35mm Color-Skopar f/3.5 Asph in the pocket. I’m still struggling with the ergonomics of that lens, but love the form factor.
Couple things to mention here: Several years ago I also felt that I needed better resolution than 35 mm film, and indeed medium format is amazing in this aspect. But the practicality kicked in soon after - I tended to always grab one of my Leica film cameras instead when going out for a daytrip and to shoot with film. Smaller camera, lens, and bag size makes a huge difference! And in the end my film photos even on 35 mm all looked very good - in my darkroom I was able to easily make larger 11x14" prints from 35 mm negatives indistinguishable from medium format negative prints. Now my medium format gear is rarely used these days. I went full force back to 35 mm film. I bought my last rolls of 120 film about three years ago and still have some of them in my fridge!
Color film: it was kind of a hassle with negative color film for many years to get accurate scans from it. Only after I finally switched from SilverFast to Vuescan I get excellent results now from scanning (this said I really can't recommend SilverFast 8 to do color negative scans without adding lots of time for PP afterwards to get color right!). I used more expensive Kodak Porta and Ektar films, cheaper Kodak Gold based films. and Fujifilm. In the end I would go now for cheaper color negative films instead of buying the IMO overpriced Porta films. Ektar 100 is an excellent choice for sceneries as long as you can live with some blueish shadows. Fujifilm tends to be stronger in the green tones - I like it with plants and vegetations present. Kodak Gold is a good average of everything and simply does the job well no matter what the subject to photograph is.
Slide films: more vibrant in colors and easier to scan/digitize than color negatives. My preferred choice is Fuji Provia 100F for general usage and Kodak Velvia 50 for sceneries including sunrise/sunset. Especially Velvia 50 has a very narrow dynamic range - a bit of underexposure makes all shadow areas fully black which can't be rescued. I learned to avoid using Velvia 50 in high contrast scenes where I still wanted to capture shadow details. But Velvia 50 pops best with red/orange colors present - it is the best slide film here for sure.
Yes, camera size makes a big difference and the Leica ‘M’ family is really a good compromise of size and ease of use/ergonomics, but my medium format choices aren’t SLR cameras. The Mamiya 7(ii) is getting a bit large, but the Bronica RF645 and Fuji GS645 & 645W are relatively small. If you haven’t tried one of these rangefinder cameras, you might give it a try. The Fuji GS series is dated, but the lenses are excellent and the meters accurate. The wide version is zone focusing only. Fixed lens works for me in that I usually use only one lens on a given day. The Bronica is a more modern interchangeable lens camera. It has a more quality feel as do the Leica cameras. The Mamiya 7 family is legendary, but it is large in comparison with the 645 rangefinders. I’m sure that printing in the darkroom vs converting to digital makes 35mm a much more attractive format. Lastly, the above argument is sincerely offered and maybe it is the decades of familiarity, but nothing feels as good in the hand as a Leica ‘M’.
If you don't know what you are going to photograph and want to take as many pictures as possible - go with the most flexible setup.
If I had to photograph on film in unfamiliar conditions I would choose a Contax N1 with 24-80mm . It's cheap, reliable, has just enough automation, including autofocus and great optics. Maybe even 2 bodies - one for Color and one for BW; or one for a low ISO film (Ektar 100, Portra 160 or E100) and another one for Portra 400.
Used to use film for trips before digital. You might take a tripod for often lower iso. Depending on the digital camera(s) you have, might be pretty easy to take both
Protra 400 and 800 , also Ektar 100 are always the best combo for me while I travel.
Ektar is for sure in my backpack if I'm going to state park, but if I'm going to city and I'm on the street most of the time then Ektar will be stayed at home.
My wife and I visited the Pacific NW (Portland, some of the Oregon coast, a bit of the Columbia river valley, and up into Seattle) ~15 years ago. I took my DSLR but also film SLR and a few rolls of color negative film (believe it was a mix of Velvia 100 and Portra 160 IIRC as well as a Tripod. We got to really enjoy the local scene and a few of the cool places to see and kept our pace relaxed enough that I could engage in photography and we could just be present and soak in some of the places while we were there.
If you have room to take a mix of cameras, take the M11, but also take your 35mm or 120 film camera (or cameras) of choice and a couple of rolls of film, especially if you are able to also take a tripod. If you use Portra 160 or 400, you're going to have beautiful results. I think it's worth remembering to just have fun and there's no need to try and force expectations on the film/camera combo that they can't meet. You're better off going to digital if you need to really push ISO and there's no need to stress about that.
Most of all have a good trip. The region has so much to offer. I remember seeing a guy shooting Steel Bridge from the waterfront on a Mamiya RZ67. I think you could spend months shooting just the bridges in Portland alone. The same goes for the Gorge, the waterfalls, the coastal towns/regions, etc.
Pardon my interruption here. I recently joined the forum to participate in the manual-focus Nikon thread. In the old days I shot mostly slides with a Nikkormat and three vintage lenses, 35mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 200mm 4.0. I carried it everywhere. But that Nikkormat body has been resting for at least 35 years. After doing digital with lesser equipment I finally bought a Nikon Z5 II and FTZ adapter to use my old lenses. I'm still learning the camera but always musing about the old friend the Nikkormat.
If I shot film again I wouldn't know why or what to use or what I would do with the results. Since this thread has been active recently it looks like a good place to ask. IIRC, someone here said slide film makes good scans, and I imagine that it makes good prints (probably made from a scan first anyway?). The Nikkormat body is lighter than the Z5 and probably more tolerant of harsh conditions (not that I go looking for such the way I used to). Any thoughts? Is it a foolish quest? What's good way to start, or even think about it? Thanks!
jimmuller wrote:
Pardon my interruption here. I recently joined the forum to participate in the manual-focus Nikon thread. In the old days I shot mostly slides with a Nikkormat and three vintage lenses, 35mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 200mm 4.0. I carried it everywhere. But that Nikkormat body has been resting for at least 35 years. After doing digital with lesser equipment I finally bought a Nikon Z5 II and FTZ adapter to use my old lenses. I'm still learning the camera but always musing about the old friend the Nikkormat.
If I shot film again I wouldn't know why or what to use or what I would do with the results. Since this thread has been active recently it looks like a good place to ask. IIRC, someone here said slide film makes good scans, and I imagine that it makes good prints (probably made from a scan first anyway?). The Nikkormat body is lighter than the Z5 and probably more tolerant of harsh conditions (not that I go looking for such the way I used to). Any thoughts? Is it a foolish quest? What's good way to start, or even think about it? Thanks!...Show more →
Having owned more than a dozen Nikkormats (FT, FTn, FT-2 and even a couple of FS) if you want to hear the slamming car door shutter sound again, spend a little extra money and have the lab process and scan a roll or two. If it's something you would like to continue with, a Z body with a 60mm macro with an ES-2 film holder and a decent light pad will do what you need. You could start with reversal film, have the lab process it and scan it yourself.
If it's something that continues to interest you, come back and we're more than glad to answer questions of if after a couple of rolls, the Nikkormat is back on the shelf. Either way, it's worth the cost of a few rolls of film to find out.
Years ago I wanted to buy a Fujifilm camera and the choices made my head spin. How many models are there? Anyway moving on from Kodachrome 64 and slide films in general I shot all the color negatives films available and chose the ones I liked. Fujifilm 400H was an excellent film and I hoarded some when it was discontinued. Portra 400 is the best thing now. These are pro films with lower contrast something I prefer. You might prefer something else.
For black and white film I have settled on TMax 400 and HP5+. Because I do my own processing I want to be consistent so jumping from brand to brand doesn’t work for me. I have film in the freezer but the Leica M11M is what I use these days. In the end I am getting a digital file so either the hard way or the easy way.
madNbad wrote:
Having owned more than a dozen Nikkormats (FT, FTn, FT-2 and even a couple of FS) if you want to hear the slamming car door shutter sound again, spend a little extra money and have the lab process and scan a roll or two.
Thanks for the reply. I may do that for fun. It isn't that I want the car-door sound (most car doors sound much worse!) but I miss the simplicity. And my Nikkormat, which is an FTn IIRC, has the light meter on the top which I can see without looking through the viewfinder, a minor detail but nice in some situations. Sometimes you just want a carpenter's hammer instead of a nail gun.
M11M will excel at low-light, technical B&W landscapes and fast-pace situations around friends and whatnot where you'd like to take lots of shots without having to worry about running out of film and the cost.
I'd load the film M with a stock that would provide a distinct look and character as opposed to the smooth M11M output.
For colour I'd get something slow, sharp and punchy for landscapes (Ektar maybe?).
I recently joined the forum to participate in the manual-focus Nikon thread. In the old days I shot mostly slides with a Nikkormat and three vintage lenses, 35mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 200mm 4.0. I carried it everywhere. But that Nikkormat body has been resting for at least 35 years. After doing digital with lesser equipment I finally bought a Nikon Z5 II and FTZ adapter to use my old lenses. I'm still learning the camera but always musing about the old friend the Nikkormat.