p.5 #1 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
madNbad wrote:
Capture One has just released their stand alone conversation software that is worth a look. If you are currently using Lightroom, the Negative Lab Pro plug in works very well.
With black and white negative scans can't you just invert the file in Lightroom using a preset that inverts the tone curve? This is fast, simple, and you have only one file with all the native dng format advantages.
p.5 #2 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
1bwana1 wrote:
Well, I just picked up my first roll of film (Ilford HP5 400) shot on my newly acquired Leica IIIf. There is good news and bad news. The good news is that mechanically and cosmetically both the camera and lens are in great shape and perform well. Also, I was able to reliably get focus, frame, and expose with the camera. So, great potential. The bad news is that there are a number of small holes in the shutter fabric. So, anytime I walked around with the film advanced ready for the next shot, and the lens cap off there were large white spots on the images ruining them. The camera and lens go to a shop tomorrow for a new shutter and a CLA on both. So, not the financial bargain I had hoped for, but I knew the risk when I bought it. The important thing is that I will end up with a really good camera at a fair price in the end. I enjoyed shooting film enough to add it to my hobby and am happy to invest in it.
The other investment I am going to make in film is to put together my own scanning setup. Getting back 6mpx jpeg files is not going to work for me. I have a kit in mind and it will only cost about $250 more dollars to get it up and going using my SL3 as the base. I will end up with with high resolution DNG files to work with. The files I got back were a bit too grainy for my taste, so I will try some lower ASA rated films, and do my own scans. I will likely pay to have the developing done as I want to do both B&W and Color. The setup to do that developing will take almost 100 rolls of film to recoup in savings. So I will wait to see what volume I end up with. The scanning is a quality issue so I don't mind spending on that. I do like the character rich rendering of the lens and film. A new dimension in my shooting style....Show more →
Nice first run. Tri-X is a fairly grainy film. If you want to try a less grainy 400-speed option, look at TMAX 400 or Delta Pro 400. They are more modern films and show less grain than Tri-X or HP5.
On developing, home B&W development can be very cheap and it gives you a lot of control in the final outcome. I use a lab for color and do B&W myself.
Gear wise, you only need a tank and a reel (~$50), a thermometer, and some plasticware. Bottles, measuring cup, graduated cylinder, funnel, etc. All very cheap. A changing bag is nice, but a dark closet or bathroom is fine too. The rest is just water, developer, and fixer cost. Developer + fixer runs me ~$1 per roll while my local lab charges $10 for a roll of B&W.
p.5 #4 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
KLaban wrote:
So do I. Frankly, why bother with a high resolution Raw or TIFF?
It is the difference between this file and something shot with your SL3 that is so enchanting and a meaningful juxtaposition between the two.
These scans have so many compression and noise reduction artifacts, scanning them properly makes a lot of sense. They'll still be lower res and more grainy than 60mp native digital images, but at least it will do the film justice.
p.5 #5 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
1bwana1 wrote:
Here is another from my first film roll ever, and camera test. Even when the Leica IIIf and 50cm f/3.5 Elmar are under exposed wide open in a very dimly lit bar, I really enjoy the mood created by what are technically the shortcomings of the lens and the film. Especially, when I consider that I only had a 6mpx jpeg to work with. II am curious to see what this image can be when I have a high resolution RAW or TIFF file.
Yep, everything is wrong with this image, yet for some reason I like it...
---------------------------------------------
brick33308 wrote:
...If you want to see way more "wrong" with a film image (M6 classic, 35 steel rim reissue), feast your eyes on this. And yet I love it. And there's your proof to disregard any opinions I have regarding film images
With the image in the first quote 1bwana1 is only reaching for The Emperor's New Clothes, while with the image in the second quote brick33308 has fully grasped it.
p.5 #6 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
fjablo wrote:
These scans have so many compression and noise reduction artifacts, scanning them properly makes a lot of sense. They'll still be lower res and more grainy than 60mp native digital images, but at least it will do the film justice.
If I were 1bwana1 I wouldn't concern myself with justice towards the film. He has the perfect opportunity to create something that compliments and yet contrasts with the run-of-the-mill high resolution output that dominates here and elsewhere.
With the image in the first quote 1bwana1 is only reaching for The Emperor's New Clothes, while with the image in the second quote brick33308 has fully grasped it.
Well, that is of course a subjective opinion, as was mine.
p.5 #8 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
Mitch Alland wrote:
With the image in the first quote 1bwana1 is only reaching for The Emperor's New Clothes, while with the image in the second quote brick33308 has fully grasped it.
p.5 #9 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
brick33308 wrote:
charming, I love it.
If you want to see way more "wrong" with a film image (M6 classic, 35 steel rim reissue), feast your eyes on this. And yet I love it. And there's your proof to disregard any opinions I have regarding film images
p.5 #11 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
1bwana1 wrote:
With black and white negative scans can't you just invert the file in Lightroom using a preset that inverts the tone curve? This is fast, simple, and you have only one file with all the native dng format advantages.
When I first started using the camera for digital capture. there weren't a lot of options for converting negatives and that was the best way to convert B&W. Negative Lab Pro was designed to mitigate the orange cast of color negatives.
I hadn't planed on using color until I started rooting through the old negatives and slides and I was glad to have it:
Shortly after moving to Portland, Oregon, spring 1985
Nikkormat FTn, 24 2.8 non-Ai, Kodacolor II
I am also confused about what he means. But, when it comes to film stuff it is impossible to insult me (I don't think Mitch would anyway). I realize I know nothing about it, and am only exploring, trying to learn, and have fun in the process. All good.
p.5 #13 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
Un'altra foto
Again, so much wrong, including timing and framing. With the digital M cameras even in single shot mode you have multiple opportunities to frame, catch movement, the camera calculates exposure with auto-ISO. Image quality is generally high, the RAW files are highly malleable, they have everything going for them. Not so much when shooting film with a very slow camera like the Leica IIIf. Timing is often not perfect, framing is not perfect, exposure is not perfect, there is noise, small jpegs don't respond well to editing. So much wrong. So, why do it that way?
I guess because the sum total of all of these "flaws" creates an image that somehow captures mood and imagination?
p.5 #14 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
1bwana1 wrote:
Un'altra foto
Again, so much wrong, including timing and framing. With the digital M cameras even in single shot mode you have multiple opportunities to frame, catch movement, the camera calculates exposure with auto-ISO. Image quality is generally high, the RAW files are highly malleable, they have everything going for them. Not so much when shooting film with a very slow camera like the Leica IIIf. Timing is often not perfect, framing is not perfect, exposure is not perfect, there is noise, small jpegs don't respond well to editing. So much wrong. So, why do it that way?
I guess because the sum total of all of these "flaws" creates an image that somehow captures mood and imagination?
Or, maybe it is true, "The King has no clothes".
Just exploring, learning, and having some fun....Show more →
p.5 #16 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
1bwana1 wrote:
Un'altra foto
Again, so much wrong, including timing and framing...Timing is often not perfect, framing is not perfect, exposure is not perfect, there is noise...So much wrong. So, why do it that way?
I guess because the sum total of all of these "flaws" creates an image that somehow captures mood and imagination?
Or, maybe it is true, "The King has no clothes".
Just exploring, learning, and having some fun.
@1bwana1 - I like this last picture. I don't really care whether a photo is digital or film, as long as it works; though I generally like images that don't "look digital," which is why I often use Cobalt-Image profiles.
What you call "imperfections" are often difficult to create digitally because we feel reluctant to push a digital image towards imperfection, often feeling we're "overdoing" it — even when we're not going too far. Some of the Nik Collection modules (Silver Efex or Analo Efex) can be helpful in practicing to get away from digital perfection.
BTW, years ago, when I was working in Uganda, I shot with my father's Leica IIIc, which replaced my Nikon F. The IIIc had a 50mm lens, like your’s, to which I added a 135mm and, later, a 35mm lens. When using the IIIc, I found that my photography (B&W and color slides) improved: with the Nikon I had hunted for images, looking through the viewfinder at the beautiful ground glass image; with the IIIc, with it's miserably small viewfinder, I looked at the scene directly and only brought the camera up to my eye when shooting. Also, having separate viewfinder and rangefinder windows, I had to take more care as to how I was shooting.
p.5 #17 · Uh Oh I bought a film Leica by accident...
Mitch Alland wrote:
BTW, years ago, when I was working in Uganda, I shot with my father's Leica IIIc, which replaced my Nikon F. The IIIc had a 50mm lens, like your’s, to which I added a 135mm and, later, a 35mm lens. When using the IIIc, I found that my photography (B&W and color slides) improved: with the Nikon I had hunted for images, looking through the viewfinder at the beautiful ground glass image; with the IIIc, with it's miserably small viewfinder, I looked at the scene directly and only brought the camera up to my eye when shooting. Also, having separate viewfinder and rangefinder windows, I had to take more care as to how I was shooting....Show more →
Mitch is highlighting an aspect of the creative process that I've found applies to my own photography: Limits produce better results.
Human nature has us seeking out _more_ capabilities in our cameras and lenses (longer zoom-range, faster aperture, better resolution, etc.), but sometimes less is more. For me, sticking to a very small set of prime focal-lengths and avoiding zooms vastly improved my ability to pre-visualize shots without needing to raise the camera to my eyes. I never thought that even that image in the viewfinder was also potentially standing in the way of visualizing the image, and that a "miserably small viewfinder" might help my photography. Good insight! My "worst" viewfinder is probably the Plaubel Makina 670, and it's not _that_ bad, but certainly it is more claustrophobic than my lovely F3/T's 100% image. I do love the results I get with my Plaubel, but always attributed that to the fact that 6x7 on 120 film only gives me 10 shots/roll, so I have to be more selective in what I shoot.
We were driving a VW beetle in the Karamoja district of Uganda, towards Moroto. Half an hour earlier, going around a bend, we saw a group of Karamojong men on a small hill next to the road. When they saw me, they threw down their long spears and ran off — Karamojong were forbidden to carry spears and they probably thought I was a District Officer. We then came upon this small group of Karamojong women resting in the shade. We stopped but could not communicate with them, as they did not speak “up-country Kiswahili”, which was the lingua franca of Uganda. The Karamojong are an ethnic group related to the Turkana.
The camera was the Leica IIIc with the Summitar 50 lens and the film was Kodachrome II. It must have been about 2 pm and the light was very bright, so that the slide had some blown highlights. This slide was in a shipping container with our belongings that spent, through mishaps, six months at the port of Mombasa, including a season of the “long rains”. When I digitalized it, it had turned into what looks like a monochrome of cyan — yes, Kodachrome can also go bad in extreme conditions — and for the post-processing to get the look of the dry-season grass necessitated an enormous addition of yellow in the white balance.
My feeling is that this slide makes a better print as a black and white conversion. While the group of women may look posed, actually they had just stopped and were all about to sit down when they saw our car approaching, and were looking at me as I came out if the car and greeted them.
