What to do?

[jonoslack]

Hi Simon
I did this two years ago.
I bought an M6ttl and a Nikon 5000 scanner, and, for a month, I shot nothing but film (40 or 50 rolls).
I had them developed in a local lab (excellent and fast) and then scanned them myself.
I enjoyed the kit, the nostalgia and the 'feel' of the results . . . but there it ended, I usually had to do more PP to get what I wanted from the scans, so the actual workload was more than doubled, the scanning was an absolute pain in the ***, slow and needing constant intervention.
I still do some scanning, as I'm gradually digitising my old film negatives, and the conclusion I came to is that you can either do it 'well enough', or you can do it 'properly'. Properly means wet scanning, and it's doubtful if the Nikon's are good enough for that. 'well enough' means an Epson V700 or V750 - these are actually quite a pleasure to use, and you can get pretty good scans in a fraction of the time taken with the Nikon Scanner.

As for the results - well, 2 years ago, there was a definite feel to film which was really difficult to duplicate. These days, with tools like Silver efex pro even that isn't really true (before anyone jumps in, I'm not saying that the results are the same - but there is definitely a rule of diminishing returns going on).

To sum it up. If you have lots of time on your hands, and you're willing to go at it full tilt, then fine. If you haven't . . . . then stick with digital. If you DO decide to go with film . . . . I'd get an Epson V series scanner FIRST, and then get the very few shots where it isn't good enough scanned by a pro.

 

[nei1]

I dont think you can wet scan 35mm(could be wrong here but Id have thought the sprocket holes could cause problems) and neither an epson 5 or 700 is good enough for 35mm,if you couldnt get a decent scan from your 5000 easily then maybe there is something wrong with it,its not that hard really.Maybe you should have it checked and have another go.It would be a shame to be stuck with digital if you really want to use film,and all because of a faulty scanner.

 

[jonoslack]

I dont think you can wet scan 35mm(could be wrong here but Id have thought the sprocket holes could cause problems) and neither an epson 5 or 700 is good enough for 35mm,if you couldnt get a decent scan from your 5000 easily then maybe there is something wrong with it,its not that hard really.Maybe you should have it checked and have another go.It would be a shame to be stuck with digital if you really want to use film,and all because of a faulty scanner.

Hi Neil
Those are pretty categoric statements about the Epson scanners - I've got about 3000 scans that tell me different (you may be right about wet scanning, I've never tried it).

As for the 5000 - it worked, the scans were okay (although very grainy with black and white), but it was so labour intensive and so very very slow.

I don't want to shoot film anymore - but I was sharing my experiences as, after 6 years solid digital, I invested a lot of time and effort into trying to like film again.

 

[simonclivehughes]

Hi Simon
I enjoyed the kit, the nostalgia and the 'feel' of the results . . . but there it ended, I usually had to do more PP to get what I wanted from the scans, so the actual workload was more than doubled, the scanning was an absolute pain in the ***, slow and needing constant intervention.

Jono,

I have a strong feeling this would be exactly the case if I proceeded. It would all end up sitting on a shelf, unused and then up for sale. I've convinced myself to stay digital at this point.

I'm also questioning the DP2 purchase however, and considering that a better option might be the Panny 20mm f1.7 lens for my G1s. This should be a good lens and should have an advantage over the DP2's f2.8 lens. I'm finding the G1s to be such great little cameras to use, and they're small and light enough that with the pancake on, they're not a whole lot bigger than the DP1/2. Plus, if I need more capability from my files, I still have my D300s.

The question, of course, is what will the 20/1.7 be like, and when will it be available? Hopefully we'll be able to see it before the fall and so I think I'm going to hold off on the DP2 until I have that option available for comparison.

Cheers,

 

[jonoslack]

HI Simon

Jono,

I have a strong feeling this would be exactly the case if I proceeded. It would all end up sitting on a shelf, unused and then up for sale. I've convinced myself to stay digital at this point.

Right, now that I've given you reasons to be sensible, please can you tell me a good reason why I don't need to buy the Zeiss 135 f1.8 to go with my Sony A900 . . . I'm struggling to keep my card in my pocket!

I'm also questioning the DP2 purchase however, and considering that a better option might be the Panny 20mm f1.7 lens for my G1s. This should be a good lens and should have an advantage over the DP2's f2.8 lens. I'm finding the G1s to be such great little cameras to use, and they're small and light enough that with the pancake on, they're not a whole lot bigger than the DP1/2. Plus, if I need more capability from my files, I still have my D300s.

The question, of course, is what will the 20/1.7 be like, and when will it be available? Hopefully we'll be able to see it before the fall and so I think I'm going to hold off on the DP2 until I have that option available for comparison.

Cheers,

Well, there aren't many duffers in the realm of 4/3 lenses, and I'd expect the 20/1.7 to be a fine lens, and I'm sure it'll be available by the autumn, possibly together with some Olympus contenders

 

[nei1]

Jono,Im pretty sure about the scanners,Im sure you have good scans,I have great scans(minolta dimage 5400 mk1)and anyone who has an imacon or drumscanner will have superb scans.It is more work ,it is more expensive,and yes I think probably you spend as much time on post as with digital(not sure here)but film is definatly better at the moment,for how much longer I dont know.


Simon you can try film in a cheaper way,(get your self an old named slr and 50mm lens)when you have one shot you like send it off to be drum scanned and then process to taste.
If either of you can think of a way to do this Id gladly scan a negative each for you just to not lose a couple of souls to the digital dark side.

 

[simonclivehughes]

HI Simon
Right, now that I've given you reasons to be sensible, please can you tell me a good reason why I don't need to buy the Zeiss 135 f1.8 to go with my Sony A900 . . . I'm struggling to keep my card in my pocket!

Sorry Jono, that sounds like a sweet lens to have. Had I a Sony system, I'd be lusting after it too!

Well, there aren't many duffers in the realm of 4/3 lenses, and I'd expect the 20/1.7 to be a fine lens, and I'm sure it'll be available by the autumn, possibly together with some Olympus contenders

That's certainly my hope. I'm very tempted to get the Oly 25mm f2.8 pancake though, it's Cdn$ 279 and the pictures I've seen from it show some nice DOF and bokeh. It would certainly work nicely until the 20mm comes available.

Simon you can try film in a cheaper way,(get your self an old named slr and 50mm lens)...

Neil, Actually I have an Olympus XA3 that I took out last week. It still has a roll of XP2 in it from the last time I took it out... 2 exposures gone (and probably pictures of my feet). It's going to go back into the closet with that roll still in it. Digital wins out once again.

Cheers,

 

[Lars]

One advantage that film has over digital is that the cost of the sensor scales linearly with sensor size, for that reason with film you should go big. At least MF, preferable larger. In my view, a 4x5 together with an Epson V700 scanner with wetmounting seems to be the sweet spot for film today. You get film originals, scans at 20-50 megapixels, you can contact print, get into digital negatives and hybrid processes for platinum printing, and the investment is quite moderate.

If you really want a non-digital photographic experience then a 4x5 technical field is the way to go.

 

[jonoslack]

but film is definatly better at the moment,for how much longer I dont know.

Apples are DEFINITELY better than oranges
No question

 

[fotografz]

Nothing digital looks like film. It is the reason to use it. Not to the exclusion of digital of course, but to keep the photographic experiences diverse and creative.

IMO, the use of a film camera is less intrusive on the photographic experience ... and the whole notion of not being able to double "chimp" everything is part of that.
Of course, you could turn all that off on your digital camera and shoot like a film camera ... ahhh, right, like that'll happen .... :ROTFL: :ROTFL: :ROTFL:

Once you get a grasp of working with film, it becomes second nature ... and, counter to all the rationalization of digital review capabilities, it's something I personally never even think about when shooting film. I just shoot, pure and simple. Either you trust your abilities or you don't. IMO, that was a key aspect of shooting a Leica M.

Processing is part of the "emotional discipline" (a fast disappearing concept in photography) .... ME WANTS IT NOW MOMMY ... WAAAA ....

I personally enjoy escaping the digital drudgery from time-to-time. I love folks who whine about scanning a well chosen frame, then slavishly spend 500% more time processing 50 mediocre digital shots (of the 500 they shot) to plaster on the web. :wtf: (not that any of you folks here do that ...

Okay, I admit it ... I'm a hypocrite ... I dropped a bundle on a film scanner that'll do a super high resolution 35mm scan in under 2 minutes because ... ME WANTS IT NOW!

I'll shoot B&W film as long as they make it.

 

[jonoslack]

I love folks who whine about scanning a well chosen frame, then slavishly spend 500% more time processing 50 mediocre digital shots (of the 500 they shot) to plaster on the web. :wtf: (not that any of you folks here do that ...

The cap fits . . . (at least, most of it, all except the 500% bit) so I'll wear it. Still, only being able to take mediocre shots . . . it would be sad to waste even more time processing that mediocrity.

here is the criminal evidence . . . actually, it's 54 shots out of 523, but you were pretty close:

La Rosiere 2009

Mind you . . . I must hone up my skills on the throwaway insult front

 

[sizifo]

The cap fits . . . (at least, most of it, all except the 500% bit) so I'll wear it. Still, only being able to take mediocre shots . . . it would be sad to waste even more time processing that mediocrity.

here is the criminal evidence . . . actually, it's 54 shots out of 523, but you were pretty close:

La Rosiere 2009

Mind you . . . I must hone up my skills on the throwaway insult front

This http://www.slack.co.uk/newsite/2009/otherplaces/LaRosiere09/large-4.html is seriously good.

 

[jonoslack]

This http://www.slack.co.uk/newsite/2009/otherplaces/LaRosiere09/large-4.html is seriously good.

Thank you - I was pleased with it too - interesting trying to hold steady whilst teetering on skis!

 

[nei1]

Were all guilty of the occasional wagging finger ,no Jono?Take your medicine like a man and make the next photo you post as good as the one above ,in your opinion that is as its YOU thats on show.That is a beautiful photo by the way and is the best way to convert us "grumpy old basterds" over to the digital future.Chin up.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Neil

Were all guilty of the occasional wagging finger ,no Jono?Take your medicine like a man

Oh! I thought that was exactly what I was doing . However, I have seen that particular finger wagging in other directions where it has caused some very deep, considerable and lasting offence, so perhaps shutting up about it is not the best policy - It was not this direction I hasten to add. Sometimes it's better not to be too personal to people that you don't know, wouldn't you think?

make the next photo you post as good as the one above ,in your opinion that is as its YOU thats on show.That is a beautiful photo by the way and is the best way to convert us "grumpy old basterds" over to the digital future.Chin up.

There is always an issue as to what one actually posts - that gallery will be looked at by a lot of people who have nothing to do with internet forums, or who have more than a passing interest in photography. Generally speaking I'd accept that one good photo out of a week's skiing is a reasonable kind of return (mind you, I think there are other decent shots in there as well . . did you write all the rest off as 'mediocre'?). On the other hand, it's not a great display for people who were there, or who are interested to see what the place looks like, to post only one shot!
Perhaps it's time to have two websites . . . . or none at all?

 

[emmawest72]

Just do it. Get some 2nd hand gear and lots of film and start enjoying! Simple as that.

Good luck.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Neil

Oh! I thought that was exactly what I was doing . However, I have seen that particular finger wagging in other directions where it has caused some very deep, considerable and lasting offence, so perhaps shutting up about it is not the best policy - It was not this direction I hasten to add. Sometimes it's better not to be too personal to people that you don't know, wouldn't you think?

I can't edit this post anymore, but for anyone looking, I'd like to say that I've had an excellent PM correspondence with Marc over this, and if I could withdraw this remark then I would.

It's good to talk

 

[simonclivehughes]

Well, now I've done it! I spotted a Leica M6 Titanium in great shape yesterday on Craig's List and jumped at it. As I'd hoped, it is indeed in immaculate condition, and today I have a CV 35mm f1.4 SC lens on the way for it. I had the CV 21mm f4 P lens left from my M8 days, so that's residing on the camera now, but I needed a more "normal" lens (and normal for me is wider than for most people). I'm really going to try to discipline myself and just start out with these two lenses and put off any other lens investments until I know for sure I'm going to actually use this camera on a somewhat regular basis.

So, now I have to find a local place to get films developed and hopefully scanned to start off and then I'll look into getting an Epson scanner. In the meantime, some of my Nikon gear is going on the block to help pay for all of this.

As we'd discussed earlier in this thread, there's just something about the Leica Ms that speaks to many of us. I'd no sooner picked up this body than I knew I just had to have it. Hopefully, this time around, I'll have the sense NOT to sell it sometime in the future! (Former owner of M6TTL, M7, M8s and Noctilux.)

Thanks to all of you for your insights and observations and hopefully sometime soon I'll be able to contribute to this subforum as a film shooter.

Cheers,

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Simon
Good luck with it - I'm afraid I'd have jumped at that as well - irresistible.

When I had my M6ttl, I only had a couple of M lenses . . . now I'm beginning to be tempted by the idea of the WATE on FF . .. oh dear!

. . . . . even worse, a casual glance found an M7 .58 at a sensible price aaaaaaaahhhhhh what HAVE you done!

 

[nei1]

Nice one Simon,I would think twice about the epson scanner,it is not good enough for 35mmm,look forward to seeing your first shots........best,Neil.