literiter
Well-known
I'm gonna do something like this one day too. I'll wait for 5 years or so, however, until Cosina finally takes over Leica and brings out the second iteration of the iiip (looks exactly like the iiif) and I can finally buy a mint M9 from a thrift store for $50.00. Then I'll have arrived.
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
In what way do you feel the differences between scanned film and original digital files from camera are dramatic?
I am very interested by your comment and it has made me reflect on the two different approaches.
Ernst
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Yes it does. That's what I usually do when I want to shoot B&W. However, it would be more fun if I could shoot different films from time to time. For a variety of C-41 film experiences I guess I could just shoot different color films and convert the scanned images to black and white... but does anything else really look like Tri-X?
Tom
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
To be honest Tom, and I'm a bit embarrassed to say this, I've only ever used Tri-X a couple of times. I grew up in the 70's as very much an Ilford boy, using FP4 and developing it in ID11. I never felt the need to use anything else.
I must try it some time...
Ernst
Uncle Bill
Well-known
Tom, you pretty much summed up what I was going to say.
Fuchs
Well-known
If money were no obstacle, I'd prefer to use a Leica M7 and have my own team of people to develop, scan (on the biggest imacon possible, obviously), and print my pictures.
rya
Established
I do not necessarily fear re-formatting digital pieces. So much has been recorded on JPGs and RAW files that future software will surely interpret past formats. I save everything on hard drives and as they go bad the information will be shifted to newer drives that are only getting cheaper. Negatives do last a long time, but I know people who have lost huge amounts of negatives in disasters that would have been avoided by having digital backups at remote locations. The problem I wonder about is how I will scan negatives ten years from now when my scanner is dead and few companies produce high quality scanners I will pay for. I will probably soon switch to a flatbed and shoot less film as I am already using Leica digital.
rolleistef
Well-known
I guess you need to know what you want your pictures to look like.
Another thread is dedicated to pictures taken with a Minolta and it turned out that people would use their SRT 101 instead of a Nikon FM because the pictures produced look different. The same applies to digital and film. Digital cannot reproduce film, and it's not meant for that anyway!
Now what don't you buy both?
Another thread is dedicated to pictures taken with a Minolta and it turned out that people would use their SRT 101 instead of a Nikon FM because the pictures produced look different. The same applies to digital and film. Digital cannot reproduce film, and it's not meant for that anyway!
Now what don't you buy both?
edodo
Well-known
9000 bux will get you hours of labour and ton of film to play with with the cheapest film camera!
bwcolor
Mentor
I just reviewed my Ektar 100 35mm, 645, 6x7 scanned on a Nikon 9000ED and M9 files. Resolution places the M9 files somewhere near the 645, but I really like something about the film and I'm not sure what I'm seeing. I prefer the M9 workflow with regards to time saving. Also, scanners seem to be dead-end items. Where do we go when we can't buy quality scanners? Ignoring this, I don't like digital for B&W, so if I only could have one camera, I think that I would go film, but I prefer medium format to 35mm (if only one camera was allowed). Given real life, I prefer M9 for color, film for B&W and 6x7 for more serious work in color or b&w.
jljohn
Well-known
All of the above, plus a Hasselblad and a Linhof!!!!!
Actually, last year we chose an M6 w/ 35mm cron and a Nikon 9000 over a D3--not an M9, but it does speaks to the question in part.
Actually, last year we chose an M6 w/ 35mm cron and a Nikon 9000 over a D3--not an M9, but it does speaks to the question in part.
erik
Established
I don't think we have to worry about not having film scanners in the future. There are millions if not billions of images on film that will only become more interesting over the passage of time. Archives and museums will continue to have a need to scan materials for decades to come. Plus, today's high end scanners will also be an option on the used market. I'd love to have a Flextight scanner on my desk, that may be possible down the road.
RMarques
Newbie
If only there was a M digital that could give you the same look as Tri-X on a film M ....
jljohn
Well-known
Silver Efex PRo does a pretty good job of making digital feel alot like most popular B&W films, mimicking each films curves and grain structures. I highly recommend it.
http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php
(I have no affiliation with NIK Software, I just like the product)
bwcolor
Mentor
I would think that there will be a high end option for some time to come. I was thinking of the new market in which the Nikon 9000ED resides. Even Nikon can't sell enough product to keep the production line open throughout the year.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I gave up on color film entirely and went with the M9. It is that good, and I hate scanning that much.
Last edited:
CSG123
Established
This is so simple. I voted for the M9 so I could sell it for big bucks and stick with my M4 and afford a proper film scanner instead of my V700 (which is pretty good anyway). The M9 is simply not worth $7000.
