mirrored
Established
I voted the last alternative, and mean film and darkroom.
But M9 and learning new printing techniques is interesting too... perhaps I voted wrong.
I feel darkroom is the thing for B&W and it is where I started in early 80' and is still with me. (Thus I know color in darkroom is not difficult.)
But M9 and learning new printing techniques is interesting too... perhaps I voted wrong.
I feel darkroom is the thing for B&W and it is where I started in early 80' and is still with me. (Thus I know color in darkroom is not difficult.)
Last edited:
tonal1
Established
If I HAD to chose, and wasn't shooting for a living (I am not), I would chose the film M and scanner.
If money really were no object, I would have both of course.
As of Dec 31st at noon, color film photography is largely dead to me.
My strategy is B&W in film; my heart and passion. And color in digital: immediacy, and technical accuracy; not my passion.
I also like that if I only shoot color on digi and B&W on film, the two are separated by processes. I'll be pursuing one, or the other, preferably not both at the same time.
If money really were no object, I would have both of course.
As of Dec 31st at noon, color film photography is largely dead to me.
My strategy is B&W in film; my heart and passion. And color in digital: immediacy, and technical accuracy; not my passion.
I also like that if I only shoot color on digi and B&W on film, the two are separated by processes. I'll be pursuing one, or the other, preferably not both at the same time.
chrism
Well-known
My M9 has not seen a whole lot of use since the 9000ED arrived. Considering selling it.
Chris
Chris
rwchisholm
Established
Digital post processing is as much an art these days as analog post processing was/is... The raw file is very much that -- Raw. The data really should be finessed to get the best image (or artist's interpretation/vision). There is vast amount one can learn about processing and printing digital files. I find that some/most people who are new to digital do not really understand or appreciate that part of the art.
mirrored
Established
I agree. I often hear degrading comments about digital pictures like "so plastic", but I think it is linked much to display (monitor) and maybe saturation or other controlable digital prosessing.
Printing can dissolve the original "away in good way" too. Different papers and techniques are developing too - it is still a young area compared to darkroom. I have seen a masterclass veteran photographers going to study printing techiques in these days.
Looked on a monitor screen I often see same "plastic" on a medium size film scans after digital prosessing...
Last edited:
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
If money is no problem I'll take both, M9, M6 and the Nikon coolscan!
It's good to have options and its good to fill the feelings/mood!
Today I used a D700 with old Ai Nikkor lens, yesterday I burn a film with a Nikon S...
at the end all will come on out the B8850... I hope!
It's good to have options and its good to fill the feelings/mood!
Today I used a D700 with old Ai Nikkor lens, yesterday I burn a film with a Nikon S...
at the end all will come on out the B8850... I hope!
gavinlg
Mentor
m9 thanks.
Neare
Well-known
Film please.
I'll take the coolscan, but still I'd rather print than scan.
Since digital there has been this whole rark up about processing film being so slow. I don't know about others but I'm can happily develop 150 frames at once (more if I could be bothered) and that takes no longer than 30mins.
Putting 150 digital shots through photoshop with little touches here and there would take me a hell of a lot longer than half an hour.
Printing is another story I'll admit. But a file sitting on your computer is not a print either...
As for scanning, each b&w 35mm frame takes 1min (colour's a little longer). Not bad if I want to stick something on flickr.
I'll take the coolscan, but still I'd rather print than scan.
Since digital there has been this whole rark up about processing film being so slow. I don't know about others but I'm can happily develop 150 frames at once (more if I could be bothered) and that takes no longer than 30mins.
Putting 150 digital shots through photoshop with little touches here and there would take me a hell of a lot longer than half an hour.
Printing is another story I'll admit. But a file sitting on your computer is not a print either...
As for scanning, each b&w 35mm frame takes 1min (colour's a little longer). Not bad if I want to stick something on flickr.
menos
Mentor
I guess, the poll forgot processing ;-)
So here goes my setup with "money is no subject attitude":
- Leica M7 + Motor-M
- film of choice
- fully automized JOBO solution for 4-8 roll development at once + proper film dryer
- dehumidified storage cabinet for negative folders
- Leica S2 + macro lens + tubes for "scanning"
- Mac Pro + 2 big NEC monitors for PP
- Canon large format pigment printer for print + roll paper stock
- workshop + material stock for framing myself
- one person to run that all for me and have me spending time only on shooting and telling: a little bit darker here, a little bit darker there, please scan this frame again with a stitch for higher resolution, please make me a coffee ;-) …
Here belongs a "big grin"
The M9 is just a compromise, as is the M8.2 at the moment for me.
The M7 feels a lot more real by comparison (although, I do blasphemy and do the hybrid stuff above in a smaller scale already).
I don't like some of the work, film asks you to do, but I like, to have it all in one hand.
I don't like the limitations, digital gives me and I love the look and feel of film.
I hate the slow speed of film though in times, while I enjoy it in others ;-)
So here goes my setup with "money is no subject attitude":
- Leica M7 + Motor-M
- film of choice
- fully automized JOBO solution for 4-8 roll development at once + proper film dryer
- dehumidified storage cabinet for negative folders
- Leica S2 + macro lens + tubes for "scanning"
- Mac Pro + 2 big NEC monitors for PP
- Canon large format pigment printer for print + roll paper stock
- workshop + material stock for framing myself
- one person to run that all for me and have me spending time only on shooting and telling: a little bit darker here, a little bit darker there, please scan this frame again with a stitch for higher resolution, please make me a coffee ;-) …
Here belongs a "big grin"
The M9 is just a compromise, as is the M8.2 at the moment for me.
The M7 feels a lot more real by comparison (although, I do blasphemy and do the hybrid stuff above in a smaller scale already).
I don't like some of the work, film asks you to do, but I like, to have it all in one hand.
I don't like the limitations, digital gives me and I love the look and feel of film.
I hate the slow speed of film though in times, while I enjoy it in others ;-)
250swb
-
Of course buying an M9 starts to look cheap if you think of it as a digital medium format camera as well
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/2010_mini_medium_format_shoot_out.shtml
Steve
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/2010_mini_medium_format_shoot_out.shtml
Steve
Lord Fluff
Established
M9, no question. M8 replaced my M6 and I've never looked back, and I keep running the M9 numbers while I try to justify the expense. As a DEVICE the film M's are gorgeous, but as someone who used to shoot reportage projects on film I don't miss the process one bit.
As an example I'm just back from a Himalayan trip where I took nothing more important than happy snaps, but I did take 1800 of them - i.e. an equivalent of 50 rolls of film, which I would have had to carry along on my trip from the beginning to end. If we're ignoring expense (as per the thread) that's still a big hassle before you even begin to consider the processing, and that's assuming they'd even come back unfogged given some of the industrial strength X-ray scanners our gear went through at times.
Some people think the M9 is a compromise - for me, film is. I want (need) the option to go from ISO1250 to ISO160 and back again from one shot to another. Things like that ensure I never miss working on film.
As an example I'm just back from a Himalayan trip where I took nothing more important than happy snaps, but I did take 1800 of them - i.e. an equivalent of 50 rolls of film, which I would have had to carry along on my trip from the beginning to end. If we're ignoring expense (as per the thread) that's still a big hassle before you even begin to consider the processing, and that's assuming they'd even come back unfogged given some of the industrial strength X-ray scanners our gear went through at times.
Some people think the M9 is a compromise - for me, film is. I want (need) the option to go from ISO1250 to ISO160 and back again from one shot to another. Things like that ensure I never miss working on film.
Spyro
Well-known
With money no object I'd choose film gear and time.
Time is friggin expensive though.
Reason for film is that all my photography heroes that I grew up looking at their work used film. I want my photos to look like theirs, digital doesnt, and I dont have the inclination to sit there and change that in photoshop.
Time is friggin expensive though.
Reason for film is that all my photography heroes that I grew up looking at their work used film. I want my photos to look like theirs, digital doesnt, and I dont have the inclination to sit there and change that in photoshop.
Last edited:
AldPixto
Newbie
M9 please.
The internet killed my days of inviting friends over for an evening of conversation, drinks, snacks, and slide viewing with my fine pradovit projector, leitz CF lens, and big mat screen. Tweeting and uploading to facebook has killed the salon.
I fear international (or US domestic) air travel with film will be risky with excessive radiation or physical inspection. Digital seems to be the path of least resistance.
The internet killed my days of inviting friends over for an evening of conversation, drinks, snacks, and slide viewing with my fine pradovit projector, leitz CF lens, and big mat screen. Tweeting and uploading to facebook has killed the salon.
I fear international (or US domestic) air travel with film will be risky with excessive radiation or physical inspection. Digital seems to be the path of least resistance.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Regarding air travel, I am more concerned about excessive radiation and my health than possibly fogging of film...
Eastgreenlander
Per N
Interesting. How did a imacon scanner leave you unsatisfied compaired to a flatbed?
time
Established
Difficult choice.
I have been using film Ms and M8 long time.
IMO, the feel of film M (spec MP) is more joy and touching my heart much more. The M8 is much more applicable and flexible.
I end up with a nice limited MP and I am happy with that. However, the best is to have both a MP and a M9 for daily use.
I have been using film Ms and M8 long time.
IMO, the feel of film M (spec MP) is more joy and touching my heart much more. The M8 is much more applicable and flexible.
I end up with a nice limited MP and I am happy with that. However, the best is to have both a MP and a M9 for daily use.
richardhkirkando
Well-known
It would be hard to go wrong either way, but I'd probably lean toward the M9 just out of convenience.