wild about 30's-6o's grainy/contrasty monochrome

I am losing the will to live with my posh digital SLR. I, therefore, dipped into the world of M3 with up to

date lenses and am gripped. I now want to to go the whole hog and obtain a iiiF or earlier and live B+W for

a while. Should I be worrying about service and parts? My M3 will see me out so I have no fears there. The

next issue is what lens. I like the sound of the uncoated Elmar 50mm lens. Does anyone have experience

of this combination or a recommended alternative? Next is film. The local store does Ilford FP4 Plus 125

and XP2 super 400. My plan is to get the local shop to develop so I can scan and print. Any thoughts here

would be much appreciated.

regards,

jeff

Jeff, yeah a couple of thoughts. Firstly, good for you. My father had a 111f in the 50s? which I have used a few times and really got on with it. I dont know enough about them to tell you what to do but whenever I mentioned Elmar to him he would look a bit sideways and mutter "get a Summicron". As I said, my own experience is very little so there will be many other people here that can offer better advice than me but I really did get it "from the horses mouth". Re film processing; any way you can do it yourself? I would guess it would make the whole experience more enjoyable and give you control over it.

Leica IIIfs and earlier Leicas are serviced by reputable pros, but this is relatively expensive. Why not decide on an early Leica lens of your choice and use it, with a screw-mount to "M" adapter on your M3? The photos would be identical, and the viewfinder would be much better.

Thankyou Jim G. Father usually knows best though the attraction of the Elmar was the way it

retracts and makes a smaller package. This might be a reaction to feeling self conscious

walking around the city with the the large digital SLR round my neck.

Thanks, also, Jim N. I never thought about the adaptor solution. Hmm.

I have post-war versions of the Elmar and the Summitar, both coated, and, when the lenses are clean, they create fine images. The pre-war, uncoated lenses may be more to your liking, but you must search to find them in good shape, or pay to have them restored.

I agree with the suggestion of staying with your M3 and getting lenses that do what you want. The M3 is easier to load than a IIIf, the viewfinder is much better as well. And you can get a collapsible Summicron, though it will not be quite as small as a collapsible Elmar.

I've done the same thing as you, Jeffrey.

 

Go all in - get a clean, serviced IIIc/f and the lens of your choice. You could do the adapter route, but I think that you are after the total immersion - like me.

Most of the "30's-60's grainy/contrasty monochrome" look has to do w/the film & paper, not the lens (& certainly not the camera). I would forget about the XP2 for a vintage look (unless you want to do a lot of darkroom/Photoshop work), as it's too smooth & low-contrast. A hallmark of the early 20th century 35mm look was that the film was both slow & grainy. Unfortunately, nowadays most slow films are not grainy in comparison; you can certainly maximize grain w/the right development (chemicals & technique), but you will have to do this yourself (it's unlikely that your local shop will indulge you). You might want to post a version of your query on the "B&W - Film & Processing" forum for recommendations.

I concur with the M3/adapter idea. The nearest you're going to get to your stated goals with current film is to use the very highspeed B&W films from Ilford or Kodak, and develop them in Rodinal.<P>Actually, if you look more closely at negatives from the '30s era you'll find that the films generally have fine grain but that the details are very fuzzy due to the solvent effect of the developers used. By the '50s, the negatives often look much like those of today.<P>I haven't tried it, but you might try running a roll of XP2 through at ISo= 800, 1600, and 3200 and see what you get.

I agree the look you are referring to had a lot more to do with film and chemicals than the lenses. I use uncoated Elmars of various focal lengths on my M6 with modern film and also on the M8 with results not too far off than more current multi-coated lenses. And my SWC non-T* is now nearly 50 years old and the 100VS looks pretty good shot with it. If you are after that vintage look I suggest you try some of those Chinese films such as Lucky. They are cheap on you know where.

NO, NO, NO, get a LTM body like Leica111 or Leica111f as well as your M3. You will enjoy them both. Pre-war uncoated 3.5/50 Elmar lenses are great joy to use. A friend of mine mounted a Pre-war uncoated 3.5/50 Elmar lens on his M8 and the result I saw was fantastic, unbelievable. I was surprised at the colour and quality of the image.

The 60's grainy look was Kodak Tri-X and straight D76 and most likely a Nikon F. It was the most common newspaper photographer combination.

has technology improved beyond kodachrome and trix? i don't think so.

Agreeing with virtually all respondents, the lens (especially a 5 cm. Elmar) will not give you much grain with those films mentioned. You might soften the image a bit by shooting wide open or nearly so, but still quite sharp. The characteristics of early Leica images grew largely from the widespread use of orthochromatic films, often in conjunction with a light yellow filter. No longer very practical. With the pan films you mention, you might try using a light or medium green filter, expose normally, and push development a stop or two. Very much like many early Leica users into panchromatic film. It will give you some grain, and at the same time, in picturing people, will hold the nice deep lip and skin tones, somewhat in the ortho style. Slightly warm tone papers (fiber preferred) will also help.

But by all means, go for an Elmar in any case. Great choice.

If you are in the UK, as I am, try Ilford HP5 and using Ilford's postal processing service. I did with my M3 and an early 1960's Summilux 50. The results were quite contrasty and grainy - too much for my liking so I am not going to use that service again, but it might suit your wishes.

 

Philip

I respectfully suggest staying with the M3 and chemically printing your images for that nostalgic look. A simple guerrilla, dry darkroom can produce rich prints. Printing on silver rich paper is very rewarding. Buy Tri-X or better yet HP-5 and develop in HC-110/FG-7 vs your stated film choice and thoughts of store processing.

 

You may be disappointed trying to scan grainny film. I don't think there is a photoshop grain plug-in for XP-2 or Plus-X.

Tri-X has improved a long way past Tri-X. Many revisions, each with finer grain.