Crisis of confidence or emperor's clothing?

[HarryBaker]

<p>I read the threads on this forum most days and am struck by the enthusiasm of my fellow Leica users. But I'm having a crisis of confidence. Just today someone on an earlier thread said that Leica film cameras were 'perfect'. Well, maybe that's true but such cameras depend on film and film on processing and I have now reluctantly come to the conclusion that commercial amateur film processors just don't deliver the goods. I've been looking at the last 50 or so films I've had processed by various labs and have had scanned using drum scanners and none of the colour images is as good as I get from my dSLRs. I'm not saying that film can't produce exquisite images. You just have to see the beautiful National Geographic images of the past decades to see what they can be like. Rather I'm saying that I can't find any commercial processing for serious amateurs that produces images from my negative films and M6 that are as good as those from my Canon 5D for example.<br>

I'm even unsure that my M8 is a match for the Canon. Oh. it's very pretty and it is much lighter, etc, etc, but I'm always just a little more critical of the image quality from the RAW files and you can't take pictures using JPG in camera. You can on a Canon. So why am I feeling like this. Have I just been unlucky? I don't know to what extent I am any more or less prone to cognitive biases than other Leica users. I love the look, feel and history of these cameras but I'm now wondering whether it's all emperor's clothing! I was very reluctant to move from vinyl records to CDs. Now CDs are become obsolete with downloadable material. Perhaps I should just sell my Leicas and move on!!</p>

<p> </p>

[rui_lebreiro]

<p>hi harry</p>

<p>well, i think i get your point<br>

canon 5D is a fantastic camera, as any digital full-frame these days, no point about it.<br>

when you say one can't get there shooting film, i guess in depends on what you admire in your photographs<br>

IMO, if one likes b&w, richness of tones, and "soul", there's nothing like your M6 w/ a good old leica prime on it<br>

rui</p>

<p> </p>

[didier]

<p>I use a pro-lab to process my E6 and find the results excellent. Commercial labs, at least over here in France, are not focused on quality.<br>

For most audiophiles, vinyl has still an advantage over CDs !<br>

Unless you download master recordings you may still find vinyl to be a bit more natural sounding than digital ;-)</p>

 

[sitemistic]

<p>Harry, welcome to the brave new world! Because I've been shooting professionally almost 40 years, all but the last 10 or so with film, I understand where you are coming from. I use 5D's (and now the MkII) every day, and they simply blow film away for color and sharpness. High ISO is effortless. As far as I'm concerned, the argument is over.<br>

But I still shoot film, as well, because it has a different look that sometimes fits what I'm shooting. Not better, IMHO, just different. If you can afford both film and digital systems, keep both. I think they complement each other. I always have an M2 or M3 in my kit, along with the digital.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>If you want to see a good spit take tell a painter your camera has soul. ;)</p>

<p><em>"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." </em> -Henri Cartier-Bresson<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>"We don’t take pictures with cameras – we take them with our hearts and minds."</em> -Arnold Newman</p>

[waltflanagan]

<blockquote>

<p>commercial amateur film processors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could you explain what you mean? I can have my color negative film processed at Walmart and get horrible prints back. Or I can go downtown to the pro lab, pay 3 times the cost of Walmart, but get great prints. I gave shooting color negative film years ago in favor of slides and now digital. The other option is to have the lab only develop not print the film and buy a scanner for home.</p>

[furcafe]

<p>Why not?</p>

<p>Referring to the M8: "you can't take pictures using JPG in camera"</p>

[michael_a._shapiro]

<p>When you're shooting color film, you have to be certain to use the film that matches your expectations. Digital cameras have definite processing looks as do various films. <br>

Why can't you shoot jpgs in Leica, but more important, why would you want to? Leica's sensor is great for color accuracy and richness, and its raw files are every bit as easy to work with as any other raw file.</p>

<p>On the other hand, why would anyone shoot film anymore?</p>

[link]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm even unsure that my M8 is a match for the Canon. Oh. it's very pretty and it is much lighter, etc, etc,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not a match for the Canon, sad but true. But you can't shoot film in a 5D now can you?<br>

So, sell the M8 and shoot digital on the Canon and Film in the M6 and have fun!</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p >Why not?</p>

<p >Referring to the M8: "you can't take pictures using JPG in camera"</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Because the M8 JPEG quality is dreadful. The JPEGS are only good for quick sorts of RAW images and are useless anything more than that.</p>

<p > <br>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm even unsure that my M8 is a match for the Canon.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not. Canon's over processing to make up for the strong anti-aliasing filter turns a lot of the image into featureless pixel putty. The M8 does not do that, but to take full advantage of the M8 raw files you have to process in Capture One.</p>

<p>As for your film woes...there are many professional quality labs available. Go to the film and processing forum and ask for labs in your area and I'm sure someone will give you a reference. If not, you might want to try Dwaynes Photo - they will develop and print negative film. <a href="http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/common/Color%20Film%20Developing%20and%20Prints%20Order%20Form.pdf">http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/common/Color%20Film%20Developing%20and%20Prints%20Order%20Form.pdf</a></p>

<p>You do realize that drum scans are often done "flat" meaning not enhanced in order to capture the maximum amount of information; and it's up to you to work with the file in PS to make it into the final image?</p>

</p>

[andrewlamb]

<p>Harry,<br>

I'm sorry to hear that you're not happy with what you're getting from commercial labs. It can be a bit of a lottery. I'm really pleased with what I get from Snappy Snaps, in Kentish Town. They're great people there.</p>

<p>Snappy Snaps is a franchise so it's possible not all of them are good. I know that the one in Wardour Street, W1 gets used by a lot of pros. </p>

<p>I agree with you about the 5D, it's a wonderful camera but for personal work I'm happiest when using my M3. It's nice to have the choice. </p>

<p> </p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Here's a guy some people think is a wingnut but he's adamant about the fact that shooting film with a Leica is better, and makes for higher quality images and digital scans than digital slrs.<br>

I <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm">shoot my M7 digitally</a> , full-frame, by sending my film to <a href="http://www.northcoastphoto.com/" target="_blank">NCPS</a> and having them make hi-resolution, low-cost automated scans of all frames at the same time they develop my film. My results <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison.htm">match what I get from a 25MP DSLR</a> , and are sharper than anything from a 13MP DSLR. <br>

Unlike DSLRs, the M7 won't be worthless in 18 months. A Leica M7 costs much less to own and shoot than a DSLR. <br>

I think it's really more complicated than that but there is room for both for people who are creative. I shoot a lot of digital but still use my M6 with E6 film for high quality images. I get scans made when the film is processed by a local lab (around $20 for the slides and a hi res cd). Do whatever works for you.<br>

<br /> </p>

[ron_breeze2]

<p>I recommend years and years of expensive psychotherapy, costing much more than your M8 and 5D, with lenses, combined to recover your way into a photography equipment identity. Another alternative is to dump film, recognize the strengths and weaknesses of whichever camera system you buy into and learn how to utilize their best qualities to produce the images you want. No system is going to be perfect for anyone and unless your a pro making money from your results this whole post is self indulgence.</p>

[noah]

<p>You need to use the gear that works best for you. The final photographs are all that matter, not what you used to make them. Having said that some people work better with SLRs, some with rangefinders and some with view cameras. So the tools do matter to some extent, but only in that you should use what you're most comfortable with.<br>

I've been a leica shooter for quite a while, though I was using Nikon and then Canon DSLR cameras at my newspaper job. But now that I'm freelance I use only rangefinders for most of my work. I tried out Nikon D700s and while the technical quality was amazing, I couldn't get on well with the slr method of focusing and shooting. It was an expensive mistake since I bought a bunch of Nikon stuff that I now might dump. But I'm happier shooting with rangefinder gear and when I'm more comfortable with my equipment I make better photographs. <br>

Only you can decide if your M8 is as good as a Canon (or Nikon). My images might have been technically better with the Nikons but I shoot in a different way with rangefinders and the technical quality of the M8 is good enough that I've never had a client object. I find often with the M8 that I'm shooting at the limits of what is possible with the camera. I really only go up to iso 320, so it's similar to my film days when I only shot Tri-x at 320. Often that means slow shutter speeds and wide open lenses. I feel like the images have more depth though than ones I would shoot with the D700 at iso 3200. The latter might be technically better, but the M8, despite its limitations or maybe because of them, forces me to work in a different way.<br>

That's the long answer. The short answer is no one cares what camera you use except you. So use whatever camera helps you take the best photographs.</p>

 

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Noah, I couldn't have said it better myself ! </p>

<p><strong>Bravo</strong> for your insight...</p>

[rossb]

<p>I guess a person can just take images with whatever camera they like. The fact is an inexpensive DSLR is capable of some wonderful images. If there are no labs in your area that you can depend on to do your film work then you just have to make a decision on what you want to do. To me, in my way of thinking a person should use the gear that will work out best for them based on image quality, cost, reliability and just whatever makes the process fun for you..I am referring to a hobbyist of course.<br>

I have never understood why people always bring out the vinyl record thing when talking about film. I still listen to vinyl records myself but for no reason other than it's enjoyable to do so. I have never thought of my turntable as having anything to do with film. You certainly do not need to have your vinyl record drum scanned in order to enjoy it. You just pick up the album and remove it from it's artsy album cover and place it on the tuntable and play it. It's interactive as the album will only play for a short time and then you get up off the couch and enjoy the process once again.</p>

[noah]

<p><< I still listen to vinyl records myself but for no reason other than it's enjoyable to do so.>> </p>

<p>It might not be the best comparison and it is a little, uh, overplayed. But for some photographers there is a pleasure in using film. It might have to do with the mystery of not knowing exactly what you've got, or the tactile nature of film, or the different look it provides that isn't necessarily better than film but it is different, no matter which film-mimicking plugin you use. And some love darkroom work even though you can actually get much finer control and more repeatability with photoshop.</p>

<p>One final note if you're having your film drum scanned you're missing the point, at least for black and white work. Making a good fiber darkroom print is, in my opinion, one of the main benefits of shooting film. </p>

<p>I can print larger with the M8 than I can with 35mm Tri-X. I recently printed some crops equal to a 40-inch wide print just as a test, and the quality was outstanding. Tri-X grain at that size would be like golf balls. But at least for me photography isn't about the quest for more quality, it's about making (hopefully) meaningful images regardless of what tools were used to make them.</p>

 

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p> But for some photographers there is a pleasure in using film. It might have to do with the mystery of not knowing exactly what you've got, or the tactile nature of film, or the different look it provides that isn't necessarily better than film but it is different, no matter which film-mimicking plugin you use. And some love darkroom work even though you can actually get much finer control and more repeatability with photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, the photographer that enjoys shooting film and loves the nature or look they are able to get from film should shoot film. They should also shoot a Leica camera if they enjoy using a wonderful rangefinder and of course they can afford it. But it sounds like Harry is not enjoying the results he is getting from his Leica camera's. That drum scanning sounds expensive also. It seems that he might be in the process of change and it can be difficult sometimes.</p>

[michael s.]

<p>Noah wrote:</p>

<p><em>" ... The final photographs are all that matter, not what you used to make them."</em></p>

<p>You can say that again. And I notice you did. :) </p>

<p>Good thing is it prompted me to have a look at your photos, which I'd seen awhile ago. Highly recommended:</p>

<p>http://www.noahaddis.com/</p>

[noah]

<p>Thanks Michael.<br>

<br /> One last note--dealing with labs can be a pain, and I'm afraid the choices are only going to get worse. I process all of my own B&W stuff, but Harry mentioned color neg so that's a bit more troublesome.<br>

<br /> Many cities have rental darkrooms that can be quite affordable and it's not hard to process B&W film. I do scans on a Nikon LS9000 for proofing, publication or web use and make fiber darkroom prints as the final product.<br>

<br /> The Nikon scanners, even the more affordable versions, do quite a good job but you do need to have some skill to make them work well. It is certainly much easier to deal with M8 or 5D raw files than it is to get a great scan that takes full advantage of your negative or chrome. I always thought chromes scanned better (and more easily) than negs, so maybe there is a local or mail-order lab that still does good E6 processing.</p>

[nzdavid]

<p>I've been very happy with commercial E6 processing and scanning here in New Zealand. (www.kens.co.nz). Good enough for a book last year at any rate. Scanning varies markedly. You really have to shop around.<br>

Digital is evolving. It's coming along in leaps and bounds.<br>

Storing data, whether music, pictures, or something else, on a hard drive or CD or DVD is inherently unreliable. Archiving is a real headache. Film still hangs around. </p>

 

[Apurva Madia]

<p>I have gone digital last 2 years. Started with Nikon D40x. Sold last month, took Nikon D90. I have aquired some lenses like 18-200 VR, 105 mm 2.8 Micro VR, 50 mm 1.8 AF-D.<br>

I have never felt more fufilled and creatively satisfied. Right from the conceptualization of a photo, down to the final printing I have total control at my finger tips.<br>

And i can say that the prints come out looking pristine. No scartch marks added by the labs, no dull colors, poor contrast dished out by the labs. The most interesting part is the post processing which I had to rely on some other guy-however good he might be- is now in my hand with my RAW processing software.<br>

Film's full potential can be only realized by those professionals who have support of their own darkroom or their companies' resources at their hand, for serious amateurs like me Digital is nothing less than a dream come true.</p>

[s_j_goffredi]

<p>Have you considered processing the film yourself? It is much easier than you might think and you can then (with a little bit of practice) get the images just the way you want and much more cheaply than from a pro lab. You don't even need a darkroom, just a changing bag and a processing drum/reel. What you then do with the negs is your call, i.e. scan/wet print/send to a lab etc. Just another option and a lot of fun and it may open a new appreciation of your Leica's.</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<blockquote>

<p>Stephen,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did develop the film myself in my college days. In my bathroom, with a plastic developing tank. A bottle of cold water from the fridge and a thermometer. It was fun. The problem now is time . Also not having enough quantity the chemicals go waste. But now I get my fun developing JPEGs on my RAW processor!</p>

[HarryBaker]

<p>Gee, that generated a lot of debate. I'm not surprised and thanks for it. Quite clearly my doubts have antagonised some and produced empathy if not sympathy from others. It's also obvious that some of you have found local labs that work. Andrew, Happy Snaps in Kentish town or Soho might be good but I've been disappointed with Happy Snaps in Cambridge. My comments about JPGs in the M8 are shared by many. The auto white balance is not good. I process RAWs either in Capture One or Camera Raw and with quite a lot of work can produce quite nice images. But generally, I use the M8 for B&W only.</p>

<p>I have moved back to TriX in my M6 and have been using Peak Image in the UK for developing only. I scan using an Elite 5400 and the outcomes are reasonable. I may move to developing myself but it takes time. I recently scanned some 45 year old TriX negs shot when I lived in the US (and had a darkroom) and they were good. So I accept the archive problems with digital images. Perhaps I prefer the grain free look of digitally captured B&W. I'll have to decide myself as everyone says.</p>

<p>My reference to vinyl records may not have been appropriate since I know there are some who still believe that they sound better than CDs. There again there are some who think that posh bottled water tastes better than good tap water, despite a number of double blind trials which casts doubt on this! I remember buying a record of Mahler's 3 with Horenstein conducting. Despite my obsessional care of the records, on the 4th playing I discovered a nasty scratch across the disk. Thankfully that is largely a thing of the past.</p>

<p>Ron, I thought that the whole of the forum was self-indulgent. As for your suggestion of psychotherapy, I have quite strong views about the usefulness of that too. But that's another story!</p>

<p>Again, many thanks for the lively discussion!</p>