Which film would YOU put in your Leica (very subjective)?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

I've been taking lots of NPH (Fuji 400 neg.) film with my Leica M2 and 50/2 Summicron. On the average, I finish around a roll a week taking abstract, portraits, and street scenes. Each and every time, I'm always happy with the results from the camera and the prints.

I now want to go into black & white and slide film photography (100ASA) at the same time to see which film I'll concentrate more on in the near future. I actually have never shot B/W with my Leica. Now, I can only put one film in the M2. I have another rangefinder camera, a Canonette QL17, which I used before I had my Leica. I can put the other roll of film there since I'll be taking both cameras, although I won't be shooting the same scenes.

Which film would YOU put in your Leica, and which one for the QL17?

-- Ron Gregorio (rongregorio@hotmail.com), July 11, 2001

Answers

Ron

Here's my (very subjective and a bit provocative) answer. IMHO color slide and b&w photography are two worlds. For each of them you will either fall in love with either spontaneously or never. Still, there might be second chances, if you meet again after a long absence...;o)

Try b&w with the Leica. They are a terrific match. Take a no-brainer film like the Ilford XP2 (which you can have develloped in any 1-hour color lab in the world, which offers a wide and forgiving latitude of exposure, amazing details at a fast speed, 400 ASA) - just to start flirting with the medium. You might start to enhance, crop and experiment on your negs/prints with the help of computers. Then dig deeper, devellop and print yourself - as for my personal experience there is nothing in terms of creative satisfaction that can be compared to the "birth" of a fine art print in the darkroom.

Try color slides with your Leica, too. Since there is little reason to switch from color negs to slides if not the search for more details, better rendition, in short optical qualities - go for the best lens.

If the results are appealling to you, try an SLR (I'm ducking, but there are Leica Rs, are there?). Since you'll have no darkroom magic in between shooting and showing you might wish to have at least the utmost control over the result in the process of taking the picture, i.e. in the viewfinder.

Have fun and show us what you fell for!

Lutz

While with the help of a computer you can mimic

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), July 11, 2001.


Since I started with my father's M3 and 50 Summicron in the early seventies, relying on a small Gossen for metering, I almost always used B/W film. Agfapan, PanF, FP4, developed and printed myself. When XP1 was introduced, I gave up developing and used darkroom only for printing.

I first used colour material in my Pentax MX, where my Kodachromes were consistently exposed and since then I've been using colour in SLRs only. Maybe an irrational decision, but after 30 years I am used to look through the Leica viewfinder and think "it's B/W".

I am currently using mainly Pentax SLRs (with Kodachrome or Ektachrome) and a Hexar Classic (with Scala). The M3 is still alive and used moderately for portraits (with TCN, XP2 or Delta 400).

I wouldn't use a Canonet nowadays (if not for nostalgic, emotional reasons). The lens is terrible below f/4-5.6

-- George (gdgianni@aol.com), July 11, 2001.


I use Ilford Delta 400 in my Leica. This is my main film. I recommend this to you as a great "daylight to nightlife" film. Howevver, you will need to set up a way to develop and print. When my darkroom backlog is too great, or when I want eye-poping color, I shoot slide film. At present, that happens to be Sensia II 100 (mainly due to low cost). However, Velvia, Provia, and E100SW all have their places.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), July 11, 2001.

Having grown up with Kodachrome I (ASA10), I use the slowest, finest- grain, sharpest film I can find namely Technical Pan. If there's some reason I need more speed, XP-2+ is next best in terms of grain and sharpness.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 11, 2001.

This probably isn't very subjective - they can discontinue everything but TRI-X!!! Okay, maybe for you color guys we can keep K64 - maybe.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 11, 2001.


If you don't do your own developing and printing or have access to a lab that uses b&w paper, the new Kodak Portra 400 B&W is a C-41- process emulsion specifically formulated to print on color paper in the Portra channel. The other chromogenics I've tried gave inconsistent results unless printed on b&w paper, especially if the guy running the machine wasn't particularly skillful or motivated. The tonal range offered by the C-41 b&w films seems broader than I was ever able to get with conventional b&w without a lot of fiddling with developers, development time, and printing...and how much I like taking pictures is how much I dislike darkroom work, chemical or digital.

Transparencies are a mixed bag. There's no way a print has the impact of a projected transparency on a large screen in a darkened room. Unless you have a specific room you can install a screen and arrange seating--i.e. a screening room, then setting up for a slide viewing is not a spontaneous thing and gives your audience time to escape ;>) Making prints from transparencies is not as satsfying as from negs because the already foreshortened contrast range is compressed even more in printing. Basically I believe that if you have a specific need for transparencies, i.e. projection or publication, then they make sense to shoot. Simply to be able to scrutinize them on a light table with a 20x loupe to satisfy onesself of the superiority of Leica lenses doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me, but to some it might be.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 11, 2001.


Hi Ron,

My favorite B&W film in the 100 (asa) range is Kodak TMX. This film with Leica Optics is a great combination. However , unless you do your own developing or know of a very good custom lab, it is pointless to use this film. The Delta 100 by Ilford is very good as well, but care is also needed in its developing. As far as slide film goes I don't think there is any one film I like best. It all depends on the "look" I'm trying to achieve. Lots of color and contrast= Fuji Velvia, muted color = Agfachrome 100, natural color = Kodochrome 64

Regards Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@tds.net), July 11, 2001.


Current favorites:

For B&W: Tri-X and Ilford Delta Pro 100. Delta Pro looks sharp and contrasty. Tri-X has nice gradation, and somehow manages to look contrasty even on an overcast day. They both have a nice look for pictorial photography. I tried a lot of T-Max 100 & 400 for years, never got the look that I wanted. Good resolution, but not so good on perceived sharpness.

For Color: Fuji Velvia and Fuji Provia F. Sometimes Ektachrome EPP- 100, where blues are important. Tried Provia 400 recently & was impressed with the improvements in grain & sharpness. Looks better than the old Sensia 200.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 11, 2001.


Many thanks to Ron for the question. He has asked exactly what I have been pondering.

As an extension I wish to ask those in the know about Ilford Delta. I have found that Ilford delta 400 really pleases me. I have a local guy do my developing and processing with very satisfactory results.

My question is regarding the reason, need, and quality of a 100 speed B&W film. For outside bright light shots in B&W is there an advantage to a 100 speed film? Or am I OK with the 400 speed film if I get a lucky shot I wish to enlarge to 11X14?

Insights and comments are much appreciated.

-- David S Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), July 11, 2001.


I'll shoot anything, anywhere no ups, no extras for 99.95. Yeeeaahh! Ilford HP5+ and Kodachrome 64 would be my choice. You can index HP5 for up to 3200iso (some like it at 6400!) and yield positive results but with slide film I think you'll need to experiment as there is so much out there and such a range of color biasing and saturation styles that only you can determine as to what will work for you. Obivously many seem to like the over blown look of most Fuji products and with good reason, the saturated colors impress the image to your eye and make them stand out against the real world which for the most part is not as saturated (even in the late afternoon)as Fuji would like you to think, hence my choice of Kodachrome- Which is nice but not over bearing in the color dept.

-- Dave Doyle (ddoyleis@home.com), July 11, 2001.


David, I think 100 speed films such as Delta Pro 100 ot TMX (if you can get the look you want) help take fuller advantage of Leica lenses, producing sharper and smoother 11 x 14's. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't use 400 film in daylight. Delta 100 or 400 developed in XTOL will still give crisp edges, despite the somewhat larger grain. If a bit of grain isn't a problem, and ultimate resolution isn't needed, then 400-speed films do have a place as a versatile, all-round film. I think if you are getting what you want, then you should stay with what you are doing unless or until you feel that something's missing.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 11, 2001.


Oops. The comment about somewhat larger grain was meant to refer to Tri-X or Delta 400, and not Delta 100.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 11, 2001.

Have some fun with pushing Tri-x to 800 and metering on the highlights. Can produce bold results if you don't need detail in shadows.

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), July 11, 2001.

I only really use Black and white, my favourite films are HP5+,FP4+,Tmax3200 [but at 1600] and I am trying Tri-x. I don't really like fuji 400 or 1600, and I find delta & Tmax 100/400 somehow without soul. Black and white is also developer sensitive. I have heard good things about XP2 but not shot enough films to really have a view yet.

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 11, 2001.

Hi, Ron: Just for you to weight different opinions, I'd like to fully subscribe Lutz'. Not only that I have learned to respect what he says through this site but also because after much trying for several years I happened to come to his same conclusions starting very much from the same point you do. Just one additional note. I think that shooting slides is just the other side of the same coin: to be able to record the marvel of light mainly because of the joy of colour instead (besides ?) of the joy of line, shape and tone gradations. I'd like to get in my slides the advantages that Jay mentions for colour print but I've never been able to find a lab that makes prints the way I remember I saw the subjects while shooting; as Jay points out it is not the lab's fault but translating from one means to the other simply doesn't work well because of their different technical characteristics. So I stick to slides though all the inconveniences in viewing. Furthermore, I like to look at them through a hand held visor instead of projected on a screen, I believe that no other means renders the same image quality than those little things. I did so while learning the basics (I'm still learning, of course)in order to get sure about what I had done while shooting without interfering machine made interpretations and pseudo improvements and in time I got used to that way of doing and haven't had the need nor the justification to change it. Have fun !

- Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 11, 2001.



Thanx for your feedback Ivan, and yes, I forgot to mention the advantage of "objectivity" of a color slide vs. the "interpretation" delivered by a print that you had no control over. If you do, though, you can achieve more subtle tonal variations.

Ilford Delta Pro 400 is my favorite b&w film at the moment. You might want to compare some results with XP2 shots @ the gallery I put up just recently thanx to the encouragement from this site. I placed quite small sized jpegs but they do offer a tonal impression. XP2 wins detailwise while Delta 400 offers better edge sharpness and has more tonal "character".

http:// www.konermann.net/gallery.html

Compare the mountain view "Nebelmeer" b&w shot (second but last) to a color slide I took of the same subject:

http://www.konermann.net/rigipix/nebelmeer.desktop.jpeg

Feel free to use it as a desktop pic.

Have fun. Lutz

(Hope the HTML will work...)

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), July 11, 2001.


Well, here comes the correct link to my b&w gallery:

http:// www.konermann.net/gallery/gallery.html

Sorry for littering...:o)

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), July 11, 2001.


Ron,

A lot of experts have given you there advice, most of it useful.

I am not a pro, just a weekender, but I love the look of Leica B&W slides. I use a wonderful B&W slide film that I think is just what you are looking for:

Agfa SCALA 200x

Try one roll, I think you'll find it yummy!!!

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), July 11, 2001.


The following are my humble opinions only...

Delta 400 = broad tonal range and great shadow detail, TMY has a bit more punch but is not as good in the shadows, and I find both lack the gritty punch of Tri-X. Delta 100 is smooth to the point it is almost bland but very, very sharp while TMX has more punch. Hell, for B&W I like em all!

Portra 160NC or 400NC for color prints simply CANNOT BE BEAT!

Portra 400 Chromogenic is really quite good if you want quick and easy B&W, and can be processed at the local 1 hour lab cheaply.

RDPIII for slides unless you have a lot of light or a tripod, then Velvia rated @ 40. Unless you're doing people, in which case I prefer Astia for its outstanding skin-tones.

Scala for B&W slides.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 11, 2001.


Wow! I never expected the overwhelming response to my question--all of them worth noting. Shame on me for not using B&W with my M considering what experts say about Leicas, B&W, and the resolving power of Leica lenses.

I guess B&W is something that I've been really reluctant to use with a rangefinder after getting some mixed results with TMAX 400 and CN- 41 based 400's using an SLR.

It's not really the camera's fault, but this has sort of prevented me experimenting further with my Leica M, plus the fact that I also have no access to a darkroom right now. I do have a flatbed scanner, printer and of course my PC and Photoshop.

I'd like to have more creative input in the final print, but without a darkroom, how can I do this? Well, after just reading an encouraging article on Leica user Ralph Gibson, posted a while ago by Al Smith (http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=005cEO), I just may be able to experiment with contrast settings from scanned prints, and then print them out again as revised prints using different papers.

Thanks again everyone, this is a excellent forum.

-- Ron Gregorio (rongregorio@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001.


Ron: Clever work plan. Just something to try: Ilford XP2 or Kodak T 400 CN are possible to get processed at inexpensive colour print photo stores to give you the basic substrate (in sepia) to process with PhotoShop and will still give you B&W negatives to further process the traditional way if wanted. And those sepia images are something special in their own right, too. Have fun

-Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 12, 2001.


Velvia in the Leica - I bought into Leica because they have the only lenses I've ever seen that really work with Velvia - right contrast and right color. If you really need 100 speed, then Sensia 100 - Provia III is still too blue for me.

B&W in the Canon, by default. But switch films the next time. Avoid the Delta/Tmax films - they are sharp, but have very 'tinny' tonal values - they defeat one of the finer points of Leica lenses - a long highlight tonal scale that goes on forever.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 12, 2001.


Andy, what are tinny tonal values? I'm uncomfortable with lumping T- Max and Delta Pro together, because the result I get is that T-Max, especially TMX, always looks flat to me. And while it has very good resolution, it doesn't seem to look sharp. Delta Pro, on the other hand, looks snappier and sharp. Though Tri-X still gives a "richer" look, as though the picture seems to have more substance to it, somehow. Delta 100 gives me a wonderful look for such shots as cobblestone streets, especially backlit. It does have its uses. If T-Max went away tomorrow, I wouldn't miss it.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 12, 2001.

Bob: "Tinny" is what I get compared to HP5, Pan F, and FP4, but since this kind of thing also varies with development and exposure, I won't put up a big fight. I found Delta 400 preferable to TMax - shot it for 4 years - but switched back to HP5 after an extensive comparison with TriX, Tmax 400, and Delta 400. The T/D films do have better acutance.

FWIW I scan my negs, and develop with Ilford DD-X. Used to use XTol, but switched to avoid the muss of mixing powder - the DD-X seems to produce similar quality to XTol from a liquid one-shot.

I'm in the middle of an experiment to build my own density curves by shooting a Kodak grayscale and graphing the Photoshop levels produced by each gray patch with a variety of films - sort of a poor man's densitometer. These should show if the Delta/Tmax films have flat shoulders (unseparated highlights). Hopefully, if I get graphs that confirm what I think I'm seeing, I can figure out how to post them. If I don't, I'll try and figure out how to post them, too (and then sulk quietly!)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 19, 2001.


Okay. I doubt this will be the last word but here goes. I shoot both R's and M's and here's what I have learned about black and white. First of all, if you look at what many, if not most of the "zoners" are shooting these days, it's T-MAX. Go to John Sexton's site. He'll straighten you out. Secondly Ron, you say you don't have a darkroom? Log on to Ebay and get one. You can get amazing stuff these days [dirt cheap]since everybody and his mother seems to going digital nowadays. [Why exactly I don't know but that's okay you guys, just keep on getting rid of all your great equipment and fill yourselves with pixels, and Photoshops and Photopapers and ink cartridges. Just keep trading in that old equipment for me to buy. My "stinky chemistry" photos will continue to blow yours away for years to come.] Next, get yourself a spot meter. Save up. A decent used one will cost you about the same as a polarizer for one of these pieces of Leitz glass we're all hooked on. Start reading "The Negative" by Ansel Adams. Then practice. Get ready for some awesome results. As far as colour film goes, shoot what your eye likes. They're all pretty good these days and elevating one over another is somewhat subjective. Take it easy.

-- Bo Pryszlak (natabo@aztec-net.com), July 20, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ