Which film?

Gunfleet · Sep 2, 2014

I've just bought a Leica m6 and summicron 50 - my first. I'm wondering where to start film wise. In the distabt past i used tri x on 35mm (and sometimes agfa 25!). I'll experiment with different films, both colour and b&w but i wondered which film apug users would start from in order to exploit this lens. Other parameters - I've nothing against using a tripod, though it does run counter to the leica ethos, i think. And I'm in the UK so that means films available here. I'll dev b&w myself.

pdeeh · Sep 2, 2014

Brace yourself for a half dozen pages in which each poster names their favourite film(s) ...

Gunfleet · Sep 2, 2014

As long as they say why and point me to examples in 35mm I'm happy.

darkosaric · Sep 2, 2014

Gunfleet said:
I've just bought a Leica m6 and summicron 50 - my first. I'm wondering where to start film wise. In the distabt past i used tri x on 35mm (and sometimes agfa 25!). I'll experiment with different films, both colour and b&w but i wondered which film apug users would start from in order to exploit this lens. Other parameters - I've nothing against using a tripod, though it does run counter to the leica ethos, i think. And I'm in the UK so that means films available here. I'll dev b&w myself.

Congrats , I have the same camera and lens as well.
Every B&W film on todays market is good - from cheapest Polypan F to most expensive Ilford and Kodak ones. You can no go wrong with any on them. Buy what is available and shoot.

Richard S. (rich815) · Sep 2, 2014

Chris Lange · Sep 2, 2014

doesn't matter.

i've used hp5/fp4/tri-x/delta3200/apx100/apx25/portra400/160/neopan400/kentmere400 in my M2.

the camera only rejected techpan, on grounds of it being a "waste of time and frankly, a fiddly bit of wank" (her [the m2's] words not mine)

Nuff · Sep 2, 2014

It all depends what kind if results you are after. Don't forget slide film. Although you have to know more about exposure and metering to get consistently good results. For starters I would recommend trix since you haves used it in the past and for colour try ektar if you want punchy and saturated colours.

bdial · Sep 2, 2014

I'd use what you are familiar with first, which apparently is Tri-X, that will give you a good comparison between the Leica and your other 35's.

From there, there are many directions to go in, depending on your taste.
For example, for a little less grain with hand-holdable shutter speeds a medium speed film like FP4 or TMAX 100 will give you a little less depth of field to isolate subjects.
For less grain and slightly more sharpness, you could try TMAX 100 or 400 or the Delta films

Then there is color...

pdeeh · Sep 2, 2014

Gunfleet said:
As long as they say why and point me to examples in 35mm I'm happy.

For the examples, do you want scans of negatives (which will have been adjusted by the scanner or in post processing) or would you like to see scans of prints made from the negatives? If the latter, would you like examples covering all or most of the papers, developers, enlargers and their respective light sources that are available?

What resolution would you like to see the examples? A common web size is 1024x768. Is that going to be big enough to discern the differences between the scans?

EDIT: I realise that rereading this that it might sounds a bit snippy or sarcastic, but it's not intended to be. It's just that the web doesn't really lend itself to any kind of comparison of this type, plus everyone has their personal preferences that they sometimes simply can't rationalise. It's a bit like asking "What food do you recommend I eat?" All the major manufacturers and most of the minor ones make perfectly wholesome film ...

takef586 · Sep 2, 2014

Given that you sound like someone who looks for good advice, look up Ilford HP5+ or Kodak Tri X and buy the one which is cheaper. Start developing yourself. Don't waist time on fiddling with film types: these two are the pinnacle of film photography, and you will like what you see. Some grain is good. Expose around ei 200-250 in principle. Have fun.
P.S. Don't waste your time with colour film - you have Iphones for that.

Rick A · Sep 2, 2014

Why would a camera need "special" film? It's a camera, load it and shoot.

Ricardo Miranda · Sep 2, 2014

Exactly!
As the OP is in the UK, if you need more detailed info and advice on what and where to get film, don't hesitate to ask.
For colour you can't go cheaper than Agfaphoto Vita Plus you can find in most Poundland shops. If you want the cheap Kodak Colourplus, you can get it from Snaps Photo Services, the lab I use.
For B&W I'll recommend Kentmere films of the Pan range that you can get cheaper with the Imaging Warehouse, formerly Nova Darkroom.

Richard S. (rich815) · Sep 2, 2014

Terry Christian · Sep 2, 2014

Echoing Rick A and others, I agree with any film.
Film choice should be dictated by the lighting conditions and what you want to accomplish aesthetically (and maybe finances!), but not the camera.
You really can't go wrong with anything.

FilmNerd · Sep 2, 2014

Any film will do, but if you'd like to see how accurate the shutter speeds are, I'd suggest a roll of slide film such as Fuji Velvia 50.

Colonel Blimp · Sep 2, 2014

Has the camera/lens combination ever been a factor for Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and others when designing a new film?

MattKing · Sep 2, 2014

If your intention is to "exploit" the lens, then something slow and fine grained would be good, but will really only give you different results if you use the camera on a tripod. IMHO, that is not where a Leica RF actually "shines".

For black and white I would recommend T-Max 400, but that is because, for its speed, it is a spectacular film in any camera.

250swb · Sep 2, 2014

First thing first, get this idea of a 'Leica ethos' out of your system. Leica put a tripod socket into the bottom of your camera to be used, so use or not, but don't limit yourself with worries about not looking the part with your new camera.

Second things second, choose a photographer you like and copy them, find out what film they use. Then you have a datum point, I mean you don't have to literally copy them, but all artists take the best things from other artists. So if you like grainy pictures by Ralph Gibson go for Tri-X and Rodinal, if you like Lewis Blatz and the New Topographic's choose a fine grain film like FP4 or Delta 100.

Steve

Fixcinater · Sep 2, 2014

Somewhat disjointed thoughts, just read the first paragraph:

I'd start with bog standard Tri-X and D76. Shoot one film/dev combo in a bunch of different light and learn how it works. If, after some time, you find yourself wanting something (+- global contrast, +- apparent grain, etc), try to do it with that combo. Simple is good.

Trying all of the films/devs available can be a giant waste of time and effort and for some, the chemistry behind it is the fun part...but I say keep it simple, it's hard/slow enough even taking the simple approach at first. Establishing a routine is most important in the beginning, so choose something that will give reliable and repeatable results with enough collective experience around it (hence the Kodak/Kodak recommendation, although you could run with Ilford Delta 400 and whatever their D76 equivalent is) that you can get pointers when something goes wrong.

I've put too much time and effort into trying all the different films and while they do look different, the subtleties of film choice get lost in the bigger realm of differences between formats (low grain = 4x5, even with pushed 400 speed) and working the light and subsequent process correctly: ie, shooting women's portraits in crap contrasty light and trying to save it via development is a waste of time.

cliveh · Sep 2, 2014

FP4 developed in D76 at 1:1. It has reasonably fine grain, not too slow and wonderful tonal characteristics if exposed and developed well. Also, just like your Leica, which exhibits a purist optimum design and precision engineering, FP4 is not one of those tabular grain misfits of chemical production .

Gunfleet · Sep 2, 2014

pdeeh said:
For the examples, do you want scans of negatives (which will have been adjusted by the scanner or in post processing) or would you like to see scans of prints made from the negatives? If the latter, would you like examples covering all or most of the papers, developers, enlargers and their respective light sources that are available?

What resolution would you like to see the examples? A common web size is 1024x768. Is that going to be big enough to discern the differences between the scans?

EDIT: I realise that rereading this that it might sounds a bit snippy or sarcastic, but it's not intended to be. It's just that the web doesn't really lend itself to any kind of comparison of this type, plus everyone has their personal preferences that they sometimes simply can't rationalise. It's a bit like asking "What food do you recommend I eat?" All the major manufacturers and most of the minor ones make perfectly wholesome film ...

Not snippy. Don't worry.

Gunfleet · Sep 2, 2014

250swb said:
First thing first, get this idea of a 'Leica ethos' out of your system. Leica put a tripod socket into the bottom of your camera to be used, so use or not, but don't limit yourself with worries about not looking the part with your new camera.

Second things second, choose a photographer you like and copy them, find out what film they use. Then you have a datum point, I mean you don't have to literally copy them, but all artists take the best things from other artists. So if you like grainy pictures by Ralph Gibson go for Tri-X and Rodinal, if you like Lewis Blatz and the New Topographic's choose a fine grain film like FP4 or Delta 100.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I should have written lightweight ethos. It's not posing that concerns me. I used a 35mm camera on a tripod as a youth. But you make a good point - tripods are in if you really want to find out what a lens can do.

snapguy · Sep 2, 2014

slow

I suggest you start with a slow film. Do you want folks to say "you shot THAT (grainy stuff) with a Leica?" M-series Leicas are great but my suggestion is you avoid "Barnack" and "Bokeh" like the plague.

wildbill · Sep 2, 2014

Ilford

BradS · Sep 3, 2014

Considering that the light in the UK is often a bit dull / overcast, I'd opt for something with some punch....Kodak Tri-X, Kodak Tmax400, Ilford Fp4+, Ilford Pan F, Foma 100 or Foma 200...possibly even Kentmere 400. Personally, I'd stay away from Ilford HP5+ in dull, over cast light (it is great for harsh California summers though).

What camera and lens you have does not really matter (the film doesn't know what the camera is and the camera does not care what film is has in it).

What is important...or at least helpful when (re) learning is to choose one film & developer combination and stick with it. I'd highly recommend Tri-X and either D76, Xtol or HC110...but, I have a geographical bias which may not suit your locale...you may prefer Ilford FP4+ and Ilford ID-11 or Ilford DD-x for example. Just pick one and stay with it...for at least a full year!

Which film?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency