My first roll done with Leica M3, and there're some queries

[WhiteFields]

Finished my first roll of Tri-X 400, taken with Leica M3 w/50mm Cron V4. Got it developed and had the shop digitize it for me as well.

This is my first time using a rangefinder camera, and this is my very first roll of film too. I appreciate all advice and opinions given. Very willing to learn all the people out there!


Below are the some shots from the whole roll.


000066640028 by White Fields, on Flickr

100% crop

000066640028_100%crop by White Fields, on Flickr





000066640016 by White Fields, on Flickr

100%

000066640016_100%crop by White Fields, on Flickr​

Initial thoughts when I look through the whole roll:
- Is it suppose to be this grainy at iso speed 400?
- And I believe the details are suppose to be better
- Will the results be better if the DPI is higher? (although I'm not sure what settings did the shop use)
- Are there anymore factors I should look out for?

Please do guide me along. Really new in this field.
Thanks in advance!

 

[artspraken]

Welcome to RF.

1. TriX is grainy by nature. But grainy in nice way. There are less grainy films at lower ISO.

2. TriX is very easy to develop yourself with Diafine. Diafine is a beginner friendly developer and enables you to shoot at ISO 1600. No need fix temperature and no need fixed timing. Best of all, the solution lasts forever. You can search youtube for diafine & see how easy it is to develop.

3. M3 and 50 cron v4 is all you need. You have chosen well. M3 VF is best for 50mm. 50 cron v4 is my fav cron. Mandler formula which for 50+ years remained state of the art. That is how good the 50 cron is. V4 is best coz the hood is external/detachable. I don't like the built-in hood of v5 which unnecessarily adds weight and size. Summicron is fast enough and in many ways superior to lux. I have big aperture lens, but i find i always return to summicron coz F2 is the sweet spot and its all i really need at a small form factor.

4. If the scan is at higher DPI, yes you will get more detail. For film, the resulting digital image depends on quality of scanner. Higher DPI takes longer and more cost to scan. In todays digital age, most consumer grade scanners are slow and a pain to operate, but there is much fiddle and hobby factor - you will enjoy if you treat each image as a labour of love to perfect. But if you are the type to desire "quick fix", scanning is a pain. You can use labs to scan for you but it costs time and money.

 

[JGHan]

Grain depends on a whole lot of factors. Film iso, developing temperature, Agitation, what developer you use, etc. If I'm not wrong, results should be better if the dmax and resolution range of the scanner is increased. Lab scans are best used for website viewing. You are shooting 135 format anyway so the details when you enlarge will not be better if you compare to MF or LF. Anyway film grain is nice! Tri-x is supposed to give you that gritty look. You can try fuji acros 100 for finer grain.

 

[Anxin]

Initial thoughts when I look through the whole roll:
- Is it suppose to be this grainy at iso speed 400?
- And I believe the details are suppose to be better
- Will the results be better if the DPI is higher? (although I'm not sure what settings did the shop use)
- Are there anymore factors I should look out for?

Please do guide me along. Really new in this field.
Thanks in advance!​

Just my 2 cents:

Presuming that the film was correctly exposed, then IMHO, the developing & scanning are poorly done.

Tri-x is grainy but what I see here is not just grains per se, but effect of over-sharpening of scanned image. I also believe your v4 cron is capable of producing images of much much higher resolution and greater tonal range.

Just for illustration, I got this roll of Tri-x developed by the shop but scanned it myself using a minolta 5400.
Below is a test shot taken with a cheapo LTM russian ORION-15 lens:

This is 100% crop:

Grainy? yes. But details can be clearly seen.

Hope those experienced with scanning films could share here.

Cheers,
anxin​

 

[WhiteFields]

Welcome to RF.

1. TriX is grainy by nature. But grainy in nice way. There are less grainy films at lower ISO.

2. TriX is very easy to develop yourself with Diafine. Diafine is a beginner friendly developer and enables you to shoot at ISO 1600. No need fix temperature and no need fixed timing. Best of all, the solution lasts forever. You can search youtube for diafine & see how easy it is to develop.

3. M3 and 50 cron v4 is all you need. You have chosen well. M3 VF is best for 50mm. 50 cron v4 is my fav cron. Mandler formula which for 50+ years remained state of the art. That is how good the 50 cron is. V4 is best coz the hood is external/detachable. I don't like the built-in hood of v5 which unnecessarily adds weight and size. Summicron is fast enough and in many ways superior to lux. I have big aperture lens, but i find i always return to summicron coz F2 is the sweet spot and its all i really need at a small form factor.

4. If the scan is at higher DPI, yes you will get more detail. For film, the resulting digital image depends on quality of scanner. Higher DPI takes longer and more cost to scan. In todays digital age, most consumer grade scanners are slow and a pain to operate, but there is much fiddle and hobby factor - you will enjoy if you treat each image as a labour of love to perfect. But if you are the type to desire "quick fix", scanning is a pain. You can use labs to scan for you but it costs time and money.

Yup. Agree I am actually appreciating the grain here more than the noise produced by my D800. Will definitely look up on Diafine but for the time being, I shall not going into developing film on my own. I shall leave it to shops out there. However, I will be getting a scanner to digitize my negatives.

Thanks! Initially, I wanted to pair my m3 with rigid or DR but no luck in getting one with a fairly good condition. Ended up with the v4 instead and mine comes with the built in hood which I believe is the later version of the v4. So far so good, even though those photos are not up to my expectations, I am already loving this combination already. :thumbsup:

Grain depends on a whole lot of factors. Film iso, developing temperature, Agitation, what developer you use, etc. If I'm not wrong, results should be better if the dmax and resolution range of the scanner is increased. Lab scans are best used for website viewing. You are shooting 135 format anyway so the details when you enlarge will not be better if you compare to MF or LF. Anyway film grain is nice! Tri-x is supposed to give you that gritty look. You can try fuji acros 100 for finer grain.

Thanks for the explanation. And you just added another film to my shopping list. haha. :bsmilie:

Just my 2 cents:

Presuming that the film was correctly exposed, then IMHO, the developing & scanning are poorly done.

Tri-x is grainy but what I see here is not just grains per se, but effect of over-sharpening of scanned image. I also believe your v4 cron is capable of producing images of much much higher resolution and greater tonal range.

Just for illustration, I got this roll of Tri-x developed by the shop but scanned it myself using a minolta 5400.
Below is a test shot taken with a cheapo LTM russian ORION-15 lens:

http://gallery.clubsnap.com/data/500/medium/ORION-15s.jpg[IMG]

This is 100% crop:
[IMG]http://gallery.clubsnap.com/data/500/medium/ORION-15k.jpg[IMG]

Grainy? yes. But details can be clearly seen.

Hope those experienced with scanning films could share here.

Cheers,
anxin[/QUOTE]
I hope the shop didn't do any modification or tweaking to my exposure. Moreover, I used the pocket lightmeter app on my iphone so that the exposure won't be too far off? :sweat:

Your film scan looks so much better than mine over here. Thanks so much for the example, at least I have something to compare with now. Very likely I will be getting a film scanner. Have been comparing plustek and epson, I know plustek scans are better but I will be getting the epson V700 as it is more efficient and accepts different mediums if I were to make a change in the future. Hope I am making the right decision. If you don't mind me asking, any opinions on the v700? or should I sacrifice time, efficiency and flexibility for better quality scans by getting the plustek?


All experienced and new users are welcome to help, share and learn. Cheers!

 

[artspraken]

1. Consumer grade scanners available are epson v700, plustek 8200 and pakon (cannot rember model number),

2. At some stage you may vacillate between 35mm and 50mm,

3. At some stage you may vacillate between modern (sharp look) lenses and classic (soft look) lenses,

4. At some stage you may vacillate between black paint and chrome,

5. At some stage you may start investing in printers....

6. At some stage you may suffer from addiction to bokeh, then feel the urge to sell a kidney to fund a Noctilux

7. At some stage you may buy a digital rangefinder, only to learn that the analogue shooting experience simply cannot be replicated with a digital RF

 

[WhiteFields]

1. Consumer grade scanners available are epson v700, plustek 8200 and pakon (cannot rember model number),

2. At some stage you may vacillate between 35mm and 50mm,

3. At some stage you may vacillate between modern (sharp look) lenses and classic (soft look) lenses,

4. At some stage you may vacillate between black paint and chrome,

5. At some stage you may start investing in printers....

6. At some stage you may suffer from addiction to bokeh, then feel the urge to sell a kidney to fund a Noctilux

7. At some stage you may buy a digital rangefinder, only to learn that the analogue shooting experience simply cannot be replicated with a digital RF

:sweat: :sweat: :sweat:
So scary~~~

Anyways, what about the minolta scanner that anxin is using? Is it also a consumer grade scanner?

 

[anerjee]

the Minolta is a very good scanner, much better than lab scans or even a flatbed like the Epson v700.

You can also reduce grain in post-process by using "luminance noise reduction" option in Lightroom or equivalent in other software. This will introduce some softness, so remedy that with a small amount of sharpening.

 

[WhiteFields]

the Minolta is a very good scanner, much better than lab scans or even a flatbed like the Epson v700.

You can also reduce grain in post-process by using "luminance noise reduction" option in Lightroom or equivalent in other software. This will introduce some softness, so remedy that with a small amount of sharpening.

Did a little search on the minolta. It's actually an old model right? No longer in production. Must be a good old gem.

Hmmm. I wonder if topaz denoise works the same.

 

[crispy12]

Congrats! Welcome to the world of RF phoography!

The grain you see is an artifact of scanning - too much oversharpening. When your negatives are digitalised, the retail scanner software typically applies auto levels and sharpening. Don't be mistaken, all film requires sharpening which is just because of the inadequency of our scanners, but too much sharpening will affect the outcome. The quality of scanner plays a big role, so even if you DIY at home you likely won't get better results unless you have a dedicated 35mm scanner (eg Plustek is a good brand to look at).

Initial thoughts when I look through the whole roll:
- Is it suppose to be this grainy at iso speed 400? Yes, usually very grainy however not as much as yours. Grain size is also rather big
- And I believe the details are suppose to be better Shot exposure plays a big role, as well as developing which can affect the quality of negative and thus details
- Will the results be better if the DPI is higher? (although I'm not sure what settings did the shop use) Yes if you have good quality negative
- Are there anymore factors I should look out for? If you want smooth tone with minimal grain, you need a bigger format like medium format, or even 120 film. The negative size is so big that you will barely notice he grain even with a less ideal scanner

Finally, I don't think you won't be satisfied shooting film if you pixel peep... digital is much less work. Have fun~

 

[WhiteFields]

Congrats! Welcome to the world of RF phoography!

The grain you see is an artifact of scanning - too much oversharpening. When your negatives are digitalised, the retail scanner software typically applies auto levels and sharpening. Don't be mistaken, all film requires sharpening which is just because of the inadequency of our scanners, but too much sharpening will affect the outcome. The quality of scanner plays a big role, so even if you DIY at home you likely won't get better results unless you have a dedicated 35mm scanner (eg Plustek is a good brand to look at).

Finally, I don't think you won't be satisfied shooting film if you pixel peep... digital is much less work. Have fun~

Hmmm. I see. I'm just trying to see what kind of quality the shop delivers before I get myself a film scanner. Actually, I'm thinking v700 due to the efficency and the flexibility of it. At the same time it delivers fairly decent quality scans. Or should I sacrifice time and flexibility and settle for the dedicated 35mm plustek film scanner? Decisions decisions. :sweat:

U meant I won't be satisfied? Or I will be satisfied?

 

[Anxin]

Did a little search on the minolta. It's actually an old model right? No longer in production. Must be a good old gem.

Hmmm. I wonder if topaz denoise works the same.

Yep, the Minolta 5400 is an old model, discontinued a decade ago I got one from eBay and it works brilliantly with VueScan. Its performance is superb, as good (some said better than) my Coolscan 9000ED. I just pray that it won't die on me too soon.

I don't have experience with V700 but my friend is using one for scanning MF. The results look fine to me.

Don't expect software denoise to do wonder. Noise gone, details also lost. When S/N is low, denoise (which is just some forms of filter) will further reduce your signal (ie. your pix details). Basic information theory.

I also shoot with a digital M (Monochrom) but prefer and enjoy shooting with films. Scanning can be tricky and time consuming, but can be very satisfying too.

Cheers,
Anxin

 

[WhiteFields]

Yep, the Minolta 5400 is an old model, discontinued a decade ago I got one from eBay and it works brilliantly with VueScan. Its performance is superb, as good (some said better than) my Coolscan 9000ED. I just pray that it won't die on me too soon.

I don't have experience with V700 but my friend is using one for scanning MF. The results look fine to me.

Don't expect software denoise to do wonder. Noise gone, details also lost. When S/N is low, denoise (which is just some forms of filter) will further reduce your signal (ie. your pix details). Basic information theory.

I also shoot with a digital M (Monochrom) but prefer and enjoy shooting with films. Scanning can be tricky and time consuming, but can be very satisfying too.

Cheers,
Anxin

That nikon scanner is going to cost me a bomb. I shall continue to struggle between v700 and 8200ai. :bsmilie:

Only asked out of curiosity, most probably I won't be applying denoise software on my film scan, somehow the grains feel different from the digital noise. Not sure how to describe it either.

Right now I have the negatives, will be scanning the negatives once I get my scanner. Hope to see an improvement in details and resolution

 

[crispy12]

Hmmm. I see. I'm just trying to see what kind of quality the shop delivers before I get myself a film scanner. Actually, I'm thinking v700 due to the efficency and the flexibility of it. At the same time it delivers fairly decent quality scans. Or should I sacrifice time and flexibility and settle for the dedicated 35mm plustek film scanner? Decisions decisions. :sweat:

U meant I won't be satisfied? Or I will be satisfied?

Oops, typo. I meant that you won't be satisfied. The detail from 24mp RAW image is huge. Film requires perfect exposure, developing, scanning... just a lot more in the equation.

Flatbed will never be as good as a dedicated scanner... Only get v700 if you consider using medium format. Even then, I still got a Plustek as well as Canon 9000f as the advantage of plusek is very obvious yet I still like to use MF film. Lots of posts about those scanners here if you search. The minolta and nikon scanners are legendary, just like their price

The noise is different, if you look at it closely it looks more like little rice grains or bacteria under the microscope. Digital noise is just multicoloured pixels. Scanning film is an art in itself... I was very frustrated till i developed my own workflow. Go to APUG forums to learn more.

 

[Anxin]

That nikon scanner is going to cost me a bomb. I shall continue to struggle between v700 and 8200ai. :bsmilie:

Only asked out of curiosity, most probably I won't be applying denoise software on my film scan, somehow the grains feel different from the digital noise. Not sure how to describe it either.

Right now I have the negatives, will be scanning the negatives once I get my scanner. Hope to see an improvement in details and resolution

I won't recommend the minolta 5400 nor Nikon 9000ED for a good reason: there is simply no support, period. (while cost is certainly a concern, they wouldn't cost more than a used M9 for example. BTW, I got the Minolta 5400 for $600, and got the refurbished 9000ED from Adorama for about $3500 including shipping.)

V700 appears to be a good choice esp. if you want to shoot MF in future. Don't sink too much $ into equipment. Buy more films (getting expensive each day) and enjoy.

 

[WhiteFields]

I won't recommend the minolta 5400 nor Nikon 9000ED for a good reason: there is simply no support, period. (while cost is certainly a concern, they wouldn't cost more than a used M9 for example. BTW, I got the Minolta 5400 for $600, and got the refurbished 9000ED from Adorama for about $3500 including shipping.)

V700 appears to be a good choice esp. if you want to shoot MF in future. Don't sink too much $ into equipment. Buy more films (getting expensive each day) and enjoy.

Haha. Even if it is recommend I believed my pocket won't be deep enough for the nikon scanner. As for the minolta, the model is too old for any support to be available.

Oops, typo. I meant that you won't be satisfied. The detail from 24mp RAW image is huge. Film requires perfect exposure, developing, scanning... just a lot more in the equation.

Flatbed will never be as good as a dedicated scanner... Only get v700 if you consider using medium format. Even then, I still got a Plustek as well as Canon 9000f as the advantage of plusek is very obvious yet I still like to use MF film. Lots of posts about those scanners here if you search. The minolta and nikon scanners are legendary, just like their price

The noise is different, if you look at it closely it looks more like little rice grains or bacteria under the microscope. Digital noise is just multicoloured pixels. Scanning film is an art in itself... I was very frustrated till i developed my own workflow. Go to APUG forums to learn more.

Good analogy on the grain and noise comparison. U mean your own workflow in scanning film? Or is it from developing it to scanning it?


U two guys win. One points me towards plustek and the other towards v700. Lol~~ :mad2:

 

[Anxin]

Haha ppl can say all they want. But you n you alone to decide. Your need/money mah

 

[JGHan]

Developing and scanning will all affect the look of the film. For example if you use higher temperatures and you agitate more, your negs will be grainier. Then some developers give you better sharpness, some are more suitable to push/pull films. Scanning is another skill also, especially for colour, cos you need to jaga all the colour curves and whatnot. Anyway, you won't go wrong with either scanners, I have the v700 and its good enough. Only downside are the flimsy negative holders. Some ppl use anti-newton glass also but I havent tried them yet.

 

[WhiteFields]

Thanks for all the valuable insight guys. For now I will settle for v700. And shall see where I progress from there.

 

[pongpong]

if you do not intend to do medium format, get a primefilm 7200