I am not a professional photographer and don´t have to satisfy clients. So I don´t have to rush to see the results right away. That´s why I was question myself, if I really need my M9 or if the M6 would be the right tool for my personal work. I traded my M8.2 for a M9 last month. I still own a digital Ricoh GR, which is so compact that I have it always with me.
The M8/9 files, DNG and in camera JPG, are superior in resolution and shadow detail. I can tweak the DNG files with Silver FX or Lightroom to achieve the look of film and add digital grain. But because highlights, shadows, and tones render differently between film and digital, this cannot be emulated adequately with a software filter.
Depending on the light conditions and dynamic range of the scene, it seems like sometimes you can´t see any difference when viewing on your screen. So why taking all this hustle with 35mm film?
If I look at the images, I definitely prefer the rendering of film. In particular the beautiful roll-off to highlights (dynamic highlight range). When it comes to color (which is another topic though) Film also has another advantage over digital that many find hard to disregard: better skin tones. Film grain gives a sense of structure and texture to the image that's more pleasing to my eye.
Photography has an emotional impact and artistic quality for me. The images shot with the M6 have a different character, are timeless and giving me the sense of the moment I captured. The M6 just adds to the sensation of documenting reality.
Don´t get me wrong, I really like the output of the M9. The CCD-sensors for Leica M8/M9 were developed with Kodachrome slide film as the ideal color look. And black and white JPGs are really good.
But I also love the simplicity of my 35mm workflow, because in 95% of the time I don´t need to do any post production. I let my film develop and scan with a Fuji Frontier with low sharpening settings. Prints just look great, and even greater when printing in the darkroom (which I don´t do myself).
A few weeks ago, I read a comment which I really like. Unfortunatly can´t remember where it was so I apologize for not quoting the author of it:
Digital files may be closer to medium or large format in sharpness. Which, for certain contexts, may be an advantage. But, when shooting street or reportage, we sorta expect grain, because our visual libraries are built from decades of 35mm or vintage film grain images. If you shoot ‘street photography’ with a Pentax 67, you’re going to get a very different ‘quality’ of image than with a Leica M3.
Our internal reference tells us that even though the 6×7 shot will be sharper and grainless, it’s somehow ‘wrong.’ The more reference you have, the wronger it will be. Somehow, even an Elliott Erwitt 35mm shot, full of grain and blown up to 36″ x 54″ will be absolutely RIGHT.
All pictures shot with the M6 have no post-production. No additional sharpening. Straight from the scanner! And I will return the M9 to Leica and shoot film for now. But who knows, maybe I go back to a digital Leica one day. Whatever feels right.
I went out and thought about doing a quick comparison on using a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 versus a digital filmsimulation of this film stock. The Ricoh GR has a great fixed lens, giving you a view of 28mm. I mounted the Elmarit 28mm on my Leica M4p, which…