Properly Parisienne


Yes…As some of you have guessed, my last post was surreptitiously taken on the M240.

Which is now gone.  And back.  And gone.  And back.

…and so on.  (But really gone…I think)

It was even worse, however:

The files, once processed to my liking, were run through a VSCO Portra 160NC preset, in a vain attempt to convince myself that I was wasting my time with film.


It appears, I may not be.

While painstakingly developed, these were not post-processed one iota.  (Save the watermark, of course…)


I now find myself in the unique position (unique for me, anyway…) of not having a digital M body.  My experimentation has since taken me in many conflicting directions…



The fact remains:  I love shooting film.  But I sure do miss the immediacy, reassurance, and convenience of digital.



I wish one habit could be kicked for good…

But that is unlikely.




BTW: 24 shots on the roll, and 22 keepers–the last one caught a wicked flare, so looked better B&W.  I’m happiest shooting film right now–I guess if I can get a roll like this, it is worth the effort and the wait.  Now If only developing was easier…



12 thoughts on “Properly Parisienne

  1. andygemmell says:

    Yes…you can see the difference in texture and assumed you had used the 240 for the initial images.

    Not only was it not a “Leica” though this set was taken with a $500 camera (including lens) which is 25-30 years old! Its all in the eye (and heart)!

    • mewanchuk says:

      Thanks Andy!

      I am often amazed at the results this combo produces–Take all my other gear away from me, and I could probably still be happy!

      (…uh, figuratively speaking!!)



      • andygemmell says:

        Take all my other gear away from me, and I could probably still be happy!


        Sure thing! I believe you!

  2. jkjod says:

    I don’t think there is anything “wrong” with the M240 set, per se. Although I completely agree there is a certain depth, or probably more correctly as Andy has pointed out, texture to the Porta set.

    I love film and I hope I never have to stop using it, but I can’t find my self giving up on digital any time soon either. It’s the immediacy as you’ve said that I Iike, and as crazy as it sounds, I rather like post processing images. I guess what I’m getting at is I like that I’m lucky enough to use both! (Took a long time to get there, sorry).

  3. Karim D. Ghantous (@kdghantous) says:

    Okay, so: every colour photo in this post is on Portra? Okay, well, two things:

    1. I knew your previous post was taken on a digital camera (but I didn’t realise you were trying to ‘trick’ us. 😉 It was just obvious (but not a bad thing, either).

    2. These look so much better. So. Much. Better. It’s like Andy said. That beautiful, thick, rich texture. Why is the new Bond movie (and the new Star Wars) shot on film? The director probably looked at the previous one and thought, “….nah.”

    • mewanchuk says:


      It wasn’t so much that I was trying to trick YOU–I was trying to delude myself.


      Anyway, this film is actually Agfa Vista 200.


  4. Andy Gemmell says:

    Great point re the movies Karim. I watched a movie call “71” the other night set in Northern Ireland in 1971. The cinematography and texture to that movie is well worth watching and fitted right in with the story.

  5. bijansabet says:

    This may not be helping but I truly love them both. They don’t look like each other but they are extremely special on their own.

    For me, it’s really about what you prefer shooting with. The output looks wonderful in both formats. Honest.

    • mewanchuk says:

      Thanks very much Bijan;

      (Having said that, I notice you aren’t shooting with your 240 all that much…)


      I do actually quite like the output of both; the 240 can be challenging with skin tones at times, but the ergonomics are certainly a pleasure.


  6. mikeyjive says:

    Great color here and some very special photos! Seems this film responds well to the home development (Tetenal kit?) just like Superia.

    We all wrestle with the digital demons from time to time. 😉 But regardless of the end result, I think it’s the choosing of the film and simply having it loaded in the camera that adds an authenticity and meaningfulness to how we go about being photographers. Just feels different…

    I agree about the processing. I’ve settled recently on mostly having a local store/lab do my development and then I scan the uncut roll on the Pakon. Pretty economical and it seems the colors are much more consistent for me. I’ve also sent a few rolls off to a couple of the pro labs… but that can get expensive for what are sometimes only snapshots.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.