New Adventures in Film – The Leica CL
So here I am, after a break of 25 years, fumbling around, all fingers and thumbs, struggling to load a film into a camera. The camera in question is a Leica CL, a thing of retro beauty. A jewel amongst a world of digital humdrum. The film is Kodak Tri-X 400 as used by the great Michael Kenna. If it’s good enough for him it’s good enough for me. After two aborted attempts I finally succeed on the third try, lock the case in place, wind the film on a couple of times. All set.
I’d bought the CL blind from an auction house in Scarborough. I got lucky! For a machine of 50 years it’s in remarkable condition. No marks on the body, a clear viewfinder, a working light meter (benchmarked against my Nikon Z7) even the rubber lens hoods are in great shape. It could have been made yesterday rather than half a century ago. The two lenses were equally good. In fact, the whole package is so good I’m almost too scared to use it!
The camera is my first Leica and first range finder. It feels like a solid chunk in the hand and is refreshingly basic. At the front is a dial to set the film and shutter speed, a battery test button and another button to release the lens. Up top there’s a hot shoe, a shutter button, a winder, which I cock to activate the light meter, and a frame counter. On the back is the viewfinder with frame lines, a focussing patch in the centre, shutter speed at the top and the light meter needle on the right hand side. Down below is the film rewind crank, film release button a base plate locking latch and film type indicator. Aperture and focus are set on the lens. That’s about it! Everything is manual, just as nature intended.
I’ve nothing to compare it to, so I assess the camera purely on its own merits. After a few minutes of getting to grips with how it feels and works (with some consultation with the user manual) I’m ready to give it a go. I’m well aware that it will take some time to ween myself off digital convenience and adapt my brain from SLR to rangefinder, but the camera feels good, everything is perfectly placed and like a naive child my enthusiasm prevents any real critique.
The camera has arrived just in time for our European Road Trip, usurping my beloved Sony RX1r to join my Nikon Z gear in the camera bag. I should state at this point that it’s not the aim for the Leica (or film in general) to replace digital. I’m too far down that road already. In fact, the Leica CL was not even my first choice of film camera! The original plan was to buy either a Nikon F (or F2) or an Olympus OM1 as the first in what would become, over time, a small collection of classic cameras. Display them on the sideboard, occasionally shoot black and white film and perhaps at some stage set up a darkroom, but all this is way in the future so back to the present, the port of Hull, the Leica CL and the immediate task in hand, relearn how to use a film camera and a rangefinder to boot.
Two weeks and thirty six frames later I sit outside a bar in Eguisheim rewinding the film, remove it from the camera and load another roll first time. Progress! I pop the used film in its plastic canister and store it safely away. Shooting film seems more precious that digital. Every frame more important, every mistake more costly. Forget to focus, a wasted frame. Under exposed, a wasted frame. Poor composition, a wasted frame. I don’t recall ever feeling this way in my pre-digital days when I’d happily snap up a roll of film in ten minutes. I need to loosen up and enjoy the process.
Three weeks later I take a first look at the images. My instant reaction is disappointment. The images are far too contrasty and grainy. I’d expected something much “smoother” (even with a film speed of 400), something much subtler in tone. Some black and white film magic was supposed to have occurred and hadn’t! My second reaction is relief that the camera worked and I’ve any useable images at all. I open up Lightroom …
At this point, if you’re reading this with the expectation of any sort of real insight into the Leica CL or film photography, you’re going to be disappointed. Quite honestly, the main thing I learned was just how little I knew, whether it’s about film stock, or light meters or about black and white film photography in general. I don’t blame the film or the camera for the amount of contrast or grain, I think it’s more likely that I under-exposed the photographs due to ignorance on how the light meter worked (** see update below). Digital and modern cameras have made me lazy and complacent. I realise I’m at the start of a process and to meet my own expectations I’ve a steep learning curve to climb, but now I’ve had a reality check at least I know where to start.
As for the photographs, a touch of post processing in Lightroom to reduce the contrast and the texture has helped. I can’t explain it, but there’s a “quality” that I like. I don’t know whether this “quality” is physical or some nostalgic psychological mumbo jumbo, but in the end it doesn’t matter. Regardless of obvious faults (or let’s call in character) there’s a few I quite like!
And the Leica CL? Well it behaved perfectly, did its job and did it well and in my view that’s good praise. My only issue was that at 90mm I found focussing using the patch too fiddly (perhaps there’s a reason SLR’s became the de-facto camera design). Stick to 40mm and you’re in a good zone.
The bigger issue is condition. In hindsight I should have bought something a bit more beaten up to practice with without fear of the odd scrape or two. This example should be locked in a display case rather than bumping along in my kit bag.
So it’s now down to the serious business of adapting myself to the camera until I feel I can get consistently good results … and in the meantime, start the hunt for an Olympus OM1. The adventures will continue!
Note: all images processed to taste using Lightroom, including minimising grain and contrast.
* UPDATE. After talking to the company that developed the photographs I discovered that they’d used Ilfosol 3 to develop the film. Subsequent googling found this excellent blog post https://www.theanalogueexperience.com/2022/05/22/my-experience-developing-with-ilford-ilfosol-3/ in which there’s the following passage:
Kodak Tri-X
“Well, if you’ve read much of this blog, you’ll probably know that I’ve had a bit of a love/hate relationship with Tri-X. I’ve wanted to love this film so much because of its reputation and history, but so far I’ve yet to get consistent and pleasing results. I realize that I’m not using the typical and preferred developers on this film, but what I HAVE used, isn’t great. In Ilfosol 3, Kodak Tri-X is messy: there’s not many other ways to other than that. The grain is aggressive and I feel I’ve lost alot of detail in many of the photos, though this isn’t always a bad thing depending on the photo.”