M8 vs B&W film - examples

[tashley]

Well this is a bit of unscientific Sunday afternoon fun but educative to me at least.

My niece is about to start a photography course and they insist she has a film SLR, so I dug out my own first serious camera, a Contax 139 with Zeiss T* Planar 50mm F1.7, and the dearly beloved Canon A1 my Pop gave me before he popped off, equipped with Canon FD 50mm F1.8 (the camera, not him...)

Both cameras were loaded with 400 ASA Ilford XP2 Super, which was processed by the local lab in C41 chemistry then scanned to disc to give files 1909 pixels wide.

I shot a film in each camera to check that they are functioning correctly (they are, though the Contax has a mild light leak at the bottom of each frame) and then when they came back from processing I thought, aha, why not shoot the same scene on the M8 and compare. The M8 shots were taken 48 hours later but in similar light. No tripods were used.

Because my 35 Cron is holidaying in Solms at the moment, for the M8 I chose a CV35 f2.5 screw fit a la Milich, with filter. In order to compare 'apples to apples' in as far as you can do, a framed from slightly different distances to as to get more or less the same FOV and then shot the M8 just one frame at RAW + JPEG fine with everything set to average. As we all know, the JPEG files from the M8 are slightly different pixel dimensions from the RAW but I did nothing to equalise this. Nor did I touch any sliders on or use any presets on import into Lightroom. But I did re-size the files to the same width as the film shots. Oh, and I shot at F4 for ALL shots, and ISO 320 on the M8.

First the 100% views with M8 files re-sized. In the next post will be 100% crops.

Contax:
contax_Photo18_20.jpg

Canon:
canon_Photo08_11.jpg

M8 JPEG:
jpegL1006005-1.jpg

M8 RAW with default B&W conversion in LR
rawL1006005.jpg

Crops coming up.

Tim

[tashley]

And now the crops:

Contax:
cropcontax_Photo18_20.jpg

Canon:
cropcanon_Photo08_11.jpg

M8 JPEG:
cropjpegL1006005-1.jpg

M8 RAW with default B&W conversion in LR
croprawL1006005.jpg


Now I know that there are too many variables for this to mean a lot - especially given that the B&W film was not exactly processed my Ansel Adams or scanned by a genius (it was all done on one of those machines that looks like a family car) but there are certain things I noticed. What do others think?

Best

Tim

[jackal]

yep, i only noticed one thing

THE BEST ONE IS THE ONE YOU LIKE THE MOST

[tashley]

Originally Posted by jackal

yep, i only noticed one thing

THE BEST ONE IS THE ONE YOU LIKE THE MOST

Well well, is this the man who recently stated quite categorically in another thread that:

'B&W film looks better than digital... doesn't need to get any more complex than that'

???

See, Jackal (ooh what a scary and aggressive name!) when you shout at people they tend to look up your posting history.

Best

Tim

[jackal]

whereabouts in sussex do you live ?

[chris_tribble]

Tim - the jpegs of the film results are difficult to assess as they stand. A. they're way off in terms of colour cast + B.I'm not sure if the scan is doing them justice? How did you scan them?

My experience is that I'm happier with the results of the M8 for B&W than I am with my scans (using a Nikon Coolscan 4000) from Fuji Neopan (my default B&W) when I was shooting M6/M7 or Canon with L series lenses... I get better shadow detail, more subtle transitions, better skin tones... but this was from scans and then either inkjet printing (Epson 2200) or exhibition prints from Joe's Basement (when there were labs in London....) Interesting if you could give a bit more on the workflow post capture...

[tashley]

Originally Posted by chris_tribble

Tim - the jpegs of the film results are difficult to assess as they stand. A. they're way off in terms of colour cast + B.I'm not sure if the scan is doing them justice? How did you scan them?

My experience is that I'm happier with the results of the M8 for B&W than I am with my scans (using a Nikon Coolscan 4000) from Fuji Neopan (my default B&W) when I was shooting M6/M7 or Canon with L series lenses... I get better shadow detail, more subtle transitions, better skin tones... but this was from scans and then either inkjet printing (Epson 2200) or exhibition prints from Joe's Basement (when there were labs in London....) Interesting if you could give a bit more on the workflow post capture...

Hi Chris,

yep, this was a real hack-job. It is such a long time since I shot (let alone processed) B&W film and I don't live near a pro-lab so these were done locally by a shop with one of those big machines that develops, prints and churns out a CD, then I just loaded the files of the CD into Lightroom and didn't fiddle at all. Hence the health warnings all over the original post. Nonetheless, I like all the different renditions in different ways - I used to push process Tri-X so I like the coarser drawing and higher contrast of the Contax/Zeiss combo, but I also like the finer gradations and tonality of the M8 files, and the way that the M8RAW file has not only better contrast but also more shadow detail.

Best

T

[tashley]

Originally Posted by jackal

whereabouts in sussex do you live ?

West.

Tim

[Photoskeptic]

Tim, thanks for taking the time to do this. I did one earlier and never really reached a conclusion that one was better than the other. They are mostly just different. However, I'm very satisfied with the manner in which the M8 renders bw - either bw jpeg or dng converted.
Regards,
John

[carstenw]

Originally Posted by jackal

whereabouts in sussex do you live ?

Now what on earth was that question all about?

[plasticman]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Now what on earth was that question all about?

Carsten - it's okay - he was just kidding.

On the other hand, what on earth is this never-ending claim that the M8 is 'better' at black-and-white about?
I recently tried my hand at a computer-game called FIFA World Cup - guess what, my soccer team was 'better' than the real thing...

[fotografz]

Even with the color being off and the questionable scans, the film versions look better. Look at the leaves people.

Besides XP-2 isnt real B&W film.

[jackal]

was just interested
i might be moving to sussex
thanks

[carstenw]

Richard, you wanted to judge moving to Sussex by Tim's shot of his backyard, or where he chose to live? Odd...

Marc, what do you mean "look at the leaves people"? The sharpness clearly goes in the M8's favour. I like the feel of film, but there is lots of information in the M8 shot, and one might achieve the film look in these particular photos by increasing the contrast and so on, no? Although film (especially Tri-X, for B&W) sometimes has a really neat look, I don't see anything in these shots I would want to emulate. You are right about XP2 though. Not really the sort of film one might want to compare to digital. It's own world (or twilight zone).

Tim, nice backyard!

[fotografz]

Sorry Carsten, I know it's not allowed to say anything other than the M8 is God's gift, and nothing in the entire universe can exceed it's abilities in color or B&W ... but to my eye the leaves on the film shots are much sharper looking than either of the M8 shots.

But I must admit it is futile to make any pronouncements based on tiny web uploads.

I use prints to compare because computer screen resolution of grain doesn't favor film images, and they look a whole lot different at actual printed sizes.

Next time you get the chance go to the Leica Gallery in NY, or some other gallery with some M film shots and see what a real print looks like. I do it from time to time to keep my eye from going "digital dead".

Just an opinion from a guy with two M8s ... and an MP3 I kept to shoot B&W film.

[tashley]

Originally Posted by jackal

was just interested
i might be moving to sussex
thanks

Ok, welcome to the hood... we have good Leica dealers here...

best

T

[tashley]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Richard, you wanted to judge moving to Sussex by Tim's shot of his backyard, or where he chose to live? Odd...

Marc, what do you mean "look at the leaves people"? The sharpness clearly goes in the M8's favour. I like the feel of film, but there is lots of information in the M8 shot, and one might achieve the film look in these particular photos by increasing the contrast and so on, no? Although film (especially Tri-X, for B&W) sometimes has a really neat look, I don't see anything in these shots I would want to emulate. You are right about XP2 though. Not really the sort of film one might want to compare to digital. It's own world (or twilight zone).

Tim, nice backyard!

Thank you Carsten - you are as gentlemanly and observant as ever... and the XP2 thing seems to me (out of contact with all things analogue B&W) to be a way of letting franchises with colour developing gear handle B&W without extra equipment. To me and from memory, it appears to lack the acuity and grain structure of 'real' B&W film - which is why I prefaced this whole thing with 'a bit of Sunday afternoon fun.'

I also think you're right: if I were to get some 'real' B&W film stock and re-run this more scientifically, I suspect that I'd love the tonality of the film but find the M8 files had more info and could be processed to look film-like. But this is not my special subject, by a long way!

Best

T

[tashley]

Originally Posted by fotografz

Sorry Carsten, I know it's not allowed to say anything other than the M8 is God's gift, and nothing in the entire universe can exceed it's abilities in color or B&W ... but to my eye the leaves on the film shots are much sharper looking than either of the M8 shots.

But I must admit it is futile to make any pronouncements based on tiny web uploads.

I use prints to compare because computer screen resolution of grain doesn't favor film images, and they look a whole lot different at actual printed sizes.

Next time you get the chance go to the Leica Gallery in NY, or some other gallery with some M film shots and see what a real print looks like. I do it from time to time to keep my eye from going "digital dead".

Just an opinion from a guy with two M8s ... and an MP3 I kept to shoot B&W film.

I really get where you're coming from here but these days, the way stuff gets displayed is often more on screen than in print, and there are so many variables with processing and printing that it is sort of futile to argue it.

I read B&W magazine and every month they have a negative given to two different master printers and they always come out looking totally different.

The reason for running this half-baked test was a vague desire to see what happens 'out of the box' and the only conclusion I can draw is that there is less information in the analogue files, that that may well relate to the film itself, and that if, ex-ing out film choice, the M8 files do indeed contain more info ISO per ISO, then they might be a better starting point?

Best

T

[stunsworth]

I was looking at a lot of my old scans last night - mainly Tri-X scanned on a Nikon Coolscan III and I have to say from a purely resolution and sharpness point of view the M8 beats that particular combination very, very easily.

Now that's not to say that all there is to photography is sharpness, heck if that was the case we'd all be shooting large format, and it's not to say that the film looks bad either. The old line about them looking different is so true.

[tashley]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

I was looking at a lot of my old scans last night - mainly Tri-X scanned on a Nikon Coolscan III and I have to say from a purely resolution and sharpness point of view the M8 beats that particular combination very, very easily.

Now that's not to say that all there is to photography is sharpness, heck if that was the case we'd all be shooting large format, and it's not to say that the film looks bad either. The old line about them looking different is so true.

I'm struck by how, to me (and allowing for poor choice of B&W film and processing) the film shots look like what Sean Reid calls 'small sensor drawing' and indeed if I really wanted to replicate the broad brush, high contrast look of the film shots I would use a PanaLeica LX2...

Horses, courses, as ever!

Best

T