M8 Detail,Dynamic Range and Color

[newyorkone]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jamie, as I said before, I admire your post-processing skills, (if I could do what you can, I might be tempted to dump my film gear ) but I don't think it's correct to claim that your street scene exhibits medium format film tonality.

 

In response to my question, Jamie was referring to his image of the woman in #122 which I had mentioned looked like scanned MF film. He was not referring to the street scene.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Okay can I play the devil here.

 

First I come from a commercial background or lets say that is what I do to eat. Trying to phrase this correctly because it is hard to describe. From a commercial viewpoint and as a Pro that makes money from the commercial end, is there a reason why i would want to make my images film like. Hold on not done. Now if i was a shooter of nature or gallery style, maybe even better word of artistic style ( not saying commercial is not artistic) than the effect of grain and the film look would be more accepting in this arena than one of a commercial one. I mean B&W is a lost art mainly in the commercial side than on the more gallery side of the photo community. I guess what i am driving at is making something film like really better than a good clean sharp image without grain. Don't get me wrong i like film but i also left that behind also and artistically grain looked cool in B&W and images that are expressive but not all photography does that type of work , so why would I want to do that now with a digital camera is get to some film look that is something that i don't do often. Hope my point is clear here becuase this is tough to express. Now i admit some digital looks plastic and with bad technique that comes but digital is also another form and has it's look also and done correctly can be amazing to look at. Okay all the film guys just threw up there arms and said ah shit what the heck is he talking about. LOL

 

Okay this depth thing can be accomplshed in digital also, tonal range with good technique also. So were does this let's say reluctance to digital come from, is it the latitude, the depth the grain or is it some weird silver halide fixation. Now maybe it is me being so far removed from it that i lost my understanding of it and maybe because i deal in color more than anything. Or what is the really big difference that seperates the film from the file . Than again maybe i should switch to a different drug and forget the whole thing, or I am just dried out from the heat. I'm joking of course

[ddp]

Guy - there are some M shooters out there that have been looking for a digital twin to their M6, or M3 or M whatever. Some people want digital files that mimic favorite films they've been shooting for years, and others simply don't like that digital look. Like you, I have no choice but to shoot digitally every day. While there are some things I miss about doing B&W in the darkroom, I certainly enjoy the ability to use various white balances in mixed light settings. It's also nice not to pull polaroids anymore while the AD's twiddle their thumbs and the talent gets restless.

 

I certainly think the M8 is getting closer to being what Leica users are looking for - better dynamic range in the files and the ability to use the fantastic lenses. Still, I think there is a camp out there that's still not satisified with what they see from it. Regardless of what their workflow or usage of the camera might be, it will never deliver the holy grail which they seek.

 

It's like buying a high end CD player and then adding DA convertors and tubes to it to reproduce vinyl.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Yes Dan i guess that makes very good sense. I agree on the digital stuff with no Polaroid and all the hassle with film stuff that you deal with. But things change also. oh well

[mwilliamsphotography]

( Q ) "From a commercial viewpoint and as a Pro that makes money from the commercial end, is there a reason why i would want to make my images film like."

 

(A) No, not specifically. It depends on what you are shooting, for whom, and why. As you know, most commercial photography is now digital. Annual reports, catalog work, internet needs, food images even car photography are now virtually all digital capture. That's because all reproduction is either electronic or digitally printed. No client doing a catalog with 200 images want's to pay $12,000. extra for film, processing and high res scans just to get it to reproduction in a digital media. Just shoot digital in the first place.

 

However, there are exceptions to this where a look is desired... like with some lifestyle work. If the look and feel is what the Art Director wants, they aren't going to care if it's film or digital. The Art Buyer might, but not the creatives. Last year I did a big print shoot for Unilever with a top NYC lifestyle shooter ... it was all done on film (using a R8 and Contax 645 BTW). The only time we used a digital camera during the whole shoot was for the casting review shots. It was a very emotionally driven campaign, and film done by this specific shooter delivered the look and feel we wanted. The client agreed and didn't care if there were extra costs attached to get it. Even though the photo bill was mind boggling, it's was drop in the bucket compared to the Media cost in the Millions.

 

( Q ) "Now if i was a shooter of nature or gallery style, maybe even better word of artistic style ( not saying commercial is not artistic) than the effect of grain and the film look would be more accepting in this arena than one of a commercial one. I mean B&W is a lost art mainly in the commercial side than on the more gallery side of the photo community."

 

(A), not really lost as much as diminished. There are some very good shooters at the top of their game still shooting B&W film for its' look and feel. If that's the look an Art Director wants, it's still available by excellent commercial photographers ... like Beth Galton in NYC for example ... a shooter I've also used for National print work. They just can't do only that or they'd starve.

 

( Q ) "I guess what i am driving at is making something film like really better than a good clean sharp image without grain. Don't get me wrong i like film but i also left that behind also and artistically grain looked cool in B&W and images that are expressive but not all photography does that type of work , so why would I want to do that now with a digital camera is get to some film look that is something that i don't do often."

 

(A) Exactly the point Guy. Why try to make digital look like film? If you want that look, shoot film.

 

I also agree that "not all photography does that type of work". However, consider this:

how many here, who would be getting a camera like the M8, are doing work like yours?

I'd hazard a guess that a lot of other commercial shooters like you wouldn't consider this camera either. I certainly wouldn't for your type of commercial work. But you are making it work for you, and that's all that counts.

 

IMO, those shooting film now with a M camera, shouldn't look to the M8 to provide that same look and feel in a more convenient form. Take the M8 for what it is, a digital camera, maybe a great one, but still a digital camera.

 

That's why I don't buy the notion that the M8 can equal a scanned MF neg. It may, based on some digitally oriented criteria ... but if I want to shoot using that criteria I'd just shoot digital. Seems simple to me.

 

I think "trying to prove one is better than another" are kind of an insult to people's intelligence. Who in their right mind would think they are the same, or can emulate each other? It's totally different technology at play ... random grain verses uniform pixels. Love them both, embrace either or both. But this constant trying to legitimize digital at the expense of film does a disservice to both digital and film.

 

Here's my take: (web uploads are going to help, but I think you'll get the idea)

 

( 1 ) a shot I chose to put on film because I knew I'd be making a huge print, and didn't want the digital edging on the leaves that often happens when two tones abruptly meet in lighting like in this scene on the coast of Califorina.

 

( 2 ) another I chose film for because of the super subtile colors in pretty harsh Miami light ... that, and all the fine texture in the stone work and the minimal separations of light off-white clothes, stone work, and translucent Chuppa.

 

( 3 ) one I chose to shoot with digital because I wanted the super smooth look of digital for the off-white satin dress. IMO, much better than film in this case.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[mwilliamsphotography]

Oh, and one other thing, film work suffers more from web uploads than does digital IMO. But in prints I've found the opposite to be true. Scanned film pulls together just fine.

 

I'm sure you'll like the look of digital shot Guy, because that's your asthetic approach. However, if you saw the 40" X 40" print I pulled from the 1st Tree shot you may think differently.

[sungnee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[David's assertion that this should put an end to the digital verses film debate ... I continue to assert that it is NOT a contest because it is an apples to oranges comparison.]

 

I am with you here. I had the greatest confidence in David's observations until he made that remark.

[jaapv]

 

It's like buying a high end CD player and then adding DA convertors and tubes to it to reproduce vinyl.

 

Guilty as charged - but not to reproduce vinyl - to get a smoother sound. I think the film/digital controversy should end in the same vein - dissimilar but equal - a matter of taste. In that sense the debate is indeed closed.

[Jamie Roberts]

Guilty as charged - but not to reproduce vinyl - to get a smoother sound. I think the film/digital controversy should end in the same vein - dissimilar but equal - a matter of taste. In that sense the debate is indeed closed.

 

Yes, but then Sony and others go messing around with it with stuff like super audio cd, which, if you haven't heard one, is quite jaw-droppingly better than CD Now I'm not saying that SuperAudio CD = vinyl. Analog audio geeks need not get alarmed But they do approach music more satisfyingly, IMO.

 

The M8 is a bit like that, though probably less revolutionary (everyone making CD players has been bound by Redbook Audio CD implementations since the early 1980s). Still, from what I see, the M8 is a step in the right direction (and probably a preview of the next-gen advances we'll see from other sensor makers).

 

Marc--your post is wonderful, as are the shots. I can imagine how beautiful the prints must have been even from the Web posts.

 

I don't think film is "better" than digital either, or the other way 'round, but certainly I get a call for things that look "like" film on the wedding side of things--just in the way I get calls for shots that look like sepia or selenium tone--hence my interest in tweaking RAW files.

 

I admit it might be cheaper in terms of my time to just shoot film. But I'm sure you know that toning and BW requests or "film" looks often come after the shoot

 

So getting the most out of both media is an interesting pursuit in and of itself, and things are changing.

 

For example, I so far don't see a lot of the edge fringing you mentioned most digitals have, I just haven't seen that yet on the M8, but the widest I've had is the 28.

 

But we'll see what happens with the little CV 15, which just came yesterday. If that one holds with no fringing, well, then I'm going to be awfully glad Leica made the IR tradeoff

[bill_green]

Making digital look like film is not that hard. Understand that digital is, in essence, a perfect capture medium and film is not. To make digital look like film you have have to mangle the image in ways that many people are not willing too -- squish down the histogram at both ends, tweak various colors in selective color. Bottom line is I spent the better part of the last year making Nikon files look like film and it is doable and repatable, but you have to throw out everything you know about maximizing a digital file for reproduction.

[kevin m]

Making digital look like film is not that hard.

 

Could you post an example, please?

[nrj]

( Q )

IMO, those shooting film now with a M camera, shouldn't look to the M8 to provide that same look and feel in a more convenient form. Take the M8 for what it is, a digital camera, maybe a great one, but still a digital camera.

 

That's why I don't buy the notion that the M8 can equal a scanned MF neg. It may, based on some digitally oriented criteria ... but if I want to shoot using that criteria I'd just shoot digital. Seems simple to me.

 

I think "trying to prove one is better than another" are kind of an insult to people's intelligence. Who in their right mind would think they are the same, or can emulate each other? It's totally different technology at play ... random grain verses uniform pixels. Love them both, embrace either or both. But this constant trying to legitimize digital at the expense of film does a disservice to both digital and film.

 

Here's my take: (web uploads are going to help, but I think you'll get the idea)

 

( 1 ) a shot I chose to put on film because I knew I'd be making a huge print, and didn't want the digital edging on the leaves that often happens when two tones abruptly meet in lighting like in this scene on the coast of Califorina.

 

( 2 ) another I chose film for because of the super subtile colors in pretty harsh Miami light ... that, and all the fine texture in the stone work and the minimal separations of light off-white clothes, stone work, and translucent Chuppa.

 

( 3 ) one I chose to shoot with digital because I wanted the super smooth look of digital for the off-white satin dress. IMO, much better than film in this case.

 

I think this is well said. I have shot M6 and scanned film and shot with an R-D1, same scene. The film and digital have different looks when printed, both satisfying.

 

Nik

[edlaurpic]

I have recently been using Alien Skin's Exposure program in an effort to achieve a look to digital images that is more film-like. It comes up as a filter in PS CS2, and you choose how you want the shot to look, e.g., like Tri-X, Tri-X pushed one stop, Delta 100, Kodachrome, etc. I am by no means as knowledgeable as others who have posted on this thread, but I like the results I have gotten. It's not as film like as Tri-X in D76, but it's quick and to my eye, close enough. I also use Alien Skin's Blow-up which one gets for I think 1/2 price if you have already purchased another program. Blow up works like genuine fractals I think, but it has the added potential to add grain to one's taste. I have only done one image so far from the M8 using Blow Up, and I blew it up to 24" X 36" and added a moderal amount of grain to the image to avoid the plastic look. I like the print I got from my Epson 7600, but want to experiment more. I agree that film is film and digital is digital, but I am hoping that I can get more of what I like in film with the M8 by using Capture One, PS CS2 and Exposure. (I have no affiliation with Aien Skin, by the way ... just a happy user of these two programs).

[atufte]

Not the M8 but the Summicron 50/2 with my trusty R-D1, but i'm very happy when my digital files look like this, even if some of you don't think this is "similar" to film or "filmlike" i like the look/result...

 

http://www.alexandertufte.com/EPSN0483.jpg

 

I have gotten lot's of positive comments from clients for this print hanging in my studio printed in 60X90 (cm) and almost every comment include the sentens: "what kind of film did you use for this shot"...

 

So i think as long as my clients like the results (and myself of course), it does not matter which media it comes from...

 

Best Regards

 

Alexander Tufte

http://www.alexandertufte.com

[davidada]

[David's assertion that this should put an end to the digital verses film debate ... I continue to assert that it is NOT a contest because it is an apples to oranges comparison.]

 

I am with you here. I had the greatest confidence in David's observations until he made that remark.

 

Hi, my comment was not to denigrate film - just to give my opinion that finally I felt here was a digital image that did not lose out in its emotive impact to film.

Having said that, I also truly believe that year by year we will see the erosion of film as a source, it will aways be around but a level that has its own devotee's. I still scan and produce works from daguereotypes that are produced today by a few dedicated artists.

In a nutshell I am for as many diverse ways possible to create an image.

[atufte]

Yes, the Alienskin Exposure plug-in is great, i have printed lot's of images with various

"film emulsion" from this plug-in, love it, you should also take a look at the alienskin forum because there's alot of new "film types" ready for download, like some of the

old Polaroid type of film's from the early 70's, here are some of my own examples from

the D200 with Polaroid "low contrast color"...

 

http://www.alexandertufte.com/portobilder/ericeira/index.htm

 

Best Regards

 

Alexander Tufte

http://www.alexandertufte.com

 

I have recently been using Alien Skin's Exposure program in an effort to achieve a look to digital images that is more film-like. It comes up as a filter in PS CS2, and you choose how you want the shot to look, e.g., like Tri-X, Tri-X pushed one stop, Delta 100, Kodachrome, etc. I am by no means as knowledgeable as others who have posted on this thread, but I like the results I have gotten. It's not as film like as Tri-X in D76, but it's quick and to my eye, close enough. I also use Alien Skin's Blow-up which one gets for I think 1/2 price if you have already purchased another program. Blow up works like genuine fractals I think, but it has the added potential to add grain to one's taste. I have only done one image so far from the M8 using Blow Up, and I blew it up to 24" X 36" and added a moderal amount of grain to the image to avoid the plastic look. I like the print I got from my Epson 7600, but want to experiment more. I agree that film is film and digital is digital, but I am hoping that I can get more of what I like in film with the M8 by using Capture One, PS CS2 and Exposure. (I have no affiliation with Aien Skin, by the way ... just a happy user of these two programs).

[sdai]

Exposure is good at mimicing T-Max and HP5 ... I don't like its results for neopan and Delta 100, it also needs some improvement with Tri-X.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Well

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[sdai]

It still smells digital Guy but, the top notch digital!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Now watch these, all the 24mm asph and early light , on my way to the post office to get my filters. LOL

 

Screw testing. Let's have fun

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!