M9 vs. Scanned film (various ISOs)

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Me? I spent a month in 2007 shooting exclusively film (40 rolls). I scanned them, thought about it and decided that I'll never shoot a roll of film again; sure, it has it's charms, but so do typewriter ribbons the beegees and smokes . . but I don't indulge in them anymore either.

Why do you have to say this? It takes skill to get the most out of any medium and talent to elevate it to beyond tests, the other things you mention are near useless where as film is not. I'm sorry, but how can you expect anyone to respect you when you put down a fine medium like that..

 

Well, I don't expect anyone to respect me! However, I was talking personally - I thought I'd made that clear by saying that film had it's charms, (I also don't think that the other things are useless).

 

I Understand that the Nikon 5000 scanner is not the best thing to use (it's what I was using too). My decision not to use film again was a practical one rather than an aesthetic one. I also suggested that the only real comparison was to look at prints created using the best of each technology, something I don't have the time/resource to do (perhaps Mr Puts technique here is the best option if you have to display it on the web).

 

I took up photography because I didn't have time to carry on with my painting, not because it was better. I've espoused digital at least partly because of time constraints.

 

I'm sorry to make you mad though . . . perhaps this will have made it worse!

[pgk]

I don't have the time/resource

 

Is probably the greatest factor in the equation. Last year I disposed of my old Coolscan 8000 simply because I found scanning to be far too time consuming, and it was just sitting there idle. Film and digital both have their attributes which will be appreciated differently by different photographers, and whilst I applaud the originator of this thread for the effort put into his comparison, I find that I spend too much time in front of a computer already without scanning thrown in. A pity because I would, in some ways, still like to shoot film in more situations where it would be applicable, but I find that the reality is, that for me, a film based workflow is simply too slow. Some of theimages shown here illustrate that film remains an excellent medium in which to work - given the time.

[Rolo]

Jan, I acknowledge the apparent superiority of the Imacon over the Nikon but I am curious to know if it is suitable for quantity scanning as from a large shoot.

 

Clearly the Nikon is better suited for bulk handling but my interest is how you find real time managing the Imacon for a batch of negs or slides.

 

Erl, think you've been misled here. The Imacon is primarily a production machine working up to ten times faster than the Nikon. I had a Nikon 8000 and moved onto an Imacon 848 last year and the speed difference is amazing (talking film strips here). The X5 is almost unbelievable for it's pace and difficult to prep the negs for scanning before the previous batch is done. With the Nikon, I could post-process the previous batch whilst the next batch scan was taking place.

 

The Imacon scan quality is noticeably better, but the Nikon is no slouch in a glass carrier. However, I find the Imacon delivers 'best' scan quality more easily.

 

Telewatt is yet to confirm that his first posted pic was 35mm TMax100, but if it is, it's the best I've seen from 35mm, ever.

 

IME 100% crops from 35mm film will never appear great on a monitor, but will often produce a better print. The aesthetic and grain effects are unique, but not always desired.

 

The M9 provides astounding resolution and I've no doubt that my 35mm film usage will drop dramatically now. However, I still appreciate the aesthetic of film and will now concentrate film efforts on MF film, but the M9 has become my primary tool and taken the fun I enjoy at the exposure stage to new levels.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Is it a New Year's tradition to indulge in film vs. digital comparos? Over at photo.net, a thread in the MF forum has run to over 100 postings (typical there is less than 15 -- they just answer the question and move on). Even in a world committed to MFF, the conclusions were about evenly divided.

 

scott

[t024484]

The two things that I found to be more interesting than anything else in comparing M9 digital against M7 film were:

 

1) Erwin Puts proved that by using Orthopan UR that (some) Leica lenses outperform the M9 sensor, so there is still room for sensor improvement, and

2) Demosaicing algorithm's as used by LR and C1 can still be improved for less moire and less colorshift in fine details as shown by Erwin with SharpRawPro.

 

Hans

[cliffp]

I am interested in the comparison between M9 and scanned film as like many people I am contemplating buying an M9 (presently trying out rangefinder photography with an M7 plus 21 F2.8 asph, 28mm cron, 50mm cron and 90mm cron asph).

 

I was intrigued to read Ken Rockwell's assertion that Velvia 50 looks better than M9 (The Product of the Decade: 2000s near the bottom of the page, the para headed "Product of the Decade Fuji Velvia 50"). He says more about it here, Ken Rockwell's Updates under the entry for 17th Dec. Here he also compares M9 images to those from Nikon and Canon (going off topic I know). I am not parroting his opinions because I believe them but I would be interested to know what others think.

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find it a useful comparison and I'm not really surprised, when I look back over my conventionally printed film B&W work from years gone by I can see grain everywhere. How much chemistry went into trying to keep grain size small at high ISO? A helluva lot by the leading film and photochemical companies of the day.

 

Now we can readily achieve the grain-free look with digital technology.

 

The question arises how do we photograph film grain to show it here and how does the appearance vary with the equipment and the method. Scan or enlarger?

 

It seems that the most common way of using film these days is to scan it and the Nikon Coolscan is almost at the top of the game for the amateur (and even the professional). It may be that a drum scanner or the Imacon can do better but I recall not so long ago that many tests of scanner v scanner were carried out and the Nikon was not so far from an Imacon ie you had to look carefully to see it.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

That is relevant - but the amount of grain in film depends - My old Cibachrome prints of Kodachrome 25 still look spectacularly clean after all these years. Really strong colour too.

[Jamie Roberts]

If I could afford an Imacon I'd buy it; cheap commercial scans available from the labs around here from TriX or Agfa are c*** --though they're convenient and good for proofs.

 

My Nikon 5000 doesn't do black and white very well IMO--it simply has the wrong kind of illumination for it and doesn't retain the resolution or tonality that it should (compared with optical enlargement or better scanners or shots straight from the M8).

 

So I think you're actually looking at its worst capabilities if you're comparing BW. It's much better for colour neg stock (and slides, though there's some issues with Kodachrome) IMO.

[el.nino]

If I could afford an Imacon I'd buy it; cheap commercial scans available from the labs around here from TriX or Agfa are c*** --though they're convenient and good for proofs.

 

My local lab charges 9€ for an imacon-3f-scan in highest resolution.

3f is the imacon-raw-format and you can adjust blackpoint, whitepoint etc. later in the hasselblad flexcolor software.

[telewatt]

Erl, think you've been misled here. The Imacon is primarily a production machine working up to ten times faster than the Nikon. I had a Nikon 8000 and moved onto an Imacon 848 last year and the speed difference is amazing (talking film strips here). The X5 is almost unbelievable for it's pace and difficult to prep the negs for scanning before the previous batch is done. With the Nikon, I could post-process the previous batch whilst the next batch scan was taking place.

 

The Imacon scan quality is noticeably better, but the Nikon is no slouch in a glass carrier. However, I find the Imacon delivers 'best' scan quality more easily.

 

Telewatt is yet to confirm that his first posted pic was 35mm TMax100, but if it is, it's the best I've seen from 35mm, ever.

 

IME 100% crops from 35mm film will never appear great on a monitor, but will often produce a better print. The aesthetic and grain effects are unique, but not always desired.

 

The M9 provides astounding resolution and I've no doubt that my 35mm film usage will drop dramatically now. However, I still appreciate the aesthetic of film and will now concentrate film efforts on MF film, but the M9 has become my primary tool and taken the fun I enjoy at the exposure stage to new levels.

 

No it was a cutout of a 6/6 in the size of 35mm film...but it makes no difference if you use the same film, developer and scanner..100% is 100%.......the first picture was only to show Andy, what I mean with "better scanner"...

 

here you can see a second 35mm shot/scan....(and the 100% of the first picture..)

 

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!

Leicaflex +80mm + T-max 100

 

 

regards,

Jan

[Rolo]

No it was a cutout of a 6/6 in the size of 35mm film...but it makes no difference if you use the same film, developer and scanner..100% is 100%.......the first picture was only to show Andy, what I mean with "better scanner"...

)

 

Still impressed.

 

I've always found a difference between a 35mm section from a 6x6 and a 35mm film frame. Put it down to the dev tank, base layer and the lens. 35mm has always been more 'gritty' for me and not my preferred aesthetic for the same film.

[Jamie Roberts]

My local lab charges 9€ for an imacon-3f-scan in highest resolution.

3f is the imacon-raw-format and you can adjust blackpoint, whitepoint etc. later in the hasselblad flexcolor software.

 

You're very lucky.

 

My local labs in Toronto charge a sliding scale for Imacon scans based on final resolution and they provide TIFFs or JPEGs, not 3f files (I know about and own FlexColor due the DMR )

 

The cheapest of them is around $30 per shot, so nearly double what you pay

[Guest douglasf13]

This may be of interest to some. This is comparing the new Ektar and a few other films to the Sony A900, which is in the same ballpark as the M9, sensor wise. Testing was done with an Imacon 848.

 

Technique - Ektar 100 test - Introduction

[NB23]

This looks conclusive. All the film images are infinitely superior in every way. :rolleyes:

 

Thank you, Andy:)

 

I am totally with you, less your sarcasm. The M9 super clean files make me sick, actually. The Grain adds something undescribable.

 

Look at a good Baryta B&W print, or a good quality slide print. You can lose yourself for hours looking at the grain and tonality and colors. There is nothing of that in digital files. Just a clean image. Very weird.

[Mike Rawcs]

An interesting thread. Both film and digital have their strengths and weaknesses and should be chosen for the required result: the finished print or publication.

 

Which do you think will be more valuable over time, a digital print or a traditional analogue print? My first thought was analogue print, of course. Then I considered that as digital products evolve so quickly it may well be that current digital prints may become more valuable due to their rarity because future printing methods make current methods obsolete.

 

Rather like vinyl records outlasting their CD replacements.

 

An interesting post on DVAFOTO can be found at

 

A Film vs. Digital Debate | dvafoto

 

Mike.

[charlesphoto99]

I am totally with you, less your sarcasm. The M9 super clean files make me sick, actually. The Grain adds something undescribable.

 

Look at a good Baryta B&W print, or a good quality slide print. You can lose yourself for hours looking at the grain and tonality and colors. There is nothing of that in digital files. Just a clean image. Very weird.

 

I actually "grain up" my M9 files for printing, and rarely shoot less than iso 400 for that reason.

[jonoslack]

I am totally with you, less your sarcasm. The M9 super clean files make me sick, actually. The Grain adds something undescribable.

 

Look at a good Baryta B&W print, or a good quality slide print. You can lose yourself for hours looking at the grain and tonality and colors. There is nothing of that in digital files. Just a clean image. Very weird.

 

Well, I've been told off severely for saying that I've stopped using film - even though I admit it's charms.

I agree that the grain adds something . . . but I also think that the lack of it adds something.

Each to his own don't you think?

The important thing is to understand the differences and how they relate to one's own photography (which was why I spent a month shooting only film).

[NB23]

An interesting thread. Both film and digital have their strengths and weaknesses and should be chosen for the required result: the finished print or publication.

 

Which do you think will be more valuable over time, a digital print or a traditional analogue print? My first thought was analogue print, of course. Then I considered that as digital products evolve so quickly it may well be that current digital prints may become more valuable due to their rarity because future printing methods make current methods obsolete.

 

No, it's not about rarity. Who cares about today's press a button and print on a epson paper? There's no craft in that.

 

It's all about the CRAFT. About a man puting his time and energy and effort and artistic senses and his mind and his hands into the whole process. That is what is valuable. Not the rarity itself. And certainly not pushing a button and waiting for the paper to come out on the other side.

 

For Christmas I had the choice of being lazy and cheating like all the photographer uncle Bobs (pressing a button on the printer and wait with a beer in hand for the print to come out) or to spare 15 hours of my time and CREATE prints as gifts.

 

I finally gave 3 beautiful framed Baryta prints to my friends (of their Kids). One of them cryed. She was extremely touched. And I was touched.

 

Would I have been touched if it was a mere Epson or Canon print? Absolutely not. It's the time that I have put in the Craft that made it so valuable to me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

 

It's all about the CRAFT. About a man puting his time and energy and effort and artistic senses and his mind and his hands into the whole process. That is what is valuable. Not the rarity itself. And certainly not pushing a button and waiting for the paper to come out on the other side

 

Well, I think it's about the result and the vision and the content personally. Who cares how much effort or skill went into it?

 

Not to suggest for a second that your prints aren't lovely (judging by your website I'm sure they are).

 

P.S. I'm not trying to be argumentative, simply to point out that in loving film there's no need to write off digital (or the other way around indeed). Plenty of people put immense care and 'craft' into their digital images.