M9 vs. Scanned film (various ISOs)

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

But that is not the same, understandable as it is. I do the same . The platitude " if you want it to look like film, shoot film" has a basis in reality.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MartinEB]

I have only just read this thread, and found it interesting because it was something I had considered doing when I first got my M9. I didn't do so partly because I realised that film involves a second "optical process" and that might form the weakest link in the comparison. So, I could have used the same lens with my M6 TTL and M9 bodies and produced a negative or a digital file respectively. I could have produced a print from the negative (but what quality of enlarging lens/enlarger system?) or scanned (but which scanner and how used and how does that affect the quality?). In other words, what are the very best results obtainable by either route? I then realised that what equipment you actually have and use provides a different set of constraints and perhaps could give a more meaningful and pragmatic answer for the individual. I had bought a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED as my route into digital (I had been waiting for the M9) and been pleased with the results (I do use maximum scan passes and take forever over producing quite large files). When I get my M9 back from its sensor repair, I think I might still do some of my own tests: I think that doing definitive comparisons between digital and film is quite tricky but on the other hand the individual user needs to make up his own mind based on the results obtainable with his own equipment and in the context of his photgraphic style and interests.

[Guest douglasf13]

NB23, I've worked for and seen fine art photography in the biggest exhibitions in Los Angeles, and these photographers often print gigantic and/or on mediums like lightboxes or aluminum and such. Some of the more exhausting shoots I've been on were like movie sets and took all day with scores of people and exotic locations in order to get one shot. When the projects were completed, I've never heard anyone in a gallery look up at an 12'x16' lightbox and say,"Yeah, but the photographer didn't print that out him/herself in a darkroom." You wouldn't believe what this stuff sells for. While it is certainly commendable for each of us to find our own way in our methods and technique, someone may put in more time on the front end of the shoot vs. the back end, and I say it's all good. The work itself is what stands up, whether it's a tedious affair or a quick snap shot.

[delander †]

There can be quite a lot of art and craft gone into a digital print long before the button is pressed. I might make 5 prints of the same image until I get what I'm looking for. I used to do that in the darkroom. The end result is similar, a printed picture that I like, the tools used to get there are different however.

 

Jeff

[NB23]

Some of the more exhausting shoots I've been on were like movie sets and took all day with scores of people and exotic locations in order to get one shot. When the projects were completed, I've never heard anyone in a gallery look up at an 12'x16' lightbox and say,"Yeah, but the photographer didn't print that out him/herself in a darkroom." You wouldn't believe what this stuff sells for. While it is certainly commendable for each of us to find our own way in our methods and technique, someone may put in more time on the front end of the shoot vs. the back end, and I say it's all good. The work itself is what stands up, whether it's a tedious affair or a quick snap shot.

 

I agree. This is an instance where valuable time, effort and vision all work together to create something. It's a huge process that involves many different dimensions and there is a Craft. All that makes it special, valuable.

 

My post above was mainly in response to the poster who said that the current digital prints would gain in value simply because of their sheer rarity in relation to the fast changing technology. I answered that it's the whole work behind and during the print that makes it valuable. Not the rarity of the paper or printer or technology itself.

[Mike Rawcs]

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.

 

I touched a nerve, sorry. I agree with you to a certain degree that it is about the craft: I was just musing over the fact that today's technology, which is rapidly taking the place of analogue photography, may not survive as long as analogue. That's all, i agree with you. The value aspect of a traditional print is that it is a one-off original. As such your archive of fibre-based prints may well be your legacy to your family. I know, you don't care about value; but some people make a living from photography - that's all.

 

Mike.

[NB23]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

Oh! The images in my website surely can't please everyone so I totally understand and I also quite like the idea that people can deeply dislike them if they wish.

 

The prints in question were of their Kids. Sure winners! :D:D

[Guest douglasf13]

I agree. This is an instance where valuable time, effort and vision all work together to create something. It's a huge process that involves many different dimensions and there is a Craft. All that makes it special, valuable.

 

My post above was mainly in response to the poster who said that the current digital prints would gain in value simply because of their sheer rarity in relation to the fast changing technology. I answered that it's the whole work behind and during the print that makes it valuable. Not the rarity of the paper or printer or technology itself.

 

Ah, now I see. Thanks.

[downstairs]

Not worth much, but at the bottom of THIS page there is a gamut of M9, M8.2 and M6 scanned fuji. To help you save the extra 20 thousand you might have spent for a Hasselblad I've added that too.

Don't complain about the Epson scanner, I've had Flextight and Coolscan and moved to the V750 to scan 5x7 - the only format that seems to match up.

[steve70]

To KM-25;

Come on folks! there is planty of room for everyone out there, both digital and film, and they both serve thir purpose.

I had been a film man since High School back in the mid 60's but switched to digital when the first Canon Digital Rebel came out; hell of a learning experiance/curve.

Heck, am still trying to find my way around it.

The only sad part in all of this is that alas film will not be around all that much longer.

 

I guess that the only "negative" to these tests is that it truley gives a definition to the quality of digital and it somewhat dampens the magic of film.

[charlesphoto99]

But that is not the same, understandable as it is. I do the same . The platitude " if you want it to look like film, shoot film" has a basis in reality.

 

Oh, don't I know it! (my film archives probably run into 10K rolls). I only bought a digital camera in 2006 kicking and screaming when a large client (Adobe) insisted (rightly so) that I shoot a campaign on digital. I still wish I could shoot film only but cost and time are issues, not to mention there is rarely budget for film by clients anymore. And with a new baby there just isn't time to run film across town anymore, let alone afford the processing! Fortunately the cameras have gotten good enough I really don't see the point (except for medium format).

 

I do still sell more silver prints than digital and they demand the price they deserve. Alas I can no longer tolerate darkroom chemicals so I have them printed for me. Never quite as good as I can do myself, but dang close.

[andybarton]

Film will outlive me, and my children

[charlesphoto99]

There can be quite a lot of art and craft gone into a digital print long before the button is pressed. I might make 5 prints of the same image until I get what I'm looking for. I used to do that in the darkroom. The end result is similar, a printed picture that I like, the tools used to get there are different however.

 

Jeff

 

Yes, in my mind this is what delineates a "photographer" vs someone just taking "pictures."

[adan]

The main problem of anything that looks like a "digital vs. film" discussion is that it tends to wander off point. "Yes, but..."

 

My initial post was in regard to IQ for scanned 35mm film vs. a digital Leica, now that we can compare shots with the same image area and fairly close to the same resolution. Eliminates such issues as "just comparing different lenses" and so on.

 

When it comes to judging image quality: I - DON'T - CARE about "cost-effectiveness". If A is or isn't better than B, it really doesn't matter whether A costs 1/2, or 5x or 100x as much - it's either better or it's not. Which is why I accept the points regarding a better but more costly scanner, or better technique, or more time spent per scan (time=money).

 

Cost, enjoyment, satisfaction, convenience, environmental impacts, taste for grain, etc. etc. of film and digital are all fine subjects for discussion - but they don't influence IQ one way or the other (nor is IQ a factor in judging cost or satisfaction - a print costs what it does; if you're having fun, you're having fun).

 

Personally - I have no interest in seeing grain in a photograph unless I'm making macro shots of beach sand - i.e. a natural texture of the subject. If it is inevitable, due to light levels - well, I work around it, and make the best use of it that I can. Otherwise I tend to follow Weston's philosophy that photographs are about "the thing itself" and not some overlay of technique or process.

 

Silver prints vs. digital (inkjet) is a bit off-topic, since we started with scanned film. But I'd just point out that lithography started out as a commercial printing process (which it still is), sneared at for being "mechanical" compared to engraving or original sketches. For that matter, so did photography as a whole - a dreadful thing not to be classed with paint or sculpture as an "art". Eventually, once it became clear that any process could be used to create art, those distinctions passed into history.

[noah_addis]

I shouldn't get sucked into this but oh boy, here goes...

 

I think this is a valid comparison up to a point. The fact is that many of us would make the following choices: shoot with a digital camera or shoot film and scan with a Nikon scanner. Yes, there are better scanners out there but they're quite expensive.

 

Film is not a cost-saving medium. Film and processing are expensive as are good scanners. And while silver prints are beautiful without a doubt, most clients want digital files these days, so scanning is a must.

 

While I was waiting for my M9s to come in I shot some film, both because I had already sold my M8s, for the nostalgia of it and to actually test to see how film compared. It had been a while since I shot a roll. For a while I considered canceling my M9 order, though part of this was from the frustration of waiting:confused:

 

While I was waiting, I did informal, unscientific comparisons between my M8 files printed on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta paper on my Epson 4880, Tri-X shot with an M6ttl scanned on an LS 9000 and printed on the Epson and Tri-X I printed on fiber paper in the darkroom.

 

The Nikon scanners tend to emphasize grain a bit (though the LS 9000 is a tad better than the 35mm-only scanners in this regard). However the scanned Tri-X printed at 14x21 held up quite well compared to the darkroom prints. In some ways they seemed a bit better.

 

The M8 files had less grain (noise) but I really went back and forth over which I preferred. I like the look of the film grain but the M8 prints had a great depth, they almost looked like a larger format because of the lack of grain and the fine detail. The film files, when printed at smaller sizes, are very rich and texured, which I like. The digital files can hold up at larger sizes without getting overly grainy or noisy.

 

I knew the M9 files could be printed even larger still without sacrificing quality. My work is evolving in such a way that I'm starting to make larger exhibition prints that still retain a large amount of detail even under close inspection. Sure, you can print Tri-X at 40in. wide, and the result may be beautiful, but it will be extremely grainy and that's not the look I'm going for.

 

Once my first M9 arrived I decided to shoot an assignment on half film and have digital, just for kicks. You can see it here:

 

Sister Jean's Soup Kitchen

 

Don't worry, I won't make you guess which frames are film and which are digital. None are film, because the lab delayed my processing so long it missed my deadline, and when I did get it back it was so badly stained and scratched I gave up on scanning it. There were a few frames I only had on film, so when my film wasn't ready when promised I went back and re-shot those frames on digital and had them transmitted the same day. True story. I wanted to make the film work for my needs but it just didn't work out. My city only has one or maybe two pro labs left. I've tried them both with horrible results.

 

Still, I'm keeping my M6s. I may find a reason or a way to shoot film again, and I'd hate to not have the option available. To me the M system offers the best of both worlds in that now we can use the same lenses, not have to fiddle with filters and have amazing image quality on film or digital.

 

Like so many other things it comes down to personal preference. One is not 'better', and work done with one is not more credible than the other just because of the tools used.

 

For me, the final result is all that matters, be it a print or an online exhibition or a magazine cover.

[andybarton]

But, not everyone has a client to please. Only themselves...

[erl]

But, not everyone has a client to please. Only themselves...

 

Is that the "luxury" staring me in the face?

[jonoslack]

But, not everyone has a client to please. Only themselves...

 

But, as Noah puts it so nicely:

 

Like so many other things it comes down to personal preference. One is not 'better', and work done with one is not more credible than the other just because of the tools used.

 

For me, the final result is all that matters, be it a print or an online exhibition or a magazine cover.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Metin]

Tango Sample below:

 

M9 gives you a 3472 x 5212 pixel file, approximately 11.5 x 17 print size at 100%

 

I made a tango scan of an Ektar 100 frame, 3503 x 5232 pixels, 11.52 x 17.21 print size at 100%, approximately 3670 dpi scan, 1210% enlargement.

 

First image below is the full frame image, the other 3 are 100% crops from various parts of the frame.

 

No fancy Photoshop work, just set the highlight and shadow points and slight color adjustment. And no sharpening at all, not in the scanner and not in Photoshop.

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!

[eleskin]

Noah,

 

Boy those soup kitchen shots really got to me. You said it was the M9 I think, or maybe the M8. At any rate, well done!!! I noticed Trump's casino. Nice touch and contrast. Funny, I have been taking photos here in Bethlehem PA since 1989 (the decline of the steel was my Masters Thesis at Pratt Institute), and I am still at it, especially in the shadow of the Sands Casino. All these old steelworkers telling me fascinating stories and watching old people spilling out their wallets in false hopes. I love your work!!!

 

Ed

 

Allentown PA

 

PS: Here are some shots of a steelworker who was a pro boxer in 1989. He jogged 10 miles to the steel plant and back every day when working and came within 3 fights of Larry Holms. His hands are like hammers! I am using my M8

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!