haroldp Posted January 12, 2010 Share #161 Posted January 12, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) To begin, I would like to thank Andy Piper for the work he did in presenting a variety of options in the context of a realistic scanning workflow for many who would still want to use film. This is certainly a net gain in the information available to this forum. If some have issues with the process or equipment that was used, I would welcome them adding their additional information for our evaluation. M, Puts Comparison after wet printing to ISO 25 technical Black & White film, is perhaps useful to some, but has no relationship to comparisons to color, and for many situations ISO 25 is not useful. That being said, I have been following this thread with increasing dismay. Many ( thankfully not all ) seem to believe that for one answer or approach to be 'right', or 'valid', all others must be 'wrong' or 'worse' (whatever that means). Film, and Digital can both be 'right', as can RF and SLR photography, albeit perhaps for different people and circumstances. They are certainly different at the margin, but either can present a skilled photographer with the tools to capture their 'vision'. Neither my M9, nor D3x, nor M6, nor F100 provide me with an alibi for not getting the shot, only my lack of skills can do that. I can still easily postulate circumstances where I would choose one over the other, but If I were 'there' with any one of them, I would still try for the shot, and succeed if my skills were adequate. I shot hundreds of basketball and soccer games with a Leica M2, but I would choose an autofocus SLR for those assignments today. If one feels that a particular tool set restricts their execution, or quality, then by all means try another. Disparaging the choices of others does not validate ones own. I spend time on this forum to benefit from the knowledge and experience of others, and to perhaps add some knowledge as well. I am concerned that the barrage of personal attacks will discourage people from expending the kind of effort that was obvious here, and we will all be poorer for it. Regards to all ... Harold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Hi haroldp, Take a look here M9 vs. Scanned film (various ISOs). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Luke_Miller Posted January 12, 2010 Share #162 Posted January 12, 2010 Well said Harold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
astabla Posted January 12, 2010 Share #163 Posted January 12, 2010 Hi Andy, thanks for your hard work. Funny enough, I just got my new film scanner today and compared a film I shot over Christmas (Iso200, M6) with the files I did with the M9 at Iso 320 on the same location. I was kind of shocked to see all the grain that I got from the film and I was already wondering if I did something wrong in the process..... Now I know I did nothing wrong - it's just what you get from a film with a decent scanner (same as yours). I noticed that the prints look nicer compared with what I can see on the screen - noise and digital monitors really don't go together very well. I bought the scanner, because I got a M6TTL for little money and thought I might shoot parallel analog and digital. I do the same in the Audio world and enjoy the good old turntable a lot. But as I forgot a lot already about conventional film, I needs some more practice. Best regards Karl-Heinz To me as a real analogue fan, photography is the only field where dgital is just BETTER than analogue. And it needs extreme efforts to get anywehre close ! In music a turntable and a good record stll sond better but in photography: No way back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted January 13, 2010 Share #164 Posted January 13, 2010 ...I was going to suggest (since no one else has stepped up to the plate) that I could get my own drum scan or analog A1 print made from one of my film samples, and proceed from there. But if people would generally prefer not to know, I won't go to the expense. no, that would be great. Also I miss having the whole frame to compare, as well as the crops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted January 13, 2010 Share #165 Posted January 13, 2010 To me as a real analogue fan, photography is the only field where dgital is just BETTER than analogue. And it needs extreme efforts to get anywehre close ! In music a turntable and a good record stll sond better but in photography: No way back Really? Can you use your digital camera in minus 20 degree weather for two weeks without re-charging the batteries? It's not all about the method of storage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 13, 2010 Share #166 Posted January 13, 2010 Using words like "better" is such a mistake unless clearly qualified, which does narrow the "better" considerably. On the W/E I am travelling to Antarctica for 3 weeks. I'm taking two digital (M9 &M8) cameras and two analog(film) cameras (M7 & XPan). I have no idea which will be "better" or what minus temperatures I (and the cameras) will experience. I am only hoping that between the four cameras I will get some worthwhile images and I don't care which camera(s) they come from. Either way, I will be scanning, maybe analog printing and certainly digital printing. Conclusions? We will wait till I return for any "decisions." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted January 13, 2010 Share #167 Posted January 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) To me as a real analogue fan, photography is the only field where dgital is just BETTER than analogue. And it needs extreme efforts to get anywehre close ! In music a turntable and a good record stll sond better but in photography: No way back actually I think the state of affairs is very much the same in audio and photography, i.e. analog is a high end product with a following. In high end audio, a lot of resolution is considered fatiguing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share #168 Posted January 13, 2010 Also I miss having the whole frame to compare, as well as the crops. Check the first image in this thread - full-frame versions of the test pix. redbaron: Nope, quite right - just as there are places one can go on horseback or hiking but not by car. http://www.images.generallyawesome2.com/photos/funny/photos/stretch-limo-bump.jpg Or as someone once put it, "What could a 747 jetliner have done to rescue passengers from the Titanic?" (And NO! I'm NOT implying film is a sinking ship!!! Jeez! I'm acknowledging that newer technology doesn't always do everything better). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted January 13, 2010 Share #169 Posted January 13, 2010 Check the first image in this thread - full-frame versions of the test pix... I meant there is no comparison of the whole frame of film and the whole frame of digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted January 13, 2010 Share #170 Posted January 13, 2010 The issue I always have with these comparison debates is that it represents one end of the artistic spectrum. As if every emotion is best expressed with one type technical precision and homogeneous standards. So, this comparison adds nothing to my arsenal of creative choices, and says absolutely nothing to me because it is based on a narrow technical premise that has little to do with why I make photographs ... or at least try to make photographs. To me, these one-sided unartistic types of technical comparison criteria make digital capture the Mac Donald's of photography ... a world-wide effort to make a potentially flexible artistic medium of expression conform to the same unartistic standard. The other problem is that the siren's song of these comparisons is quite compelling because it gives us permission to indulge in our weaknesses. I shoot mostly digital because I freely admit to being lazy and impatient ... not because I think it is a better form of expression. I also believe that Pixel Peeping has become a pandemic viral infection, and a potent one at that. IMO, it has made photography quite sick on a world-wide basis. Unfortunately, those infected keep passing on their affliction like Priests evangelizing in the New World while spreading Small Pox to the natives. LOL! -Marc BTW, here's an everyday, hard working film user as of yet uninfected, that IMO does a nice emotional job with some pretty fast films. Rafaela Azevedo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 13, 2010 Share #171 Posted January 13, 2010 The issue I always have with these comparison debates is that it represents one end of the artistic spectrum. As if every emotion is best expressed with one type technical precision and homogeneous standards. So, this comparison adds nothing to my arsenal of creative choices, and says absolutely nothing to me because it is based on a narrow technical premise that has little to do with why I make photographs ... or at least try to make photographs. To me, these one-sided unartistic types of technical comparison criteria make digital capture the Mac Donald's of photography ... a world-wide effort to make a potentially flexible artistic medium of expression conform to the same unartistic standard. The other problem is that the siren's song of these comparisons is quite compelling because it gives us permission to indulge in our weaknesses. I shoot mostly digital because I freely admit to being lazy and impatient ... not because I think it is a better form of expression. I also believe that Pixel Peeping has become a pandemic viral infection, and a potent one at that. IMO, it has made photography quite sick on a world-wide basis. Unfortunately, those infected keep passing on their affliction like Priests evangelizing in the New World while spreading Small Pox to the natives. LOL! Very well put, Marc. I fully agree and you said it better than I ever could. Thanks, Edi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 13, 2010 Share #172 Posted January 13, 2010 Marc, you have reminded me that, on reflection, I have probably lived through the best of times for photography. I just didn't realize it at the time. Paradoxically I am lucky enough to be enjoying the current status quo despite the passing of what could be described as the 'classic period' in the craft. OTOH, perhaps it is all a matter of perception. Whatever, I shall enjoy what remains and fondly remember what has already passed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted January 13, 2010 Share #173 Posted January 13, 2010 Cool comparison. As an avid film shooter, I'd love to see drum scans of the frames. If for no other reason than to see a nice crisp view of the grain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nei1 Posted January 13, 2010 Share #174 Posted January 13, 2010 ISO 800 - I guess I could have included Tri-X or 400 Provia "pushed" to 800. The only native 800 film I could find was the Fuji NPZ 800. The exact same exposures were used for both M9 and film, but the NPZ negs looked quite thin (I did bracket, and this was the densest neg.) So on the one hand, the NPZ would probably do better than this for shadow detail @ ISO 320-400 - but then it would not be an "ISO 800" comparison. Again, the film images are "bigger" because the scanner's best resolution is a bit higher than the M9's. Lens: 21 Elmarit @ f/5.6, tungsten light indoors. Im joining this very late but these two photographs illustrate for me one criteria that digital seems to find difficult to overcome. Its quite possible Im wrong because Ive mentioned this in other places over other photographs only to be ignored or condemned as senile or heretic.So if you see as I do please comment to prevent my early slip into madness.............In the film image I see space,dimensionality,Isee a gap between camera and cheek not seen in the digital image which is beautifully clean but flat ,looks in comparison like a photograph of a print.I realise this is subjective but I am convinced of its reality......all the best,Neil. the photos are in post 4,theyve not appeared with the quote. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 13, 2010 Share #175 Posted January 13, 2010 Im joining this very late but these two photographs illustrate for me one criteria that digital seems to find difficult to overcome. Its quite possible Im wrong because Ive mentioned this in other places over other photographs only to be ignored or condemned as senile or heretic.So if you see as I do please comment to prevent my early slip into madness.............In the film image I see space,dimensionality,Isee a gap between camera and cheek not seen in the digital image which is beautifully clean but flat ,looks in comparison like a photograph of a print.I realise this is subjective but I am convinced of its reality......all the best,Neil. the photos are in post 4,theyve not appeared with the quote. NEI1! How the devil are you? I'm not sure that I see any gaps - but I CAN see the charm of the film images. You just hang in there with your film - I'm considering joining in (on a part time basis you understand). all the very best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 13, 2010 Share #176 Posted January 13, 2010 Im joining this very late but these two photographs illustrate for me one criteria that digital seems to find difficult to overcome. Its quite possible Im wrong because Ive mentioned this in other places over other photographs only to be ignored or condemned as senile or heretic.So if you see as I do please comment to prevent my early slip into madness.............In the film image I see space,dimensionality,Isee a gap between camera and cheek not seen in the digital image which is beautifully clean but flat ,looks in comparison like a photograph of a print.I realise this is subjective but I am convinced of its reality......all the best,Neil. the photos are in post 4,theyve not appeared with the quote. Dont you think that is due to a different tilt of the head and perhaps a black versus a chrome camera? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 13, 2010 Share #177 Posted January 13, 2010 Dont you think that is due to a different tilt of the head and perhaps a black versus a chrome camera? Jeff There are certainly differences between the two frames, other than Film/Digital. The 'separation between the chin on the digi pic is due to tonal differences, which are absent in the film version. Also note the apparent 'separation' of the aux VF from the eye on the digi pic. Again this is created by tonal differences not present in the film pic. All that aside, the film still does have its own charm. I will be shooting some for the next 3 weeks alongside my M9 so I am definitely not anti either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share #178 Posted January 13, 2010 Nei1 could be right. Since dynamic range is another one of those "...yes, but..." issues regarding film and digital, I may have gone too far in trying to squeeze out every last drop of highlight/shadow detail in the M9 image, thus reducing the midtone contrast and getting that flat look. (One reason I don't care for most HDR-composite pictures). The 800 film image, as I said, was a bit thin, and so took extra contrast to cover the full tonal range (sort of like printing a thin negative on grade 5 paper), which boosted the midtone contrasts as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 14, 2010 Share #179 Posted January 14, 2010 snipped The 800 film image, as I said, was a bit thin, and so took extra contrast to cover the full tonal range (sort of like printing a thin negative on grade 5 paper), which boosted the midtone contrasts as well. Ah! Brings back memories. Still got some stale Gr 5 paper somewhere. (and the immersion heater for "oversouping" dev ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dachs Posted January 16, 2012 Share #180 Posted January 16, 2012 Thank you all (especially the hard work of the OP). Interesting, informative, inconclusive though. My colleague at work has an M9 (after years of scanning slides from M7/MP) and we have already reasoned that an extra conversion film via scan must lose something compared to the same glass & mechanics direct to digital. What is on screen is another factor (our work PC's are awful of course). One thing not touched on; to compare a (say) ASA50 slide film taken on a tripod etc etc and projected through the best Leica projection lens, to an M9 direct digi image at native ISO, then projected through the (fabulously expensive) digital projector. Would not that compare apples with apples in the least number of steps? No film conversion, not too much (maybe some) digital reproduction degredation. Better than printing both then going through another scan process, in terms of comparison. If you all club together for my Leica digi projector I am not proud, I freely accept charity.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.