Guest ccmsosse Posted May 9, 2010 Share #1 Posted May 9, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here is my question about the M9 "vs" M6, and please forgive my ignorance. I posted the same question on the film-forum site as well. Lots of people have akeds about a second body to back up the M9. So I got a new old stock 2002 M6TTL as I am having too much fun with the M9 and want to shoot film again as well. So here is the question: Should I expect my B+W photos to be as razor sharp as my M9s? I must admit that the M9 (on a detail/sharpness level) seems a step above the M6. Is this to be expected, is film to be not as sharp/detailed or do I need to send my brand new "old stock" M6TTL in for RF adjustments? I love the look of film and am not complaining - just asking. I haven't shot film since 2000 and sold my Contax G2. Michael Sossenheimer | B+W Michael Sossenheimer | B+W The film photos look great but appear nor as detailed as those with the M9, even on my Mac in full resolution - this could of course be merely a function of film vs the scanner (I don't own the Nikon 9000) and if so then that's ok. But if I should expect the same details or razor sharpness with the M6 as with the M9 then I should mail the cam in for TLC and RF adjustment. Again - forgive my ignorance - but I am still new to Leicas altogether. Thanks for your input and advise and please don't crucify me for my ignorance - Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 9, 2010 Posted May 9, 2010 Hi Guest ccmsosse, Take a look here M9 - M6TTL - Focus. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Walt Calahan Posted May 9, 2010 Share #2 Posted May 9, 2010 You're comparing apples and oranges. But that cliches said, scanners do introduce softness to images. It is best to add a little unsharp mask to every scan. Not too much. On my Nikon 8000 scanner using SilverFast software, I'll use about 8% unmask sharpening with a threshold of 8 to 10. It's just enough to tighten up the softness that the scanner introduces to the image. Of course the type of film you are using can influence your results, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ccmsosse Posted May 9, 2010 Share #3 Posted May 9, 2010 You're comparing apples and oranges. But that cliches said, scanners do introduce softness to images. It is best to add a little unsharp mask to every scan. Not too much. On my Nikon 8000 scanner using SilverFast software, I'll use about 8% unmask sharpening with a threshold of 8 to 10. It's just enough to tighten up the softness that the scanner introduces to the image. Of course the type of film you are using can influence your results, too. Great advise - thanks - I understand the "apples and oranges" comment. The scanner settings are very helpful - I'll try that. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted May 9, 2010 Share #4 Posted May 9, 2010 In my experience, I recently shot M9 and M7 in Antarcrica. Without doubt, you will perceive better 'sharpness' from the M9, but the film will deliver qualities (indefinable) that will make your images 'sing a different song' that will always appeal. In my case the jury is still out on deciding which delivered the best images but both performed magnificently. Simply put, the M9 featured with colour but the M7 starred with B&W. But choice of subject had a large influence as well and I think you should consider this the overriding factor. Scanning can bring more detail out of your films, but also dust and scratches. Your enlarger disguises a lot of this, but also some fine detail, so comparing digital with analog is really a tin of worms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ccmsosse Posted May 9, 2010 Share #5 Posted May 9, 2010 In my experience, I recently shot M9 and M7 in Antarcrica. Without doubt, you will perceive better 'sharpness' from the M9, but the film will deliver qualities (indefinable) that will make your images 'sing a different song' that will always appeal. In my case the jury is still out on deciding which delivered the best images but both performed magnificently. Simply put, the M9 featured with colour but the M7 starred with B&W. But choice of subject had a large influence as well and I think you should consider this the overriding factor. Scanning can bring more detail out of your films, but also dust and scratches. Your enlarger disguises a lot of this, but also some fine detail, so comparing digital with analog is really a tin of worms. Thanks too for your comments. Once I'll get the MP, I will likely use the M9, M6TTL and MP to shoot digital, B+W as well as color film all along-side one another. It will be an interesting "experiment". Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted May 10, 2010 Share #6 Posted May 10, 2010 Congrats to your decsision to add film to your digital enjoyment. I did the same after I had bought my M8.2. If you are looking for high resolution you should try low ISO film like Adox CMS 20 when shooting during the day. You will be amazed by the level of detail. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted May 10, 2010 Share #7 Posted May 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Film generally is less sharp and less detailed than digital at the same format. Scanning then introduces even more loss of sharpness which for cheaper film scanners can be quite substantial. 35-mm film can be more detailed than 35-mm digital only when using ultra-low-speed B/W film such as Spur Orthopan developed in Spur Nano Edge (effective film speed ISO 12/12°). Otherwise, digital will always be ahead by a few notches. Also see: Spur Nano Edge Spur Nano Edge, two Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 10, 2010 Share #8 Posted May 10, 2010 Speaking for myself, I always found it a bit complicated to mix film and digital. The need of setting up two, possibly three, workflows always was too cumbersome for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted May 10, 2010 Share #9 Posted May 10, 2010 Speaking for myself, I always found it a bit complicated to mix film and digital. The need of setting up two, possibly three, workflows always was too cumbersome for me. Jaap, the trick is to say, when you get up in the morning, tell yourself "today is a digital day" or "today is a film day". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted May 10, 2010 Share #10 Posted May 10, 2010 Film generally is less sharp and less detailed than digital at the same format. Scanning then introduces even more loss of sharpness which for cheaper film scanners can be quite substantial. 35-mm film can be more detailed than 35-mm digital only when using ultra-low-speed B/W film such as Spur Orthopan developed in Spur Nano Edge (effective film speed ISO 12/12°). Otherwise, digital will always be ahead by a few notches. Also see: Spur Nano Edge Spur Nano Edge, two 01af, I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I am going to suggest that your theory is incomplete, as are most arguments on this topic. The overarching result depends on much more than just 'sharpness' or any other 'measurable' factor. There is an indefinable quality to most films that cannot be measured, any more then some qualitites of digital can. For example, have you ever tried to measure beauty? IMHO, it is not possible, but we all assess it and make decisions based on those assessments. I am not suggesting there is an answer to any of this, but I remain skeptical about 'black and white' statements that one or the other is better than another. A counter argument will always be found. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 10, 2010 Share #11 Posted May 10, 2010 Jaap, the trick is to say, when you get up in the morning, tell yourself "today is a digital day" or "today is a film day". It is not the day, Erl, it is the evening .Computer or bathroom... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted May 10, 2010 Share #12 Posted May 10, 2010 For example, have you ever tried to measure beauty? IMHO, it is not possible, but we all assess it and make decisions based on those assessments. Beauty is measured on a scale from Donatella Versace to Hillary Duff. You can choose which way the scale goes depending on what you're into:D. Beauty is different things to different people. From tehnical point of view though, it's easier in PP to make a sharp image blurred than to make a blurred image seem sharp. Many of my favourite images are blurred though and we can all cite iconic blurred images like HCB's bloke on a bike taken down the stairwell, or Capa's death of a soldier. The blur needs to add to the image rather than detract. I can certainly understand why one would like to achieve equivalent sharpness with film/scanner combo as that achieved with the M9 despite there being more to an image than clarity. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted May 10, 2010 Share #13 Posted May 10, 2010 I think the sound of agreement is deafening here! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted May 10, 2010 Share #14 Posted May 10, 2010 Hi If you use Ilford Delta 100 (or similar technology tabular grain) film, develop with an acutance dev and you (high quality) loupe the negatives on a light table or wet print with a quality enlarger lens, then you will see the 'sharpness' of the lens and film combination, if you can hold the camera steady enough. If you scan such a film you will introduce various digital (sampling) artifice, which do not improve the image, digitally processing this is iffy... Digitally printing from a scan ditto. Apples and oranges is a good analogue. Noel . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ccmsosse Posted May 10, 2010 Share #15 Posted May 10, 2010 Congrats to your decsision to add film to your digital enjoyment. I did the same after I had bought my M8.2. If you are looking for high resolution you should try low ISO film like Adox CMS 20 when shooting during the day. You will be amazed by the level of detail. Regards Steve Thanks Where do you get it and where do you get it developed - my wife'd kill me if I set up a dark room - too much time away as is anyways ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ccmsosse Posted May 10, 2010 Share #16 Posted May 10, 2010 Speaking for myself, I always found it a bit complicated to mix film and digital. The need of setting up two, possibly three, workflows always was too cumbersome for me. I can understand that but I really got "bitten" by the desire to shoot more - so adding film is even more fun than just digital - do you only shoot digital then? Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 10, 2010 Share #17 Posted May 10, 2010 I can understand that but I really got "bitten" by the desire to shoot more - so adding film is even more fun than just digital - do you only shoot digital then? Cheers No - I do shoot film - preferably slides or easily scannable film, using the film cameras I own, but I must confess it is mostly for nostalgic reasons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ccmsosse Posted May 10, 2010 Share #18 Posted May 10, 2010 No - I do shoot film - preferably slides or easily scannable film, using the film cameras I own, but I must confess it is mostly for nostalgic reasons Thanks - great What film do you recommend - or do slides scan better - what would you recommend there? I love photography and in 2000 switched to digital and have owned numerous cams I could never afford Leicas - I am not a pro and never will be ... Now I took the plunge - bought the M9 for trade-in of everything else I owned ... and love it so much that I want to shoot film again too (funny - I sold my Contax G2 - now I own a M6 ). So any advise on film will help since I have been out for 10 years.... I don't develop mysel - so keep that in mind. Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 10, 2010 Share #19 Posted May 10, 2010 This site has great practical information and will ship worldwide: Fotohuis RoVo I'm trying out the Rollei Digibase CN 200 right now, but I am lazy and slow when using film, so no results yet. Before I really liked Kodachrome 64 RIP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ccmsosse Posted May 10, 2010 Share #20 Posted May 10, 2010 This site has great practical information and will ship worldwide: Fotohuis RoVo I'm trying out the Rollei Digibase CN 200 right now, but I am lazy and slow when using film, so no results yet. Before I really liked Kodachrome 64 RIP Thanks You are on the message site a lot and surely don't strike me as lazy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.