What film can do that digital can't

[ron110n]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agreed. If your shot had been taken with the M8, it would certainly have greater apparent (and probably real) resolution and the crown details would stand out more starkly against the OOF background behind it. I'm sure many (though not me) would prefer it that way.

 

Hi Ian,

 

Thanks, and I'm waiting for someone to comment about the crown.

That was shot @ 1/15th of a sec hand-held "shooting up" and focused at the orb.

Not bad huh... =)

 

But seriously, last Nov. I have the budget to purchase an M8 and another one grand for gizmos to go with it. I really was very interested.

I am also aware that the M9 will be better in the coming years than the existing, but I held on evaluate the current the M8 to see if it's worth having a camera that's locked in having one brand of film in both colored and black and white. Also not getting full advantade of frames wider than 50mm. But all that were expected for the planned investment.

 

I finally made a decision which was influenced with the result of the pre IR filtered images which is D2-ish. I already have a D2 and I'm happy with it. Also the post IR filtered images posted at LUF influenced my decision.

 

Oh well... =) my decsion was to purchase a Noctilux (latest), Elmarit 21mm asph with OEM finder, and a mint Leica M3 manufactured at my birth year.

 

I think I'm happier with my decision for many years to come.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti digital and "I am among those guys" who pioneered and brain stormed a D2 back 2004.

Would you agree with me that many of your die-hard M8 colleagues are among those guys who simply hates digital back then? =)))

Perhaps, it's my digital requirement for someone who shoots only for personal pleasure.

My D2 can do the job to my taste, and the Pany LX1 shoots a lot of work related snaps and shorts videos for my report.

 

Cheers,

-Ron

[Advertisement]

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

[jelderfield]

I don't have the M8 - but I want to get one, plan to this summer. So up til now,all I've used is film. Which I'm generally very happy to do. I use TriX, Astia, Portra, all 35mm and I think they are all great. But a few points:

 

In the davidada 30x40 thread, I'm convinced that the M8 is better than 35mm film scans which is what I'm doing now. Obviously digital and film are JUST DIFFERENT, just as different films are different. If you shoot Velvia or Color Neg or TMZ3200 they are all different. So maybe some film does somethings better than digital and some film does better, or just different.

 

For me the idea of travelling to the UK without 40 rolls of trix and going thru Heathrow's Xrays, or having to find a lab on my last day in London to avoid the Xrays and having a digital M instead will be great.

 

What CAN i do with digital, Shoot 1 frame at 160 ASA, shoot next frame at 2500 without changing my roll. Shoot color in flourescent light, then in incandescent light from one frame to the next without changing film or filters. Get instant feedback on the image I made, not carry around 5 or 10 or 20 rolls of film on every trip. Have one camera under my arm and an extra card and battery in my pocket wiithut a bag of film. Shoot a family photo of my kids and then the next moment shoot a "project" image and not feel that I have "to finish the roll".

 

Every shot on the M8 will not be great, but I won't have that sinking feeling at the lab when I pick up 10 rolls of street photos that I thought would be great when I shot them only to see that upon picking them up that they all suck.

 

I'll keep my M7 and M4-P when I buy the M8 for sure, but I'm not sure how much film I will shoot again.

 

Also regarding the poster who thinks all the family pix will be lost in the digital age, maybe, but people also put negs in a shoebox only to collect dust and never to be printed. I can email my digi pix to family right away and keep an online archive if I want to.

 

Jonathan Elderfield Photography

[ron110n]

I don't know what say Jonathan,

Since you talk about Lab on your B&W images, I think you really need an M8.

 

Many of us here are purist when it comes to B&W.

We take pride to our own home brew.

We also have a particular choice of developer for a brand of film or a certain ISO.

 

B&W is holly, I just can't explain myself as a mere amateure when asked what developer I used and my answer is Fred Miranda.

My digital shots are limited to colored. Also my M3 is limited to B&W.

 

Have a good weekend.

-Ron

[andybarton]

Heathrow's X-Rays will not harm your Tri-X, unless, maybe, you put it in the hold.

 

You might lose your sanity while you are there though

[finkaudio]

Hi,

 

it’s funny to read discussions very close to the arguments you can find in the High-End HiFi Scene about analog turntables and CD Players. More than 20 years ago, nearly everybody replaced the good only Vinyl (Film) with CD (digital), because it was convenient and everybody told consumers, CD-Players sound all the same and much better.

Today, nobody questions the CD (beside the IPOD of course), but there is a very active, sometimes radical, but growing group of people using turntables and listening to old Vinyl.

Guess the same will happen with Digital and Film in the photo shooting area. And I think that’s OK and there is no reason to fight for only one system.

I personally like turntables a lot, as I listen to old Jazz and Blues. I found the music sounds best on the medium is was recorded on. On the other side, a modern Eric Clapton album, recorded on digital and pressed into Vinyl is sounding boring. Now think about some style of B&W…

There are many developments nowadays for analog turntable technology and the quality is better than ever, making it a lot of fun to hunt for old recordings. Old, famous turntables are getting really expensive now.

Can you see the same with photo equipment? I can. Right now, the prices for analog Leicas are dropping and you get them really cheap now. But maybe it 20 years, people will discover what digital cannot do and go back to old film to have some fun with “lost” qualities of film and so the old gear can go up in price again.

For me the great thing with Leica M8 is that they manage something we never had in HiFi: Bringing modern processing technology together with the old traditional way of making photos. I just keep one M6 and I have everything I need for both worlds. Unfortunately, in HiFi nobody really introduced a cartridge to be used on my turntable to play CD on it

 

Best regards

 

Karl-Heinz

[mwilliamsphotography]

Forgive my rambling musings on the subject ....

 

In the end analysis, I would have to say that I'd hate to be without either medium.

 

Digital photography has introduced new conveniences and shooting flexibility. It has advanced to the point that it is a capable method of recording images of high quality in the hands of a skilled digital craftsman. Most importantly, it is in perfect harmony with the mainstay of modern life ... the computer. It is also in sync with the general emotional mood of modern life ... "immediate need gratification". We don't have that much time for fun, so our fun has to be faster on the uptake.

 

Film is a mature technology with a history we can point to as being highly capable. Well crafted B&W is specifically a known entity in terms of longevity. In these days of faster everything, it's the "tinkerer's" medium. To me. it's a "gone fishing" way of making images when compared to digital.

 

Many argue that you can treat digital shooting the same way as film shooting ... turn off the LCD, shoot manual. That's correct technically, but the amount of people who do that is probably statistically insignificant. It's counter to human nature.

 

I would hate to be without digital. However, not hating isn't the same as loving it. I do a lot of it because it's the commercial thing to do. My clients expect it. I got good at doing it because of them.

 

I would hate to be without film, yet in this case it's because I personally love it. I even use it for commercial wedding work by scanning it. I like the emotional aspects of it, and a few of its' unique technical properties ... like the way it records subtile bright white areas without struggling ...

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!

[meatboy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Film may be better and more practical for many panoramic applications.

 

I suspect stitching a digital panoramic of a beach scene with moving waves may not look great. There are not a lot of true panoramic digital sensors - and the few that are out there are probably very expensive.

 

Scan a 6 x 12 MF film image, how many Mpixels have you captured? What digital camera is out there to do this? How much does it cost? Ouch!

 

Tim

[frc]

Being very pragmatic in photography I have fully switched to the hybrid workflow.

Scanning my slides at highest resolution and sometimes printing them gives me all I need.

Most things I do are for websites and magazines anyway.

B&W however is imho a different beast, a craft rooted in a tradition that goes back to the beginning of photography.

Looking at a good B&W image invites to a way of looking that not only asks for attention in therms of imagecontent but also shows the photographers care and joy of making the individual print.

It is an artform rather than only a depiction of the subject recorded.

I'm a barbarian, B&W?, channelmixer-monochrome.

But I love my Thorens turntable;-)

The Nikon DSLR has no place in this story.

[Bill Sievers]

Here is a link to my informal M8/Neopan comparison.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/captainvideo/375522164/

[ddp]

Here is a link to my informal M8/Neopan comparison.

 

Lee Tung Street (M8 and Neopan comparison) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

The Neopan looks so filmlike!

[luigi bertolotti]

Some thinkings from one who has not yet really started to go Digi (played with a nice HP 3 Mpixel just because it came in my hands form a friend from HP, horrified by Digital photo)

 

- I'll go digi...with M8... you cannot ignore the history: the photo industry is going in that direction, period: expect investiments by industry and better and/or cheaper solutions in digital, expect about nothing better than now in chemical photo, maybe also at rising prices (I read macro figures about 35mm film production worldwide: impressive : if the lowering of volumes continues, I really suspect rising prices someday)

 

- Film and files have both clear advantages and disadvantages : ...years ago i used for sometime a Linhof 9x12... rolls and plan film have clear adv. and disadv... Ansel Adams could have never created some prints from a Leica neg.... maybe also the old emulsioned glasses had advantages... maybe also in-house-by-yourself sensibilized paperboard (you can still find books on how to prepare it) can give feelings and effects you cannot obtain in other ways...

 

- Reading the forum I have noticed that many people work "semi digi", scanning the film: sure that the OOF aspect (IN PRINTS !) is different from a digitized neg - Inkjiet Printer and a CCD shot - same printer ?

 

- I wrote PRINTS in capital because this is one of the core question, by myself: someone in this forum has said that digi is an "equalizer" or similar : agree, and point out that nowadays lot of shots are delivered via Internet: byte byte byte... the reason that has made me waiting till now to go digi is related to this: my goal is to obtain GOOD PRINTS, COLOR AND B & W, 20x30 to 30x40.

 

- I suspect that when I have my M8, most of the problems shall not arise from IR filtering, magenta shades... and so, but from the fact that I still have to deal with the PRINTING phase of the process: lot of printers to choose , lot of settings to deal with, lot of paper kinds...not to mention Software and Monitor calibration... Film does not pose these questions or, better, they are not under your direct control (I do only B&W printing in house)

 

- I insist on printing, because in this area can be really something new that maybe shall arrive also to photo enthusiasts: the technologies available for printing files are various, and if at the moment seems that the various implementation of the Inkjet technology are the winners, I should be not surprised that other technologies cold emerge, expecially for B&W printing: can someone remember the printing tecniques used by darkroom masters as Brihat ? ("grignotage" etc): similar results can someday be obtained with proper digital tech applied to printers (solid inks etc...). Of course, all this remains the same if you deal with digitized negs, but, in my opinion, this is anyway a "transition" approach.

 

Sorry for the long message: I really am intrigued by the Digital phenomenon: I expect lot of problems I never suffer in taking pictures... the reason of my decision towards M8, besides usual "Leica-fan-club" is that at least I would to have at least ONE piece of equipment similar to what I use now....

[Guest magyarman]

If guy make fotos becaus to use camera, is main reason stay with film. If is guy who use camera becaus to make fotos, is make no differents he use ora film ora digital. Nobody care who look to his fotos how make it him. Some day mabe ora very difficulty ora very spense to take film. In this day everybody will to must make it chose. Before this day is make no differents. I dont see why some people is need to make long discusted tell some other guy what he suppose to chose.