Doc Henry Posted December 17, 2011 Share #1 Posted December 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) What do you think ? Best Henry I prefer to put this thread here (film thread) I will give you the reason later Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Hi Doc Henry, Take a look here Leica M9 digital vs Konica Hexar film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Stealth3kpl Posted December 18, 2011 Share #2 Posted December 18, 2011 My feeling is that if your post processing skills aren't up to scratch it is better to stick with film and a good lab than spend a fortune on an M9. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted December 18, 2011 Share #3 Posted December 18, 2011 Interesting video, but I still cannot figure out what they were trying to prove. Maybe that was the point, there is too much comparison between the two formats already, just enjoy what you have and use it. Thanks for posting, brings back memories of when I lived in Japan, except for the drinking Buds part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 18, 2011 Author Share #4 Posted December 18, 2011 Thank you Pete and Wayne for the first opinion First the film is not dead and Kodak continues to live at least in Japan and also in France ... I put this thread here because I'm not talking about cameras but film and what you get as image quality in both cases. The digital and film coexists now and this is not the debate. We have both types of cameras Have you noticed the difference in the photo of the red lamp painted in yellow, where there is work on the street ? As Pete said, it is certain that it is better to give to a lab if you can not have quality photos as a good scanner and photo processing software... Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 18, 2011 Share #5 Posted December 18, 2011 Clearly film is much better. I'm definately going to try wearing black when shooting street. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2011 Share #6 Posted December 18, 2011 Already to show up for such an unfair contest, MIB's cool. Except when he's hiding the cigarette. ----- Whoever considered using a Hexar, knows now that the fastest speed is 1/250... Rolleiflex TLR goes all the way to 1/500 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2011 Share #7 Posted December 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Clearly film is much better. I'm definately going to try wearing black when shooting street. And sunglasses in December: MIB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 18, 2011 Share #8 Posted December 18, 2011 Would have been better if they'd both used the same lens, but I agree that the film shots win hands down here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 18, 2011 Author Share #9 Posted December 18, 2011 Thank you All for your advice. A recent example of pictures of the fish market and the "old port" you can see here in this link : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/212636-come-come-buy-fresh-fish.html I brought my 2 digital M and R8 with several rolls of new Kodak Portra 400 and 160 film What do you think? Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 18, 2011 Share #10 Posted December 18, 2011 I didn't bother after it was obviously deemed necessary to explain what the Konica actually was..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 18, 2011 Share #11 Posted December 18, 2011 Thank you All for your advice.A recent example of pictures of the fish market and the "old port" you can see here in this link : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/212636-come-come-buy-fresh-fish.html I brought my 2 digital M and R8 with several rolls of new Kodak Portra 400 and 160 film What do you think? Best Henry Honestly? Clearly you are treating the M9 as if it was metorphorically loaded with a film that you don't like, but you aren't doing anything to change that situation. So yes, the film looks better, because you chose a film that you like, not one you don't like. So now choose an appropriate rendering for the M9 files. That is what ACR and Photoshop are for. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 18, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted December 18, 2011 Honestly? Clearly you are treating the M9 as if it was metorphorically loaded with a film that you don't like, but you aren't doing anything to change that situation. So yes, the film looks better, because you chose a film that you like, not one you don't like. So now choose an appropriate rendering for the M9 files. That is what ACR and Photoshop are for.Steve Steve I tried other brands like Fuji film and found the same thing ... again without correction I also have LR (not PS) but I rarely corrects I assume that the color should be as close to what I see !is what I call "high fidelity of the image" is a first point. The second point is as you said in your tests is the consistency and there the M9 (and M8) disappoint me a little it joins a little what finds the two testers Kai and Mark Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted December 18, 2011 Share #13 Posted December 18, 2011 I agree with Doc. I spent too many hours a day slaving on a computer at work to want to get too involved with much post-processing by software. I mainly want to accurately capture what I see in the finder. Photography for me is capture; for others it is creation. The M9 does a good job at both, but my soft spot will always be Kodachrome and a slide projector. Portra comes close. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 18, 2011 Share #14 Posted December 18, 2011 I agree with Doc. I spent too many hours a day slaving on a computer at work to want to get too involved with much post-processing by software. I mainly want to accurately capture what I see in the finder. Photography for me is capture; for others it is creation. The M9 does a good job at both, but my soft spot will always be Kodachrome and a slide projector. Portra comes close. Well let us be brutally honest, if you only post processed the equivalent number of digital files to those that were any good out of a roll of 36 (3 or 4 would be a great success rate, but it could be all) then it would take less time than going to the post box with the envelope to Kodak. OK, you get more fresh air by using film, I'll admit that. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JATA Posted December 18, 2011 Share #15 Posted December 18, 2011 Kai, like so many other over-enthusiastic Leica M9 bloggers/fondlers do an incredible job of making the M9 and whatever lens they have attached look perfectly dull and ordinary with their so-called 'street photography'. Fact is my Yashica 35 electro gsn, Olyumpus XA and M6's loaded with portra are capable of producing amazing images. And so can my M9 and LX5. In fact some of my all time favourite images are from small point and shoot digital camera's. And some of them are from film, leica or otherwise. Sorry what was the point of all this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartie Posted December 18, 2011 Share #16 Posted December 18, 2011 It's back to the age old argument.....film v digital....and to be honest with you it's a bit boring to here the same old rants. At the end of the day all that's important is the end result.......the image.....whether you capture it with film or ( as was said earlier ) you create it with software. I try to get it right at the point of taking and not rely on software but what is wrong with a bit of dodging ,burning,levels and curves......basically what you would do in the darkroom to get the end result to bring out the best in the negative or digital file......so come on guys stop ranting on and get on with taking pictures.........film or digital. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share #17 Posted December 19, 2011 It's back to the age old argument.....film v digital....and to be honest with you it's a bit boring to here the same old rants.At the end of the day all that's important is the end result.......the image.....whether you capture it with film or ( as was said earlier ) you create it with software. I try to get it right at the point of taking and not rely on software but what is wrong with a bit of dodging ,burning,levels and curves......basically what you would do in the darkroom to get the end result to bring out the best in the negative or digital file......so come on guys stop ranting on and get on with taking pictures.........film or digital. Andy I agree with you that the important thing is the image that is obtained through a dark room or software at the computer. It's an old argument as you said ,and it's also is my question: how to get a picture as we see? For me what is important is to have something that is like what I saw. We have a visual memory but quite difficult to reproduce because complex. The software can solve this deficiency? And can make sure that what we get is really what you see? I compare with the high fidelity sound (tube amplifier versus transistor amplifier or digital amplifier where few equipment are satisfactory).... like the sound we heard for example in a concert Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted December 19, 2011 Kai, like so many other over-enthusiastic Leica M9 bloggers/fondlers do an incredible job of making the M9 and whatever lens they have attached look perfectly dull and ordinary with their so-called 'street photography'. Fact is my Yashica 35 electro gsn, Olyumpus XA and M6's loaded with portra are capable of producing amazing images. And so can my M9 and LX5. In fact some of my all time favourite images are from small point and shoot digital camera's. And some of them are from film, leica or otherwise. Sorry what was the point of all this? +1 Konica has Leica M mount for lens isn't ? "....This lens is reputed to be a near copy of the Leica non-aspheric 35/2 Summicron." Konica Hexar AF Konica Hexar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dante Stella Thanks for your contribution Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rona!d Posted December 19, 2011 Share #19 Posted December 19, 2011 "Digital is a sign of insecurity" - that one i loved ;-) Why not an Hexar RF for comparison? Much closer to the M cencept. And please better scans too. Digital can't read light the way film can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 19, 2011 Share #20 Posted December 19, 2011 "So, after a few beers..." Well, I'm sure they had fun doing that. It was a good excuse to make a movie about two mates shooting different cameras. I refuse to draw any conclusions from the "quality" of the images from a youtube video. "At the end of the day, it's not about one-upmanship, it's about what tool we prefer to use." - says it all for me. BTW, I thought chimping was a sign of insecurity, from watching the vid? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.