Agent M10 Posted January 15, 2012 Share #1 Posted January 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just wondering if anyone has taken the pains (or the fun) of doing an Ektar comparison with the M9. I am getting an M9 soon and just wondered how the IQ and color palette of Kodak's new Ektar (or even Portra) compares to the M9 files. (I'll be doing the comparison myself, just for fun, when the M9 comes in.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Hi Agent M10, Take a look here Ektar and M9 Comparison?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted January 15, 2012 Share #2 Posted January 15, 2012 The M9 is much more likely to compare with Portra than Ektar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim123 Posted January 15, 2012 Share #3 Posted January 15, 2012 If you want the Ektar look why not just buy a film M and use the Ektar? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted January 16, 2012 I have a film M and use Ektar. What's the problem of asking if anyone has done a comparison? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim123 Posted January 16, 2012 Share #5 Posted January 16, 2012 No problem, just thought that it would be easier just to use a film M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djorourke Posted January 16, 2012 Share #6 Posted January 16, 2012 I'd very much enjoy seeing the comparison when you get your M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share #7 Posted January 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here is one comparison: Steve Huff. I think it could have been done a bit better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 16, 2012 Share #8 Posted January 16, 2012 FWIW: My M9/35mm film comparisons from 2010. Covered a range of ISOs so Ektar only figured in the first sample. It is primarily a resolution comparison, so doesn't really address macro qualities like tonality, color, etc. In that regard, it is the "flip side" of the Steve Huff comparison. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/111577-m9-vs-scanned-film-various-isos.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 16, 2012 Share #9 Posted January 16, 2012 Ektar looks like... Ektar. The M9 can be made to look like ____ (insert favorite film here) in post. More or less, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 16, 2012 Share #10 Posted January 16, 2012 Here is one comparison: Steve Huff. I think it could have been done a bit better. "A bit better" is being kind. I don't see what anyone can learn from these as surely any film (with scanning) or digital camera (raw adjustment) can produce much better color and exposure than this. And most $100 p&s camera's jpegs should be better too. Plus I can't see why you would bother to do any kind of comparison without a color chart and grey scale included. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 19, 2012 Share #11 Posted January 19, 2012 M9 is superior to film. I cannot get Portra 160 scanned on my KM5400 to look as good as APS C Nikons back to D200. Imacon scanners do a bit better and cost like a small car. http:/ / asf.com/ Kodak pro plugins for grain reduction. You will need the best help you can get to match an M9 file. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lieberdavid Posted January 30, 2012 Share #12 Posted January 30, 2012 The M9 is definitely not superior to film. In every test that compares film (especially fine grained film) to digital files, even those from very expensive cameras, film has been shown to be demonstrably superior. What the writer in the previous post probably intended to say is that the M9 produces results that are superior to results that come not from film itself but from scanning the film, which is a very different thing, since in the process of scanning a great deal of information on the film is lost. Cheers! David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 30, 2012 Share #13 Posted January 30, 2012 The M9 is definitely not superior to film. In every test that compares film (especially fine grained film) to digital files, even those from very expensive cameras, film has been shown to be demonstrably superior. I'd like to see evidence, from same-size, same-ISO film. Especially if you want to use the words "definitely" and "demonstrably." Demonstration, please.++ "Film" does not equal "ISO 20 B&W microfilm" - the world of film is much bigger than that. Low-ISO microfilms are a best-case scenario - unless, of course, one wants to capture the world in color, in which case they are irrelevant toys. I'll acknowledge that scanning, as a second generation of the image, loses something over the original. But then, it is not possible to actually DO anything useful with most photographs WITHOUT creating a second-generation image by some means: a slide-projector lens; an enlarging lens, a scanner lens. ALL of which will degrade the image to some extent (no such thing as a perfect lens, in the real world). Even simply viewing a Kodachrome original on a light-box, the picture has to be re-imaged through a lens (a viewing loupe). And even an 8x10 or larger negative must be contact-printed before it means anything (with some slight resulting diffusion of the image through two layers of gelatin). Outside of having a gallery of large-format Daguerrotypes, or LF color transparencies displayed on light-boxes, no one will ever see any silver-based photo in its pure original form. _______________ ++ If you rule out scanning, I guess you'd have to start with a photomicrograph of some area of detail. A big enough enlargement in the first stage would overcome the unavoidable generational losses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 30, 2012 Share #14 Posted January 30, 2012 If it takes ISO 20 film for the M9 to compare... I'm sorry, but as much as I love film, shooting at ISO 20 is not nearly as convenient as ISO 160. Not to mention the latter is in color. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 30, 2012 Share #15 Posted January 30, 2012 It's a stupid discussion - most people who use film these days also use digital and use them in different situations. Unless your only aim is to capture sharper detail in low light (an extremely impoverished view of photography), then saying one is 'better' than the other is pretty meaningless: they have a totally different aesthetic. When I read someone making the blunt statement 'M9 is superior to film' then - to me - that's someone who lacks any imagination, lacks the insight to see photography as potentially something more than just resolution charts. As for tests that starve film of light and compare them with a digital sensor that's jumped through hoops precisely to improve high-ISO - I simply don't see any merit in them whatsoever. I use film for situations where light is plentiful - try shooting people under the dappled shade of a tree in bright sunshine: in situations like that, film will give a wonderful look that digital can't hope to mimic. But indoors on a grey Scandinavian winter's day - digital is the only option (for color, that is). As so many have said before - one isn't better than another. They are simply different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted February 1, 2012 Share #16 Posted February 1, 2012 So do a comparison of new Porta 160 and an M9 at its base ISO of 160 if that is important. Personally I shoot film because I like it, not because it is better or worse than any of my digicams including the M8 which is more than good enough. Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 1, 2012 Share #17 Posted February 1, 2012 But then, it is not possible to actually DO anything useful with most photographs WITHOUT creating a second-generation image by some means.... Even simply viewing a Kodachrome original on a light-box, the picture has to be re-imaged through a lens (a viewing loupe). .... Outside of having a gallery of large-format Daguerrotypes, or LF color transparencies displayed on light-boxes, no one will ever see any silver-based photo in its pure original form. Going way off-topic but I'm not sure looking through a loupe qualifies as creating a second generation image - at least not in the sense that we normally consider these matters. For me, a second generation image is one that we can examine independently of the original. I was going to say the same for a projecting a slide but I guess, despite it's impermanence, the projected image is indeed a second generation image that, for example, we could look at through a loupe (provided we didn't get our head in the way;)). If simply looking through a loupe creates a second generation image, then presumably wearing glasses creates a further generation and the lens in our eyeball yet another. Does our brain, in converting the various signals received at the retina, then create a further generation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 2, 2012 Share #18 Posted February 2, 2012 Two separate sentences (and thus thoughts) there, Ian. "But then, it is not possible to actually DO anything useful with most photographs WITHOUT creating a second-generation image by some means.... (full stop) (new thought) Even simply viewing a Kodachrome original on a light-box, the picture has to be re-imaged through a lens (a viewing loupe). I.E. using a loupe to inspect a picture was not included in the concept of "doing something useful" with the picture. It isn't, really, unless one also counts "focusing the enlarger" as "doing something useful" with the picture. Both are steps in the process, neither is the final goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 2, 2012 Share #19 Posted February 2, 2012 Both are steps in the process, neither is the final goal. Ok, but that's beside the point you were making in your earlier post. In any case, I'm not sure that viewing a slide through a loupe is not "doing something useful". When I shot primarily film (which was almost always E6) I used to spend quite a lot of time viewing my transparencies through a loupe and not always with the intention of doing anything other than look at them. When I was a boy I used to spend a lot of time using one of those little daylight plastic slide viewers to look at the Kodachrome holiday snaps that my father had taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted February 3, 2012 Share #20 Posted February 3, 2012 No direct comparison, but here's a selection of pics from both. Lots of variables, I know -- time and place, scanning, etc -- but they do give an indication of color and contrast. First three Ektar, second two M9 out of camera jpegs. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/170620-ektar-and-m9-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=1916314'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.