Guest Ming Rider Posted May 15, 2012 Share #1 Â Posted May 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) With the advent of the Leica Monochrom (and high quality digital in general), is it now time to stop comparing digital to film with regards B&W picture quality? Â Afterall, it's reasonably easy to spot a converted digital color image and with todays high res' sensors, it's hard to escape the 'clean look' without SilverEfex etc . . . Â All this talk of the incredible detail of the MM at maximum magnification, film was never like that. Â So as I say, is it time to move on to a new benchmark? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 15, 2012 Posted May 15, 2012 Hi Guest Ming Rider, Take a look here Is it time to stop regarding film as the benchmark for B&W?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted May 15, 2012 Share #2 Â Posted May 15, 2012 Not really. Something either looks good or it doesn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 15, 2012 Share #3 Â Posted May 15, 2012 .... is it time to move on to a new benchmark? 'Benchmarks' have already moved. Many of the 'legacy traits' of film are already unknown to many younger photographers who have never shot film. Traditionally accepted measures of image 'quality' will undoubtedly shift - whether film users will find this acceptable is though, an entirely different argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 15, 2012 Share #4 Â Posted May 15, 2012 Absolutely. Let's kill all the horses too (who needs horses these days?), burn all the books and close down the radio stations. I think artists who paint should throw away their brushes and knives, digital art is so much more convenient - no waiting for oils to dry!! Â We need a revolution, lets not stop at B&W film that's the tip of the iceberg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted May 15, 2012 Share #5  Posted May 15, 2012 close down the radio stations  That's what BBC did with 648kHz  Sorry about the tangent.  What's to say there is an objective benchmark? They're two different media and one works sometimes and for some and the other for other people or at other times.  But film is naturally best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 15, 2012 Share #6  Posted May 15, 2012 With the advent of the Leica Monochrom (and high quality digital in general), is it now time to stop comparing digital to film with regards B&W picture quality? Afterall, it's reasonably easy to spot a converted digital color image and with todays high res' sensors, it's hard to escape the 'clean look' without SilverEfex etc . . .  All this talk of the incredible detail of the MM at maximum magnification, film was never like that.  So as I say, is it time to move on to a new benchmark?  In my opinion the answer is... no.  Black and white film leads to an output (the positive) different to that coming from digital. The basic differences are the response of film to highlights and the tonal gamut.  I am referring to a 100% analogue process compared to a digital process.  I am not saying one is better than the other. I say they look different.  In terms of control, cost and comfortability the digital medium is a winner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted May 15, 2012 Share #7 Â Posted May 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just a thought, how does an MM file compare with a 10X8 negative? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted May 15, 2012 Share #8  Posted May 15, 2012 With the advent of the Leica Monochrom (and high quality digital in general), is it now time to stop comparing digital to film with regards B&W picture quality? Afterall, it's reasonably easy to spot a converted digital color image and with todays high res' sensors, it's hard to escape the 'clean look' without SilverEfex etc . . .  All this talk of the incredible detail of the MM at maximum magnification, film was never like that.  So as I say, is it time to move on to a new benchmark?  I think the problem arises because people say stuff like "Leica killed film tonight". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted May 15, 2012 Share #9 Â Posted May 15, 2012 Don't know the answer but I will say that since I've spent the last 18 months largely shooting colour film I've started to put noise and grain into my digital captures as I find them too bland otherwise. Â LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 15, 2012 Share #10 Â Posted May 15, 2012 This, in the opening post, is what Jaap has been saying, and I agree. Â Its not a case of declaring one better than the other, film v digital. Â Its a case of discovering that digital now has sufficient genuine qualities of its own that it no longer needs to use film as its benchmark. Â We are still, and always will be, free to prefer film, or digital, or just use both for their different qualities. But the point is that we shouldn't feel that the highest objective of a digital image is to replicate film as accurately as possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arminw Posted May 15, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted May 15, 2012 Just a thought, how does an MM file compare with a 10X8 negative? Â I can't Compare the files but I know which one is more confinient and sufficient enough in quality . There is also a great review about it on luminous Landscape .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted May 15, 2012 Share #12 Â Posted May 15, 2012 There was a time not so long ago when a preference for digital B&W was difficult to defend as anything but bad taste. I think we're past that time, and you can choose either as your personal benchmark. It's going to be a while before the serious digital B&W crowd outnumbers the serious film B&W crowd, and that's when the "commonly accepted" benchmark will shift to digital, in my opinion. Â Later, Â Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doolittle Posted May 15, 2012 Share #13 Â Posted May 15, 2012 I suspect the benchmark, in regards absolute resolution, remains the daguerreotype. I am looking forward to a comparison of the MM against it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted May 15, 2012 Share #14 Â Posted May 15, 2012 Just a thought, how does an MM file compare with a 10X8 negative? Â I certainly don't know, but I can say that at any size a silver contact print has a smoothness and tonality that no digital print I've seen can match (I shot and printed 7x17 for a bit, it is amazing). I've also printed some digital platinum (negs from printers and imagesetters both) from Canons, M8 and M9, and find it simply beautiful. And some of these prints would never have happened without digital. Â But I honestly can't say that one print is better than the other. They're different. Â In my opinion, today there is so much about making a good print that's far more important than film or digital. Making a print is a process that begins when we grab our cameras and get out of the house. There is no reason for excuses or apologies with either film or digital B&W. Â Later, Â Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted May 15, 2012 Share #15 Â Posted May 15, 2012 I question the need for a 'benchmark'. Personally, I know (mostly) what I want from my cameras and I know how to get it (mostly). I don't need any damn 'benchmark' to measure against. Â OTOH, if someone says to me , "can you do so and so", then that is my benchmark. I know I must come up to that requirement to satisfy them. That is the real benchmark. The other stuff is for people who shoot test charts and rulers and ......... who knows what else. Â Apologies if I sound grumpy, but since the announcement of the MM, I have had four Leicas 'go down'. Who said "a new release will not stop your your old gear from working?" Clearly they are wrong! Â Two are now up and running again, but I am still not happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 15, 2012 Share #16 Â Posted May 15, 2012 I think the problem arises because people say stuff like "Leica killed film tonight". That was a less fortunate Kaufmannism imo. Although he said "this is the end of film". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil U Posted May 15, 2012 Share #17  Posted May 15, 2012 That was a less fortunate Kaufmannism imo. Although he said "this is the end of film".  I was one of the B&W sensor skeptics. Now I have shot the camera and seen Jono Slack’s images. I can only say, Leica has killed of film tonight. I have never seen such results in my life.  Sorry but the latter of those quotes looks like a Jaapism to me. And it says that "Leica has killed of film tonight". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted May 15, 2012 Share #18 Â Posted May 15, 2012 Either way, it's wrong, and I think Jaap would really agree in the cold light of day. But it's for him to say rather than me speak for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ming Rider Posted May 15, 2012 Share #19  Posted May 15, 2012 This, in the opening post, is what Jaap has been saying, and I agree. Its not a case of declaring one better than the other, film v digital.  Its a case of discovering that digital now has sufficient genuine qualities of its own that it no longer needs to use film as its benchmark.  We are still, and always will be, free to prefer film, or digital, or just use both for their different qualities. But the point is that we shouldn't feel that the highest objective of a digital image is to replicate film as accurately as possible.  Spot on Peter, my point exactly. Afterall, we don't still compare the comfort of a modern car against the horse & carriage. (Oops, I think I've just annoyed the film brigade) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 15, 2012 Share #20 Â Posted May 15, 2012 Lots of film users seem to be feeling that they are in an oppressed, but soon-to-be forgotten, minority now. Â Which is a shame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.