Is it time to stop regarding film as the benchmark for B&W?

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

True Andy. And it is a shame.

 

But realistically, Leica has nothing whatsoever to do with the popular shift from film to digital.

 

iPhones and the like are more important to the direction of photography now.

[Advertisement]

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

[doolittle]

Lots of film users seem to be feeling that they are in an oppressed, but soon-to-be forgotten, minority now.

 

Which is a shame.

 

I reckon in time any publicity around the MM will result in more people shooting b&w film. Second hand film bodies will continue to thrive. Sales of Silver Efex Pro will receive a boost. MM will sell in modest, but encouraging numbers. People (including me) will stock up and fill their fridge/freezers with film. I will put my crystal ball away now!

 

A happy film shooter

[andybarton]

 

But realistically, Leica has nothing whatsoever to do with the popular shift from film to digital.

 

.

 

Yes, but when the top man at Leica (and I don't mean Jaap ) says that film is dead (or words to that effect), us film users know where we stand. Outside in the rain, while the party is going on inside in the warm and dry. But to be fair, it's been like that for years, but when Leica tell you so themselves, it's time to wonder what to do next.

 

How long until the end of the M7/MP?

[wildlightphoto]

Lots of film users seem to be feeling that they are in an oppressed, but soon-to-be forgotten, minority now.

 

R users are used to it.

[doolittle]

Maybe not the best comment to make from the company producing the most expensive production film camera (MP)

[andybarton]

R users are used to it.

 

I'm an R user too - I am feeling doubly left out...

 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Leica do. If I'm happy shooting film with what I have (which I am) and I'm happy shooting digitally with my Nikon D700 (which I am), then why would Leica care what I think?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I didn't need the MM to view digital b/w as its own process distinct from film. I tried to make great prints in the darkroom and since transitioning to digital, the goal hasn't changed. And I learned early on not to dwell on comparisons to silver prints...except perhaps in an academic sense, not in judgment on the superiority of one or the other. I've made crap prints and great prints using both processes.

 

If others need the push, that's on them. The camera is only one piece of the pie to make great b/w prints. Improvements in software (LR, CS, etc) alone has helped to make better b/w prints with every iteration. Add to that better papers, custom profiling tools, better inks, better printers, improved workflows...and more... and the possibilities for incremental improvements to digital b/w have been varied and significant already. Silver prints also required many links in the chain...it never was just about the camera, or even just the film.

 

One needn't compare this to darkroom work, but optimizing every link in the chain has always been key. Only the tools have changed. All that's happened here is one more tool in the chest. Some will use the tool and still produce crap. Others will use lesser tools and will make wonderful prints. Some will even use the new tool to maximum benefit. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

Jeff

[esquire53]

Just a thought, how does an MM file compare with a 10X8 negative?

 

that's why I asked about the S2 (SFX2) - MM comparison.

 

easy to spot a 24x36 b&w film, but 6x9 or something crazy is still hard to challenge.

 

best

[NB23]

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?

 

We should now claim that film is dead just because there is a B&W camera on the market?

Geez, I have to stop living under a rock.

[NB23]

 

But realistically, Leica has nothing whatsoever to do with the popular shift from film to digital.

 

iPhones and the like are more important to the direction of photography now.

 

I agree!

[doolittle]

I guess Leica will continue to produce the MP and M7 while there is demand for them.

 

A digital R solution, now that the DMR is no longer produced, must surely be on the cards (crystal ball first, now cards, I'll consult the tea leaves later )

[jaapv]

Sorry but the latter of those quotes looks like a Jaapism to me. And it says that "Leica has killed of film tonight".

Ok - unfortunately put as well, it is unclear that it was a quote. The excuse for sloppiness was late after a tiring evening. I think in about twenty posts afterwards in different threads I have been talking about branching off. Nor have I said "the first thing we do, let's kill all the film photographers"

[SteveYork]

The logical flaw in this position is that people will always have an individual preference. You can't judge digital B&W in its' own right, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

You can say this camera takes good B&W images, compared to all other digital cameras, but the individual will always come back to -- Do I like the digital capture in the first place? If so, then do I like it better then a B&W film image? The same is true for color.

 

Yes, digital needs to clear it's own path on the B&W road. But the gold standard for B&W images -- today -- is film (for most people). There are concrete reason why some people prefer the B&W film image to digital. It's not that digital needs to replicate film, but it needs to provide a suitable alternatives, or include those pleasing aspects that people desire. And in making this determination, it will be compared to film.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} And in making this determination, it will be compared to film.

 

And to the increasingly sophisticated and satisfying digital colour conversions to BW--which are only getting better.

[AlanG]

I think a much more significant result of digital photography is that still pictures and video are now part of a social medium. Even when Leica's were the king of b/w photojournalism wasn't 8x10 by Ansel Adams the benchmark for b/w quality? I don't see how anyone looks at some of those old grainy soft although classic 35mm images as high in technical quality. (Maybe images by Gene Smith.)

 

So now Leica is making a digital 35mm size camera that produces b/w images closer to the look of large format film. That's progress.

[pico]

that's why I asked about the S2 (SFX2) - MM comparison.

 

easy to spot a 24x36 b&w film, but 6x9 or something crazy is still hard to challenge.

 

What's crazy about 6x9? 5x4"? 10x8"? Except that good color film for LF is hard to come by, and spendy, but that is no rationalization to turn to digital (he writes on the 'net while freaking out over dust on his M9 sensor.)

.

[k-hawinkler]

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.

 

LouisB

 

 

I have a similar reaction listening to music, much prefer imperfect live rather than perfect but bland studio recordings.

[earleygallery]

For Dr Kaufmann to say that film is finished, considering the heritage of his company and the products which they still manufacture AND sell, is quite frankly irresponsible.

 

He should read up about Gerard Rattner before he opens his gob in public and risks 'doing a Ratner' again!

 

Gerald Ratner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (for the Dr's benefit).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

For Dr Kaufmann to say that film is finished, considering the heritage of his company and the products which they still manufacture AND sell, is quite frankly irresponsible.

Perhaps he has an inside view on what is still profitable:eek:. Few companies will willingly produce equipment which either makes no profit or even makes a loss. For camera manufacturers film may well appear to be dead and even Leica must find that retaining an assembly line for ever decreasing numbers of film cameras will/has become uneconomic.

 

FWIW I do still have a film camera,and although I've had periods without one, I've always ended up with one again. There is no doubt in my mind that film varieties will continue to diminish and getting hold of film will/has become the pursuit of enthusiasts.

[40mm f/2]

It depends on which parameter one looks at:

Sensitivity: digital wins

resolutions: most films can do better than 70 lpmm

dynamic range: film wins but depends on development. But it is difficult to use the dynamic range of film with conventional printing but quite possible with Pt/Pd printing (only LF).

more important is what output one considers: computer monitor does not work with film:D

and there are all that hybrid outputs: scanned negatives digital printed to digital generated negatives for contact prints(Azo or Pt/Pd)