erl Posted May 16, 2012 Share #61 Posted May 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Alan, you are right. Of course I suspect those photographers were always going to get good pictures! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 16, 2012 Posted May 16, 2012 Hi erl, 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!
AlanG Posted May 16, 2012 Share #62 Posted May 16, 2012 Alan, you are right. Of course I suspect those photographers were always going to get good pictures! And you are right too. Photography has been a mature medium for a long time and all this talk is just about approach. I find it quite challenging to get a really good photo from any camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted May 16, 2012 Share #63 Posted May 16, 2012 I find it quite challenging to get a really good photo from any camera. +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted May 16, 2012 Share #64 Posted May 16, 2012 If you read Erwin Puts on the increase in resolution offered by the M9M over the M, (Circa 30%) and how the M9 compares to the best film 35mm then the gap has closed but certain films are still ahead. Plus obviously the characteristics are different. I suspect the ability to 'develop' very easily means in reality the M9M is right up there. But we are still talking analogue vs CD aren't we ? I think film will be around for a while Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 16, 2012 Share #65 Posted May 16, 2012 I expect the next version of Silver Efex Pro to have two new sliders: One to put fake dust on the virtual negative ('none—moderate—lots') and one for random fake-analog scratches ('none—moderate—lots'). This will allow us to again spot our prints with a fine camel's hair brush and an appropriate bottle of dye solution (I owned several), a glass of water and a porcelain saucer. The spotting was when we really communed with the print, indeed with he entire photographic process. And it was analog, and it was manual. And it was time-consuming, in fact meditative (except for the swearing, of course). I spent more time spotting my prints than in making them. Give us the new version! Give us the Film Esthetic! Give us bliss! And in a longer perspective, there's of course Newton Rings ... The old man from the wet, smelly darkrooom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atournas Posted May 16, 2012 Share #66 Posted May 16, 2012 The Monochrom will help in soothing out the acute differences we tend to see in film and digital comparison. A digital Leica that, at least in theory, does what the M3/MP line has been doing with B&W film will reassure photographers that the medium is just a means; the challenge to get a good shot with any camera, as very wisely a member has posted here, still remains as vivid as ever. I was shooting with the M6 for nearly 20 years before I acquired an M9. I now understand better and try to benefit from the virtues and the limitations of both systems. Film is indispensably useful to me on the Hasselblad--I cannot afford a digital back yet. The Monochrom is a very welcomed innovation but, as I said, instead of confusing me, it helped clarify. In the future, it will definitely become the benchmark for B&W--in a very natural way! I, when time comes, will long for the film era for two non-photographic reasons only: I will be missing the feeling and reliability of a purely mechanical camera; and I won't be able to build an intimate relation of the kind I still have with my M6. For whatever they achieve, digital cameras with their 18-month life cycle are eventually disposable. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted May 16, 2012 Share #67 Posted May 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) This will allow us to again spot our prints with a fine camel's hair brush and an appropriate bottle of dye solution (I owned several), a glass of water and a porcelain saucer. The spotting was when we really communed with the print, indeed with he entire photographic process. And it was analog, and it was manual. Reading this has conjured up the memory of the distinct smell of Spotone. I vividly recall tranquil hours spent mixing up different shades in an effort to match the seemingly ever changing hues of Record Rapid. Oh for the quiet days of nose grease and Neutol instead of noisy dentists and their love of Leica bling... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted May 16, 2012 Share #68 Posted May 16, 2012 I expect the next version of Silver Efex Pro to have two new sliders: One to put fake dust on the virtual negative ('none—moderate—lots') and one for random fake-analog scratches ('none—moderate—lots'). This will allow us to again spot our prints with a fine camel's hair brush and an appropriate bottle of dye solution (I owned several), a glass of water and a porcelain saucer. The spotting was when we really communed with the print, indeed with he entire photographic process. And it was analog, and it was manual. And it was time-consuming, in fact meditative (except for the swearing, of course). I spent more time spotting my prints than in making them. Give us the new version! Give us the Film Esthetic! Give us bliss! And in a longer perspective, there's of course Newton Rings ... The old man from the wet, smelly darkrooom You know what Lars, I have the same nostalgia, but if I never spot another print I shall not shed one tear. I did more than my share. The smelly old man from the wet darkroom! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted May 16, 2012 Share #69 Posted May 16, 2012 I'm just an amateur but I really like how different film and digital are, perhaps the new M Monochrom will be a third alternative? I posted how I see the it here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/239051-b-w-film-digital.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ming Rider Posted May 16, 2012 Share #70 Posted May 16, 2012 . . . noisy dentists and their love of Leica bling... "On no", he muttered, quietly retreating under the table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted May 16, 2012 Share #71 Posted May 16, 2012 I expect the next version of Silver Efex Pro to have two new sliders: One to put fake dust on the virtual negative ('none—moderate—lots') and one for random fake-analog scratches ('none—moderate—lots').{snipped} AlienSkin 4--and many many popular apps--already do this. That's not the aesthetic BW film has--that's a process flaw, that many people who haven't spotted a print, well, they like the 'pre-historic' look of scratches and dust (well, it's pre-historic to them)... The serious aesthetic benchmark that BW film and optical printing brings to this discussion isn't about the process but about the final results. If I had a nickel for every "photographer" these days that can't tell why their BW images--let alone prints--suck, I wouldn't have to work. Normal digital conversions get very close to that benchmark, and bring wonderful workflow advantages over the darkroom. I'm not nostalgic for the smell of fixer, for example But the MM as a new medium? Maybe. Like monochrome images made by black and photocopiers, maybe. But unless Leica pays more attention to BW history and current standards, it's probably going to be very, very short lived. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmldds Posted May 16, 2012 Share #72 Posted May 16, 2012 Oh for the quiet days of nose grease and Neutol instead of noisy dentists and their love of Leica bling... Ouch:eek:! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted May 16, 2012 Share #73 Posted May 16, 2012 I expect the next version of Silver Efex Pro to have two new sliders: One to put fake dust on the virtual negative ('none—moderate—lots') and one for random fake-analog scratches ('none—moderate—lots')... The old man from the wet, smelly darkrooom Love it Lars! I spent 4 hours yesterday retouching a scan from an old 4x5 chrome. A complete waste of time. And if you think a B&W darkroom smells bad try spending a hour in the dark dipping and dunking sheets in an E6 line. My knees and nose will forever be thankful to the man who invented the Jobo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 16, 2012 Share #74 Posted May 16, 2012 My knees and nose will forever be thankful to the man who invented the Jobo. I think that would be Johannes Bockemühl, founder of the company, who first presented JOBO equipment at the trade show “Leipziger Messe.” Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartok Posted May 22, 2012 Share #75 Posted May 22, 2012 The first criteria is whether it's a great picture. Then whether it's a great print of a great picture; that's what many strive to achieve. I have photos on my walls, digital and silver prints, some inexpensive, some very expensive, some from unknown photographers, some from famous dead photographers. Other than from a few photographer friends, I can't recall anyone ever commenting on the resolution, dynamic range or any such thing. And rarely does anyone ask about the process or the camera used. They either like the picture or not. Jeff Thank you! This is how it should always be - photographer friends nearly always note some technical details to a small degree, because that is their business/art. However none of mine ever care what process has been used; we've all made our equipment and process choices long ago, updating when we find a benefit we can actually use. What excites them is always the image itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted May 22, 2012 Share #76 Posted May 22, 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!! We need a revolution, lets not stop at B&W film that's the tip of the iceberg. By all means - let's destroy everything that's not a computer or computer based. Only technology matters - it's a brave new world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 22, 2012 Share #77 Posted May 22, 2012 Film is the benchmark for black and white film photography. Digital capture is the benchmark for digital photography. They are different and each should be judged separately. What is the common benchmark for charcoal and pencil drawing? What is the common benchmark for hamburger and falafel? Except possibly the bacteriological one. The old man from the Tri-X Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ming Rider Posted May 22, 2012 Share #78 Posted May 22, 2012 By all means - let's destroy everything that's not a computer or computer based. I assume that includes the human race then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ming Rider Posted May 22, 2012 Share #79 Posted May 22, 2012 Can I just point out that I never meant to imply that film was dead with my original question. Rather, was it still relevant to look towards film as the basis for appraising the quality of digital images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted May 22, 2012 Share #80 Posted May 22, 2012 I assume that includes the human race then? Well - that would address the issue of global warming, correct? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.