Messsucherkamera Posted July 10, 2012 Share #1 Posted July 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Regarding monochrom M obsession, thus spake Eric Kim in his review: "...if you are having Leica M Monochrom envy or really want it - remember, this concept of a 'black-and-white only sensor' isn’t new. They used to call it Kodak Tri-X film." Link: Review of the Leica M-Monochrom for Street Photography — Eric Kim Street Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Hi Messsucherkamera, Take a look here Quote of the decade about film vs. digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted July 10, 2012 Share #2 Posted July 10, 2012 Not quite right. The MM gives you a digital image. You need to use the software they supply to imitate Tri-X. If I want the Tri-X look, I'd rather just use Tri-X! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 10, 2012 Share #3 Posted July 10, 2012 And digital Tri-X will look like scanned real Tri-X anyway, not like the real thing. The number of persons who have actually seen an all-the-way chemical print is declining rapidly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted July 10, 2012 Share #4 Posted July 10, 2012 And digital Tri-X will look like scanned real Tri-X anyway ........... Disagree completely! Although i agree nothing beats a complete analog workgflow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted July 10, 2012 Share #5 Posted July 10, 2012 And digital Tri-X will look like scanned real Tri-X anyway, not like the real thing. I disagree. MM output Tri-X'ed will not look like scanned Tri-X. A subtext to the MM hype is that really its the new Black & White film - it isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted July 10, 2012 Share #6 Posted July 10, 2012 I also disagree. A frame of Tri-X drum scanned and printed out with a laser printer on Ilford digital fiber paper looks extraordinary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 10, 2012 Share #7 Posted July 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I disagree. MM output Tri-X'ed will not look like scanned Tri-X. A subtext to the MM hype is that really its the new Black & White film - it isn't. Not my point. I find it uninteresting to get digital to look like film.I don't even want the MM to look like film. It is a new look in digital B&W and will take that discipline a step further. My point was that scanned film is not the same as film processed chemically all the way through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 10, 2012 Share #8 Posted July 10, 2012 I also disagree. A frame of Tri-X drum scanned and printed out with a laser printer on Ilford digital fiber paper looks extraordinary. Quite true - but still not the same as a perfect darkroom print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 10, 2012 Share #9 Posted July 10, 2012 If I were to buy an MM, I would leave the FX software in the box. I don't want a faux-film look from my digital shots - if I want a film look, I use film. I do scan my film, and print on the desktop, as a darkroom is a luxury that I don't have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 10, 2012 Share #10 Posted July 10, 2012 Disagree completely! Although i agree nothing beats a complete analog workgflow.If you agree about the analog workflow what are you disagreeing with then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted July 10, 2012 Share #11 Posted July 10, 2012 My point was that scanned film is not the same as film processed chemically all the way through. Undoubtedly true - but "reductio ad absurdum" in my view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted July 10, 2012 Share #12 Posted July 10, 2012 Quite true - but still not the same as a perfect darkroom print. I've always wondered about that. A laser print is printed on paper that is chemically processed. I'd like to compare a negative that has been printed on a Lambda or Océ and one that is from a conventional enlarger. The papers are very close other than the emulsion that is used for the different light sources. I'm not so sure that one could really tell the difference, but maybe so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted July 10, 2012 Share #13 Posted July 10, 2012 If you agree about the analog workflow what are you disagreeing with then? About digital files processed to look like TRIX actually looking like Scanned TRIX film ..... but you already stated that was not what you actually meant when more people disagreed with that statement. So now we agree Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 10, 2012 Share #14 Posted July 10, 2012 Undoubtedly true - but "reductio ad absurdum" in my view.I still think chemical printing is not absurd Anyway, I have doubts about the hybrid workflow. Excluding (maybe) drum scanning, which is not standard practice, if only for the price, scanning, photoshopping and inkjet printing introduces the drawbacks of both digital and analog into the process. I think best results will be reached by sticking to the full workflows, be it silicon or silver based. @ Lambda print, that is still a digital process, even if the paper is developed by chemicals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 10, 2012 Share #15 Posted July 10, 2012 About digital files processed to look like TRIX actually looking like Scanned TRIX film ..... but you already stated that was not what you actually meant when more people disagreed with that statement. So now we agree Yeah - the words "at best somewhat" were in my mind but did not make into the post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 10, 2012 Share #16 Posted July 10, 2012 Anyway, I have doubts about the hybrid workflow. Excluding (maybe) drum scanning, which is not standard practice, if only for the price, scanning, photoshopping and inkjet printing introduces the drawbacks of both digital and analog into the process.I think best results will be reached by sticking to the full workflows, be it silicon or silver based. @ Lambda print, that is still a digital process, even if the paper is developed by chemicals. It's not the first time you've made this point in recent weeks but I don't remember you making it before (despite the "hybrid workflow" being commonly practised for more than a decade). It strikes me that your argument is some part of a 'cart before the horse' justification for getting the MM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 10, 2012 Share #17 Posted July 10, 2012 As I made it repeatedly years before the MM was even conceived? I must have written this a dozen times since 2006. A bit twisted, don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 10, 2012 Share #18 Posted July 10, 2012 A bit twisted, don't you think? Not really. I don't remember you complaining about the "hybrid workflow" before the MM was announced. It's as if you are creating a problem (for the MM to solve) that never really existed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 10, 2012 Share #19 Posted July 10, 2012 25-06-2007 - and many more posts since.... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/27480-integrity-film.html#post290335 You really must start reading before asserting... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 10, 2012 Share #20 Posted July 10, 2012 Ok, fair enough, I take back my last point. That said, I still don't really see the connection between the "problem" of a hybrid workflow and the development of the MM. That latter is, after all, just another digital camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.