250swb Posted July 11, 2012 Share #41 Posted July 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. The one of the smaller components of the 'FX' software are film presets. I don't think Leica supply it to replicate Tri-X, but give much more control of the image in a far easier and comphrehensive way than either Ligthroom or Photoshop can do. It replaces hours of work in Photoshop and doesn't mystify that work by making it difficult. Leaving it in the box is like buying a fast car and deciding you just want to look at it rather than drive it. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Quote of the decade about film vs. digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jamie Roberts Posted July 11, 2012 Share #42 Posted July 11, 2012 The one of the smaller components of the 'FX' software are film presets. I don't think Leica supply it to replicate Tri-X, but give much more control of the image in a far easier and comphrehensive way than either Ligthroom or Photoshop can do. It replaces hours of work in Photoshop and doesn't mystify that work by making it difficult. Leaving it in the box is like buying a fast car and deciding you just want to look at it rather than drive it. Steve Yeah, SilverFX is far easier if you don't know Photoshop. But it's not more comprehensive: It doesn't "do" anything PS doesn't Further, a large portion of the film presets in SilverFX are colour mixing moves, which obviously isn't going to make a bit of difference with the MM. So you're left with luminance, contrast and sharpening / noise (which includes grain, I guess). If you know PS it's much easier and more direct for luminance moves, masking etc... Plus I wouldn't be doing a lot of sharpening till I was printing with that camera. So to me the proper analogy is that leaving SilverFX in the box is like buying a fast car with a manual transmission: you best know how to drive stick, and also know how the quirks of the system, or you're going to lose it in the corners Photoshop will get you where you need to go, and faster too, if you know how to shift. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkland Posted July 11, 2012 Share #43 Posted July 11, 2012 So why do they? Leica are said to have 'tuned' the M8/9 sensor based on Kodachrome colours. The new MM ships with software to allow the user to apply film effects to the digital files. Many digital cameras include 'film' modes. The whole digital thing stinks to me, like a nice clean way to make a lot of money with less labour. You could flip the coin and ask is digital here to stay? Like cassette, VHS and minidisc fell by the wayside, yet vinyl and film are still here strongly (debatable) due to their merit of quality. I think we both know that no digital print that looks like film (I have only been tricked a couple of times) has taken any quicker to produce than whacking it under an enlarger. It's just the processing that's the time consuming bit in my mind, and thats probably the most exciting part along with the image coming through in the chemical tray. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted July 11, 2012 Share #44 Posted July 11, 2012 I'm with Jamie - A Lambda print, whatever the origin, is amazing. I had a few done by a lab in Delft, and am very happy with the result I also make either Lambda or Océ prints which are part of my workflow as I mentioned in my previous post. I'm surprised as to your 'doubts' about a hybrid workflow. As you know, these are digital enlargers but with chemically processed prints. Whether it's digital capture or film capture with drum scanning, it kind of all becomes hybrid in the end. I don't believe we are introducing "the drawbacks" of both digital or analog but simply combining the pinnacle of both technologies. Yeah, SilverFX is far easier if you don't know Photoshop. But it's not more comprehensive: It doesn't "do" anything PS doesn't This kind of software is simply a program of Photoshop actions. They are all plug-ins that 'instruct' PS on what to do. Basically they are GUIs. PS is still doing all the work. One can set up their own sets of actions to do exactly the same thing. I personally think all of these kinds of software programs are a waste of money. But on the other hand, I admit that they have their place and make it easier for people to take advantage of PS even if they can't see behind the interface as to what the added software is actually doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 11, 2012 Share #45 Posted July 11, 2012 Yeah, SilverFX is far easier if you don't know Photoshop. But it's not more comprehensive: It doesn't "do" anything PS doesn't Further, a large portion of the film presets in SilverFX are colour mixing moves, which obviously isn't going to make a bit of difference with the MM. So you're left with luminance, contrast and sharpening / noise (which includes grain, I guess). If you know PS it's much easier and more direct for luminance moves, masking etc... I wouldn't suggest Efex without it being a Photoshop plugin, it is only a component, but I'd like to see you create as many adjustment layers (and use them) as is possible in Efex given ten times the amount of time. As regards colour not making any difference to the MM, well it is possible to apply tones to an MM image, it is not 'greyscale'. And given that in the entire history of photography there has never been anything defined as a completely neutral B&W print, I suggest that the colour/toning options in Efex are essential to create something that looks at least similar to a chlorobromide print. So rather than look down on people who you have assumed don't know Photoshop because they prefer Efex, I suggest you try it, and also learn something about the subtleties of darkroom printing and colour in B&W. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted July 11, 2012 Share #46 Posted July 11, 2012 So why do they? Leica are said to have 'tuned' the M8/9 sensor based on Kodachrome colours. The new MM ships with software to allow the user to apply film effects to the digital files. Many digital cameras include 'film' modes. James, Which Kodachrome? I often used Kodachrome 200 to get very different rendering than 64. My prints on Cibachrome from both 200 and 64 are so different from anything digital I have come across, let alone what I could ever produce.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 11, 2012 Share #47 Posted July 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not sure. I read that on here somewhere, from several people. My guess is that they would have used 25 or maybe 64 as the benchmark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 11, 2012 Share #48 Posted July 11, 2012 The whole digital thing stinks to me, like a nice clean way to make a lot of money with less labour. You could flip the coin and ask is digital here to stay? Like cassette, VHS and minidisc fell by the wayside, yet vinyl and film are still here strongly (debatable) due to their merit of quality. I think we both know that no digital print that looks like film (I have only been tricked a couple of times) has taken any quicker to produce than whacking it under an enlarger. It's just the processing that's the time consuming bit in my mind, and thats probably the most exciting part along with the image coming through in the chemical tray. Have you ever actually done (color) darkroom work? I doubt it if you speak of whacking under an enlarger.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share #49 Posted July 12, 2012 And digital. The number of persons who have actually seen an all-the-way chemical print is declining rapidly. What a travesty! That makes me want to get my darkroom built even more than before and go back to 100% silver printing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted July 12, 2012 Share #50 Posted July 12, 2012 After some 45 years of B&W and color darkroom pleasure we converted the darkroom in my home to a walk-in closet I would not dream of letting anyone else process let alone print my film, so it has been only digital for me - poor results and mistakes are and must be my own. The M8 and M9 made the transition to digital a pleasure, although before they came I used an Olynpus E1 which also had a Kodak CCD sensor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 12, 2012 Share #51 Posted July 12, 2012 Two articles from 'The Online Photographer' came to mind regarding recent posts about the nobility of time served hard labour in the darkroom or on the PC. It's a strange world when hard work becomes a fetish in its own right, but both these articles link around the theme The Online Photographer: Do 'Real' Photographers Print? The Online Photographer: The Photo-Fetishist League* Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 12, 2012 Share #52 Posted July 12, 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. Sorry, Andy. That makes no sense. Replicating the look of film is one small option on Silver Efex; I had been using the software for months before I noticed those settings, and I've never used them. Do you have Silver Efex? My guess is not. I'm not even remotely interested in replicating the look or feel of film. I use my M3 if I want the look of film. If you want to criticise the M Monochrom, and Silver Efex, it would be valid to do so because you no longer have the ability to play with the yellow, green, red, orange and blue filters; but you can still adjust luminance, brightness and other settings, which easily give similar adjustments to traditional darkroom adjustments under an enlarger. If you were to buy a Monochrom, and not use Silver Efex Pro, or Photoshop, you might as well just shoot JPegs. Hang on, what was the purpose of your post? You only shoot film, don't you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 12, 2012 Share #53 Posted July 12, 2012 Sorry, Andy. That makes no sense. Replicating the look of film is one small option on Silver Efex; I had been using the software for months before I noticed those settings, and I've never used them. Do you have Silver Efex? My guess is not. I'm not even remotely interested in replicating the look or feel of film. I use my M3 if I want the look of film.... Hang on, what was the purpose of your post? You only shoot film, don't you? That's a bit unfair - the vast majority of Silver Efex users at least use the software to add "film-like" grain to their images, and the manipulations are almost all focussed on adding "film-like" transformations to an image - even the curves presets are all intended to imitate film responses. The menu that includes specific "film" settings is just one part of that overall package - but the name of the software itself makes the underlying intention pretty clear. As others have said, apart from the grain manipulation, there's pretty much nothing that Photoshop can't achieve without these plugins. I haven't reinstalled Silver Efex when I upgraded everything recently - but I did upgrade and reinstall Nik Viveza simply because the masking ability of the software is faster and often more effective than I can be without it. But I don't really see the point of Silver Efex anymore - now I see what real film looks like I find the fake versions generally look terrible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkland Posted July 12, 2012 Share #54 Posted July 12, 2012 Have you ever actually done (color) darkroom work? I doubt it if you speak of whacking under an enlarger.. Yes, quite a bit of colour. But was referring to black and white and the MM PP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 12, 2012 Share #55 Posted July 12, 2012 That's a bit unfair - the vast majority of Silver Efex users at least use the software to add "film-like" grain to their images, and the manipulations are almost all focussed on adding "film-like" transformations to an image - even the curves presets are all intended to imitate film responses. The menu that includes specific "film" settings is just one part of that overall package - but the name of the software itself makes the underlying intention pretty clear.. Why wouldn't somebody with enough of an opinion to know what they like and why they like it want to replicate the tone curve of Tri-X in digital? Aren't we allowed to do those things with digital, or do things we like? Not allowed to use high ISO in case something like grain appears? God forbid you choose a tone curve you like and have high ISO, the Ministry of Film's thought police will be knocking on the door. Is this really the world you want, where you can't display a personal preference in a digital photograph because you aren't supposed to like grain and anything that diverges from the native tone curve of the sensor? If so lets go all the way, lets define what Tri-X should look like and then shoot the people who divert from the one true path of the real look by using it at 1600 ISO. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 12, 2012 Share #56 Posted July 12, 2012 That's a bit unfair - the vast majority of Silver Efex users at least use the software to add "film-like" grain to their images,................. How would anyone know that? Has an audit been published? I'd guess many do. But "the vast majority"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 12, 2012 Share #57 Posted July 12, 2012 Aren't we allowed to do those things with digital, or do things we like? Not allowed to use high ISO in case something like grain appears? God forbid you choose a tone curve you like and have high ISO, the Ministry of Film's thought police will be knocking on the door. Is this really the world you want, where you can't display a personal preference in a digital photograph because you aren't supposed to like grain and anything that diverges from the native tone curve of the sensor? If so lets go all the way, lets define what Tri-X should look like and then shoot the people who divert from the one true path of the real look by using it at 1600 ISO. I missed the part in my post where I said it was forbidden to use Silver Efex to make digital images look like "film". As for the 'audit' of what most users do with the software - I was pretty much going by what I've seen people use it for posted online. A totally subjective impression, but also reflected in the name of the software, and the way it's marketed. Still, take it or leave it. In the case of the MM, I find (for instance) the original version of the Fisherman image far more appealing than most of the film parodies posted in the dedicated thread after it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 12, 2012 Share #58 Posted July 12, 2012 Actually, I agree with you. I don't like the artifice of trying to make digital look like film either. I was just pulling you up, rather pedantically I admit, about the assertion that the vast majority of users use it for that purpose. Carry on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 12, 2012 Share #59 Posted July 12, 2012 Sorry to butt in ... Like my bro had once told me. ... It is not trying to finish a digital file look like film but rather, trying to make a digital file not look digital ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 12, 2012 Share #60 Posted July 12, 2012 Like my bro had once told me. ... It is not trying to finish a digital file look like film but rather, trying to make a digital file not look digital ! OMG! Izzat analog enough? (And Yes, it is a picture I made.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.