KM-25 Posted July 14, 2012 Share #81 Posted July 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I no more believe that digital is forever chasing film than I believe that one is inherently superior to the other, or that blue is a nicer colour than green, or that old is better than new, or vice versa. I am just going on what I hear from people on the street, and I meet hundreds a year in my work. As long as film is around, there will be this perception by many that one is better than the other, chasing the other, on and on and on... If I honestly believed one was technically better than the other, I would simplify my life and drop one from use. But I will continue to use both because they are different...I just have no idea what the actual future of the digital still image even looks like 20 years from now, which is about how much film and chemistry I have. I can count the number of days per month that someone does *not* ask me which is better on one hand, the perception of the general public and even many on online photo forums is that one is chasing after or trying to be technically better than the other, these are the days we live in... I would love to try out an M9 Monochrome for a week, but as everyone on here knows by now, even though I could afford it, I find Leica's current pricing structure at the very least, offensive, so I am paired for life with my M3/50 F/2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Hi KM-25, Take a look here Quote of the decade about film vs. digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted July 14, 2012 Share #82 Posted July 14, 2012 Old wife is never better than new wife - and don't you forget it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 14, 2012 Share #83 Posted July 14, 2012 Everyone who buys an MM will have either Photoshop or Lightroom, both of which are perfectly capable of enhancing the contrast, luminance etc of MM files What I fail to understand is why specialist black and white digital manipulation software (designed for use with colour originals) is necessary for a camera which only produces black and white images, unless the user wants to emulate film. Can you explain that to me?] It's just another tool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 14, 2012 Share #84 Posted July 14, 2012 I know it's a tool Presumably, when working with any other file, it must use the underlying colour information to do its stuff. There are colour filters in the interface. The more I think about this, the less I understand it's inclusion in the box unless it is to "get that Tri-X look". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted July 14, 2012 Share #85 Posted July 14, 2012 I'm sitting in my conservatory at the moment and it's being lit by two Tilley lamps (my latest craze!) They are paraffin (kerosene) pressure lamps. I have "restored" them to get them working and have enjoyed that. One dates from 1946 and one from 1979. They are each unique in the quality of light they give. Undoubtedly it's much easier to switch the electric light on but these lamps have a quality that I love. I think I feel the same when I work with film. I don't understand those who would deny me either pleasure. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 14, 2012 Share #86 Posted July 14, 2012 I'm sure that the irony of posting onto the Internet from an iPad, while extolling the virtues of paraffin lamps, isn't lost in the telling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted July 14, 2012 Share #87 Posted July 14, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think you miss the fundamental point Andy. BOTH are valid. You often post in a way to suggest you see things in mutually exclusive ways Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 14, 2012 Share #88 Posted July 14, 2012 I was pulling your leg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted July 14, 2012 Share #89 Posted July 14, 2012 I was pulling your leg. leg well and truly pulled! One is longer than the other now! Pax! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 15, 2012 Share #90 Posted July 15, 2012 On page 1 of this thread, Andy commented. 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. Fair enough. You don't say what you would process the image with (Photoshop? LR4, Aperture 3?), or would you not process it at all in order to avoid falling into the trap of emulating some film brand or other? But then The more I think about this, the less I understand it's inclusion in the box unless it is to "get that Tri-X look". I guess that's fine for you, but again the assertion that SEP is only good for emulating Tri-X. SEP offers a number of adjustments, as you will have seen from your trial. Some can be done in LR4 or Aperture 3, but in SEP the adjustments are more focused on B&W processing (obviously). You will also have seen the presets on the left of the SEP pane, and on the right there are 5 modes of adjustment, of which film faux-film look is but one choice. Of those film choices, Tri-X is again one of many. If you want "that Tri-X look", why would you use a Monochrom? What on earth would be the point? But if you want to take digital images in native B&W with amazing resolution and high ISO performance, then in my experience (with an M9), SEP is a very easy to use tool with great results. Those who're good with Photoshop can doubtless do a more refined job, but I find PhotoShop way more than I need, way more than I have the time to come to grips with and way more expensive than I feel software should cost. With a Monochrom file, there will be two features I won't use - film type emulation, and color filter selections (as they won't work with a Monochrom file - I do use this with M9 files, though). Otherwise, if I didn't have SEP already, I would be grateful for its inclusion. Getting to the nub of the matter, don't you feel it might be time to move on from the idea that anyone who is taking a B&W image is wanting to emulate Tri-X? B&W does not mean just Tri-X. For myself, I'm happy to load my M3 with Tri-X when I want that sort of image, then develop and scan the negative. Apart from minor adjustments, my preference is to try to leave the negative image as it is. Obviously, it's not always that easy. But for a digital B&W file, whether M9 or Monochrom, Tri-X has nothing to do with it - at least, not for me. Otherwise, I would say that the camera is completely pointless, or is that your point? Perhaps the point is that for you, taking B&W means only shooting Tri-X. Bit limiting, don't you think? Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 15, 2012 Share #91 Posted July 15, 2012 I think you are deliberately mid-reading or ignoring my point. If I, personally, are using a digital camera, I don't want ANY film-look at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 15, 2012 Share #92 Posted July 15, 2012 What? I'm quoting you directly! And (trying) to answer your point. The Monochrom isn't about emulating film, and nor is SEP only about emulating film. Is that clearer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share #93 Posted July 15, 2012 I'm sure that the irony of posting onto the Internet from an iPad, while extolling the virtues of paraffin lamps, isn't lost in the telling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 15, 2012 Share #94 Posted July 15, 2012 What? I'm quoting you directly! And (trying) to answer your point. The Monochrom isn't about emulating film, and nor is SEP only about emulating film. Is that clearer? Geez, this guy just doesn't let go too easy! ... I think, you'll be the first I'll be using the Ignore Option on. ... :D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 15, 2012 Share #95 Posted July 15, 2012 What? I'm quoting you directly! And (trying) to answer your point. The Monochrom isn't about emulating film I know that. I never said it was. This discussion really is getting into some sort of infinite loop, so I'm stepping out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 15, 2012 Share #96 Posted July 15, 2012 Geez, this guy just doesn't let go too easy! ... I think, you'll be the first I'll be using the Ignore Option on. ... :D:D Go for it. This discussion really is getting into some sort of infinite loop, so I'm stepping out. But you said ... Ah, never mind. I agree. This is going nowhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 15, 2012 Share #97 Posted July 15, 2012 Go for it. Done! ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted July 15, 2012 Share #98 Posted July 15, 2012 "SEP" .... hmm... I am used to that being an acronym for "Somebody Else's Problem" (- read your Douglas Adams). Ironically, an SEP Field would be a most appropriate end to this thread. Regards, Bill Sent from another Galaxy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 15, 2012 Share #99 Posted July 15, 2012 If you try to make a digital file look like film, particularly a specific type of film, its an artifice. But if you try to make your film smoother or less grainy, its unlikely that your motivation is to make it look like digital, and far more likely that you simply want it to look smoother, I think you are making a false distinction here between the motivation for adding grain on the one hand and making "film smoother" on the other. Why is the former necessarily making "a digital file look like film" – does nobody like to add grain or noise to a digital file (or rough it up in other ways) simply because it might look better that way (independent of whether it happens to look more like a particular film stock)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 15, 2012 Share #100 Posted July 15, 2012 ............... does nobody like to add grain or noise to a digital file (or rough it up in other ways) simply because it might look better that way (independent of whether it happens to look more like a particular film stock)? Yes they do. As I said in my post, in an attempt to make it clear that I was talking about those specific occasions when the reason for doing it is to try to make a digital file look like film. Which is then artifice. Please re-read the post you object to. I really did try hard to make it clear. Honestly! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.