Steve Ash Posted August 13, 2012 Share #1 Posted August 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Coming home from a trip to Rome I am looking at about 800 files from my M8 and the first scaned images from my M7. What shall I say but the first three rolls I look at leave all my M8 files behind. Regards, Steve Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/185563-dear-god-shall-i-drop-digital/?do=findComment&comment=2085366'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Hi Steve Ash, Take a look here Dear God, Shall I drop digital?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rpopescu Posted August 13, 2012 Share #2 Posted August 13, 2012 Hi Steve, Would you happen to have similar photos taken with each? Could you also tell us what lenses and film you're using, and the development and scanning processes? That photo above has really lovely tones and acutance! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted August 13, 2012 Author Share #3 Posted August 13, 2012 I do not think that it is very much a technical think. But taking shots with my M7 affects the process itself. The picture above is taken with an M7 and a summicron 28 asph lens. I used a Adox cms 20 film which of course is very slow. To take the shot and avoid vibration I pressed the camera against a glass in the door. The negative was scanned with a Coolscan 5000. Regards, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted August 13, 2012 Share #4 Posted August 13, 2012 If the Adox website is anything to go by, their CMS 20 performs to a very high level, and by your own results appears to outperform the M8, Steve. Perhaps M9 or MM files would be more comparable to Adox CMS 20. Renting an M9 and shooting it side by side with your M7+Adox would be enlightening. I'm not sure if file quality alone is sufficient justification for ditching digital. I am switching to film (including Adox) because I no longer appreciate the look and imaging chain that comes with digital. The following remark coined by Tom Stanworth sums up what digital currently means to me: "digital photography is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 13, 2012 Share #5 Posted August 13, 2012 Steve, I don't think you need to "drop" digital, but maybe put it on a back burner for a while. I find that, film or digital, I do take photos with a different feel with different cameras. I also find that my film shots generally have more of me in them; more creativity and less ho-hum. I fully appreciate that so much of this is personal (and in the mind) but I can only comment upon what works for me. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Pop Posted August 13, 2012 Share #6 Posted August 13, 2012 Great shot Steve...what did you process the Adox in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted August 13, 2012 Author Share #7 Posted August 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jon, I processed the film in Adotech Developer. There is a new developer called Adotech II which ought to be better. While I like the look of the Adox and it gives me the ability to shoot wide open in sunlight without nd filter it is not without problems. Sometimes I have little stains. I hope that this is solved by the Adotech II Developer. Due to the high resolution any marks/ stains are easily stamped away in Photoshop. I enlarge the file as high as 500% and get close to the marks with the clone area. Bill, you very well expressed my feelings for the film process. Regards, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunghang Posted August 13, 2012 Share #8 Posted August 13, 2012 Amazing details and texture on the walls of the church interior. Love the photo! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted August 13, 2012 Share #9 Posted August 13, 2012 Shall I drop digital Yes, you should. Or, well, at least give film a fair chance by shooting your M7 exclusively for the rest of the year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdsheepdog Posted August 13, 2012 Share #10 Posted August 13, 2012 It is fascinating the number of related threads there are to this, and judging by the work displayed, there are a lot of very gifted photographers having the "saint Paul on the road to Damascus" revelation. Or at least wondering about it. I just hope the film manufacturers get the picture (sorry, bad pun) as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillD Posted August 13, 2012 Share #11 Posted August 13, 2012 I agree with Bill. It was my M9 that got me back into film (including Medium Format), but whilst I'm shooting film more than digital at the moment, it still has its place and I wouldn't let it go. It's not about one nor the other, just what seems right for the moment or mood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted August 13, 2012 Share #12 Posted August 13, 2012 @Steve - First of all, your cathedral image is magnificent - I'm sure that if the screen image is that beautiful, a well crafted print will leave the viewer speechless. I love Tri-X but after seeing your image, I am going to give Adox CMS 20 and the Adox developer a trial run of 10-20 rolls. Regarding ditching digital, the M8 has never interested me due to the sensor size. Sensors that are smaller than 24x36mm have always left me cold. The M9 and M/M are a step in the right direction, though. If I were in your shoes, I would continue shooting with the M7 and the CMS 20 and give some thought to upgrading from the M8 to an M/M. JMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted August 14, 2012 Share #13 Posted August 14, 2012 Hello Steve, What part do you think mindset has to do w/ what happened rather than technology? Altho we all have really good photos taken @ F2, @ 1 Second, hand held. 1 of my best ever & favorite photos is exactly that. Many potential photos can benefit from contemplation, a smaller aperture, slower film/sensor speed & a longer shutter time. As well as a degree of added stability. The question is: If & how many of these were factors in the results that you had? From the 1st day I had an M my mindset was for it to be a Kardan B on a Studex whenever possible. When not possible then to be as much like a Kardan B on a Studex as possible. Which was not always. Silly? Perhaps. Also, perhaps not. Best Regards, Michael Who has been known to on occasion recommend putting an M on a small, sturdy, table tripod w/ a large ball head & cable release. Don't forget a rigid lens hood more for protection from inadvertant impact or damage than for flare control. This combination can be used against the inside frame of a doorway, a wall, a rock or tree, etc. Even on a table. But not on a car or truck unless you turn the engine off. Sometimes there is a difference in the image you get @ F2 @ 1/15 Second handheld & The image you get @ F8 @ 1 Second on a tripod; solid as a rock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRIago Posted August 14, 2012 Share #14 Posted August 14, 2012 I did and I do not regret. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted August 14, 2012 Share #15 Posted August 14, 2012 I don't know if you should drop your M8, but you should continue to use film. Your picture is both interesting (I recognize this church - not easy to photograph), and technically excellent. The long and rich tones are particularly impressive from such a slow film. It adds evidence that film did not suddenly become incompetent when digital photography arrived on the scene. In fact film continues to improve, and provides great returns on an investment in time and learning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 14, 2012 Share #16 Posted August 14, 2012 Against all the 'continue with the M7' lobby I think the logical question that should have been asked first of all is to question what makes the M8 files so unsatisfying? You have made a lot of interventions with the M7 to make the sort of photograph you like. You chose a film with a unique character that you like, it was processed in a developer you like, it was scanned to bring out the tonal relationships you like. All of these things have affected the character of the photograph from the M7. Every stage has been manipulated to get the effect you want. So with the M8 files, has as much work been done to create the type of image you like? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share #17 Posted August 14, 2012 Quality wise I am very happy with my M8 and I find the files wonderful. It is not a technical thing. During my stay in Rome I was with my family thus I could not fully concentrate on photography. With digital I tend to click on any photo occasion without getting its full potential. When I shot with the M7 all my concentration was on the photo. It is very much a mental thing. The main reason why I not ceriously consider to drop digital is the decay of slide film availability or better its very high cost nowadays. Regards, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 14, 2012 Share #18 Posted August 14, 2012 Steve, it sounds like this is in your head not in your hands. I think I understand. There is a difference to shooting with film or digital. It is NOT about the hardware, or even - within reason - about the end result. It is neither explicable nor entirely understood by those who have a low EQ. It is about what - and how - you feel during the process of capture as well as immediately before and immediately after. Am I getting close? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 14, 2012 Share #19 Posted August 14, 2012 Steve, it sounds like this is in your head not in your hands.[... snip excellent wisdom...] I will be more blunt. Mr. Ash, if you do not employ wet printing, then film is a waste of time and money. Once you present a scanned negative or positive, it enters the digital paradigm: it is no longer film. What are we to find in your picture above that evinces film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 14, 2012 Share #20 Posted August 14, 2012 ...if you do not employ wet printing, then film is a waste of time and money As someone who has developed and scanned hundreds of rolls of film I have to disagree strongly with this statement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.