black and white film vs. monochrome

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

without getting into a huge film debate does monochrome achieve that black and white film look tonal range and all?

 

 

 

while my m9 outputs great black and white images what are m9 digital files missing that my scanned 35mm film files just look better?

 

does it always come down to b&w film tonal range?

 

 

thank you.

[earleygallery]

I would love to see a comparison shot, same subject at the same time, MM compared to film, FP4 & TriX.

 

Has anyone made such a comparison?

[Larcomb]

without getting into a huge film debate does monochrome achieve that black and white film look tonal range and all?

 

 

 

while my m9 outputs great black and white images what are m9 digital files missing that my scanned 35mm film files just look better?

 

does it always come down to b&w film tonal range?

 

 

thank you.

 

 

film grain of B&W film is so much smaller than the sensors. there are other reasons.

[pico]

From working with several of the DNG files made available, it is clear to me that the MM gives much greater shadow micro-contrast than film, and after curves are applied it comes up readily while still keeping texture in highlights near Zone 9. In fact, the micro-contrast is so great compared to film that I think that eventually the MM will be characterized with that particular quality. All IMHO. I would like to get one, but the $ is just out of reach.

.

[jaapv]

I have no interest at all in emulating a film look. In that case I would prefer film. I will be using the MM for the way the files look out of that camera.

[Printmaker]

without getting into a huge film debate does monochrome achieve that black and white film look tonal range and all?

 

while my m9 outputs great black and white images what are m9 digital files missing that my scanned 35mm film files just look better?

 

does it always come down to b&w film tonal range?

 

thank you.

 

Without getting into a debate? Well let's try.

 

The beauty of film is the smooth and natural tonal transitions you get from properly exposed and developed negatives that are then projected in an enlarger onto a silver coated paper. It is a beautiful and organic look that is caused by the scattering of the light.

 

When you scan your negatives and print them digitally, you've lost 2/3 of the "beauty". Now I'm not saying this is wrong. Hell, I do it every day for my clients. And the resulting prints can be wonderful. But they are not silver prints. The files from scanned negatives look different from film negatives. Scanned files print differently. The tonal transitions are different. The edges are harder. Everything is more abrupt. The mostly invisible 1/4 and 3/4 tones never look "natural"... film like. This is because prints from film negatives use a 100% optical technique combined with darkroom chemistry. These two factors combine to give a look that can not be reproduced using digital methods.

 

So you are already 2/3 of the way down the road to ruin. Why not go all the way by converting your M9 files? Or get a MM and produce a sharper and richer file to start with.

 

Nothing is wrong with digital. I actually prefer the look a 100% digital workflow gives a print. But, make no mistake, the digital look is quite different than a traditionally produced silver print. This is not reverse silver snobbery, it is just that digital is a more modern look — a statement of the 21st century. Personally, I think this look is more truthful because it reflects our modern society. To that end, the Leica MM is the ultimate modern tool.

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

so how would one characterize the tones of the monochrome images?

 

when i take b&w with my m9 and convert in silver effects pro images look good, sharp, detailed, but tones sometimes can be not so great where highlights are blown out a lot.

 

is this the nature of digital capture b&w and why many still choose to shot film for their important b&w images?

[Jeff S]

... but tones sometimes can be not so great where highlights are blown out a lot.

 

Comparisons are problematic already, let alone when compounded by improper technique. One needs to learn not to blow highlights, just as one needs to handle film effectively. Film and digital behave differently; so should the user.

 

Jeff

[atufte]

Here you go... (of course you need to click "next page" on the bottom)

 

Google Translate

[Larcomb]

so how would one characterize the tones of the monochrome images?

 

when i take b&w with my m9 and convert in silver effects pro images look good, sharp, detailed, but tones sometimes can be not so great where highlights are blown out a lot.

 

is this the nature of digital capture b&w and why many still choose to shot film for their important b&w images?

 

Film has more latitude than digital. Using compensating development will give you even more.

[chrism]

Not an exact comparison as the two pictures were not taken with that in mind, but I do have similar views taken on film and with the Monochrom as I was documenting a new back deck (exciting subject, I know....)

 

Bessa III, Ilford PanF, HC-110, Imacon 848 scan

 

Monochrom, Summilux 50

 

and

 

Bessa III, Ilford PanF, HC-110, Imacon 848 scan

 

Leica M Monochrom, Summarit 75mm, f2.5

 

A couple more in the next post.

 

Chris

[chrism]

Fuji GW690, Tri-X @ 800, Diafine, Imacon 848 scan.

 

Leica M Monochrom, CV 15mm

 

Apologies for large images to those using iPhones....

 

Chris

[Printmaker]

Film has more latitude than digital. Using compensating development will give you even more.

 

Not necessarily true. My 4x5 scanbacks have far more "latitude" than 4x5 or even 8x10 film. I end up compressing the files to achieve a more natural look. But your point is valid. ScanBacks are not in every photographer's tool kit.

 

Shooting architectural interiors (think cathedrals) in b&w using existing light nearly always requires water baths during the development to let the shadow detail come up before the highlights blow out. That usually means shooting sheet film or using multiple film backs. However, most photographers today would shoot 3-5 shots at different exposures and combine them in Photoshop or some other tone mapping software to get the same result.

[leicashot]

i won't join the tonal range debate because I am yet to do comparisons, but I do know that......

 

1. If you expose carefully, keeping all highlights, the shadow areas are easy to lift and the mid-tones are immense, and..

2. The monochrom is amazing more so for it's ability to shoot at any ISO up to the more than usable 10,000. This much flexibility IMHO, outweighs the characteristic differences vs film.

 

Plus, while having flexibility with color cameras and converting, the photographer restricted to black and white will have a different approach, attitude and intentions when shooting in the field, the same way one would when restricted to b+w only film. That is the end difference with this camera.

[IWC Doppel]

Interesting thread

 

I would love to see the MM, M9 and film developed / processed for a few different scenes and a few targeted looks. Ultimately objectives are different and it's achieving the look you want, I also agree that with the right experience the MM might achieve looks that film can't emulate

 

I wonder how accurately film matches real life and visa versa for digital. Not sure if threre is such a thing as b&w glasses but how fascinating to sit look and compare three images and the real scene !

[gjames9142]

Interesting thread

 

I would love to see the MM, M9 and film developed / processed for a few different scenes and a few targeted looks. Ultimately objectives are different and it's achieving the look you want, I also agree that with the right experience the MM might achieve looks that film can't emulate

 

I wonder how accurately film matches real life and visa versa for digital. Not sure if threre is such a thing as b&w glasses but how fascinating to sit look and compare three images and the real scene !

 

I think this is close to answering your question:M Monochrom, part 2

 

That said, I am still waiting to see a serious body of MM work rather than hasty snaps around the house. Leica is lending me one for a couple of weeks in October, when I shall be in France, so I will be making a lot of pictures under different conditions.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Without getting into a debate? Well let's try.

 

The beauty of film is the smooth and natural tonal transitions you get from properly exposed and developed negatives that are then projected in an enlarger onto a silver coated paper. It is a beautiful and organic look that is caused by the scattering of the light.

 

When you scan your negatives and print them digitally, you've lost 2/3 of the "beauty". Now I'm not saying this is wrong. Hell, I do it every day for my clients. And the resulting prints can be wonderful. But they are not silver prints. The files from scanned negatives look different from film negatives. Scanned files print differently. The tonal transitions are different. The edges are harder. Everything is more abrupt. The mostly invisible 1/4 and 3/4 tones never look "natural"... film like. This is because prints from film negatives use a 100% optical technique combined with darkroom chemistry. These two factors combine to give a look that can not be reproduced using digital methods.

 

So you are already 2/3 of the way down the road to ruin. Why not go all the way by converting your M9 files? Or get a MM and produce a sharper and richer file to start with.

 

Nothing is wrong with digital. I actually prefer the look a 100% digital workflow gives a print. But, make no mistake, the digital look is quite different than a traditionally produced silver print. This is not reverse silver snobbery, it is just that digital is a more modern look — a statement of the 21st century. Personally, I think this look is more truthful because it reflects our modern society. To that end, the Leica MM is the ultimate modern tool.

 

You hit the point, that's it! To follow your idea, with which I agree 100%, let's imagine that we would want to emulate_now_with wet chemical procedures the look a typical Paul Strand (or Walker Evans, or H C-B, or Sudek, or even Robert Frank) vintage print has. Impossible, right?

 

I remember myself, when I was in my beginnings, back in 1978, trying to print with a cold light head the 9x12 cm negatives of Pla Janini, the catalan pictorialist of the 20's and 30's. Those negs were severely overexposed and overdeveloped by the 70's standards, but were ok for the author's way of doing. And of course, my results were only a faint approach to the originals, which was a result of using very different tools.

 

I know that precisely because of this, and because there was the need of printing, in an historically informed way (HIP historically informed performance, that's a term used by musicians from today playing ancient music), the negatives from Frederick H. Evans, etc, Tice and Snyder, among others, resurrected platinum and albumen procedures. I for myself began printing with platinum and palladium in 1982.

 

But let's be closer to now. Four years ago I borrowed for a couple of days a friend's darkroom because I had to print 4x5 negs made by myself around 1980. I was satisfied with the resulting prints, but comparing them with the vintages made in 1980, they were different, neither worse nor better, just different. But so is myself, as well :-)

 

The only we can do is accept the tools we now have.

 

BTW, the fact that the computer screen delivers everything at the same level can make us think that there is only one analog B/W procedure.

[maxofrome]

I thanks for this post. I love the technological evolution but with a bit of patient film can still deliver great satisfaction for photographer and at an affordable cost. The Monochrome is all but not an affordable tool for artist (if any digital M were).

[tomasis7]

For Monochrome price it is plenty of films to buy

 

but seriously, in real world scenario, one has to account the price of equipment and result from the print.

 

One cool thing about that one could print silver print paper from Monochrome file. Many possibilities for wished results. I think M M coes very close as an alternative for BW film enthusiast if the price is not scaring.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Yes - but you can have such a print made from any B&W file.