I like film...(open thread)

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An birthday present during a very busy and stressful week in work. Interesting times!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Regards

 

Christopher

 

Chris , Happy Birthday . It's superb your new camera 

Good photos . You also purchased 2 lens with Rom ?

Henry

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Doc Henry]

My limited experience doing c41 at home was that I 'got the cast' often enough that I decided I value my time more than the increased development cost of using a lab.

My shortcomings, not the process of course. B&W still stays very firmly 'in house'.

Lucky for all of us (and maybe 1% thanks to Henry's infectious enthusiasm alone   ), film is resurgent, new labs are opening, costs are cheap!

 

A better attempt with Portra 400

 

Nice to see so many (Arc de) Triumphs lined up there Gary, love the vivid colours of the Fuji Pro JM, the mood of the subway and never-ending curves of the Vélib Henry, the lazy beach Adam, and Happy birthday Christopher - you did very well!

 

Good work. Color is fine Coog , your development is a success

Must continue...

Thanks for your support . Color is so nice .... ask Gary

Best

Henry

Edited February 8, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Laziness is sometimes infectious

 

Tel Aviv

M7, 50mm lux asph, Portra 160

TLV beach.jpg

 

"Laziness" but beautiful picture with nice color Adam

Thanks you

Henry

[gbealnz]

Right, bear with me.

 

For quite a while I have taken in Henry's opinions on film Vs digital, and I know he means well, even if others take it the wrong way.

I unashamedly shoot both, enjoy each for their respective strengths, and get by with their respective quirks.

 

Recently, I wondered about shooting both types, concurrently, and producing a very non-scientific comparison. Man, a bit of a mission.

 

I used the X-Pro2, and shot both JPEG (with the Fuji ACROS simulation) and RAW. For the purposes of this trial I opened the RAW within the Fuji supplied convertor, and left it as the in-camera simulation (the RAW is colour obviously, but by allowing the simulation to happen the result was a B&W file). The other camera was the trusty M6, and I loaded Fomopan 200. (used the Fuji at ISO 200 to "match" as best I could). Self-processed and then scanned with the Plustek 8100. Slightly different file sizes resulted in me "down-sizing" ever so slightly the scanned M6 files to match the 6000x4000 size of the Fuji.

 

Other than converting the digital file from the Fuji, and scanning the B&W neg from the M6, no other mucking was done on them, no sharpening/levels etc.

 

Lenses were the Leica M 35mm on the Fuji, and Summicron M 50mm on the M6, both are similar in age and vintage, so hopefully no real biting difference here. Both at the same apertures. Field of view was close, but not exact. Obviously a better option would have been same lens and an M6 and M9, but I don't have an M9.

 

Got all that?

 

Different? You bet, but of course they will be and should be. Better? Dunno, some images lend themselves to super sharp, others don't.

 

The purpose of this exercise? Not really sure now I've done it and typed all this out, but one thing I don't want is a slanging match about which is better than the other, that's not the idea.

 

I did a very similar test with the same X-Pro2, and the R8, the R8 this time with Kodak 200 colour neg. Depending on how this is received I will consider tossing this comparison up there too.

 

Gary

 

 

 

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!

[SilentShutter]

I have the R8, and the 28-70, plus a 35/2. I'm contemplating the 50 Summicron to add, even though I have a nice 50/2 on the Leicaflex SL (it is 2 cam, so won't fit the R8, darn).

Enjoy.

Gary

 

I loved my R8 and still could kick myself for selling it ! For me it was(is) the best Leica ever.

The 28-70 I owned too but I was never been impressed by the results.

The Cron 50 and the Lux 80 I used the most for my daily work but the 19 and 80-200 will be

my all-time-favourites !

[mrckdavies]

Chris , Happy Birthday . It's superb your new camera

Good photos . You also purchased 2 lens with Rom ?

Henry

Yes, both with ROM[emoji1303]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My daughter playing on the beach in December

 

Flickr

Provia 400X 80 Planar

[Doc Henry]

Paris is awash with bikes, and bicycles, as Henry's recent shot shows.

This from Blvd Beaumarchais, while I was scouting out some camera shops, and my wife visiting an old friend at Atelier Autrefois, do a search on that name,  there's a few references to him, but no real website, but he IS amazing, truly.

 

M6

35 Summicron

T-Max100

R09 1:50

Plustek 8100

Gary

Gary nice black in your picture

TMAX is also a good film

Thanks for posting

Rg H

[Doc Henry]

My daughter playing on the beach in December

 

Flickr

Provia 400X 80 Planar

 

Very abstract picture and beautiful color

Thanks Philip

Rg H

[Doc Henry]

Right, bear with me.

 

For quite a while I have taken in Henry's opinions on film Vs digital, and I know he means well, even if others take it the wrong way.

I unashamedly shoot both, enjoy each for their respective strengths, and get by with their respective quirks.

 

Recently, I wondered about shooting both types, concurrently, and producing a very non-scientific comparison. Man, a bit of a mission.

 

I used the X-Pro2, and shot both JPEG (with the Fuji ACROS simulation) and RAW. For the purposes of this trial I opened the RAW within the Fuji supplied convertor, and left it as the in-camera simulation (the RAW is colour obviously, but by allowing the simulation to happen the result was a B&W file). The other camera was the trusty M6, and I loaded Fomopan 200. (used the Fuji at ISO 200 to "match" as best I could). Self-processed and then scanned with the Plustek 8100. Slightly different file sizes resulted in me "down-sizing" ever so slightly the scanned M6 files to match the 6000x4000 size of the Fuji.

 

Other than converting the digital file from the Fuji, and scanning the B&W neg from the M6, no other mucking was done on them, no sharpening/levels etc.

 

Lenses were the Leica M 35mm on the Fuji, and Summicron M 50mm on the M6, both are similar in age and vintage, so hopefully no real biting difference here. Both at the same apertures. Field of view was close, but not exact. Obviously a better option would have been same lens and an M6 and M9, but I don't have an M9.

 

Got all that?

 

Different? You bet, but of course they will be and should be. Better? Dunno, some images lend themselves to super sharp, others don't.

 

The purpose of this exercise? Not really sure now I've done it and typed all this out, but one thing I don't want is a slanging match about which is better than the other, that's not the idea.

 

I did a very similar test with the same X-Pro2, and the R8, the R8 this time with Kodak 200 colour neg. Depending on how this is received I will consider tossing this comparison up there too.

 

Gary

 

Gary thanks for this comparison

I have also compared * pictures beween Fuji Xpro1 (lens 18mm) and M8 with same lens (28mm)

(both cameras with crop factor) and some pictures are better with M8 as color IMO

 

Gary , I notice in the first series of 2 photos

The tone is not the same the number and letters "25 SG" at the top is invisible on the first picture

This seems sharper perhaps not the same exposure or you did a correction with the camera Fuji ?

 

In the second series of 2 photos

The two large metal baskets are sharper on the first picture and better defined

The bench at the bottom is also sharper and more contrasting

 

I don't recognize the edges and lines "cutting" effect of digital in your pictures . It's surprising

As I show in my previous posts , color in digital is not satisfying yet and it's aproximate

I think another conception of the sensor is desirable but there is another story

Best

H

 

already posted above :  * http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Doc+Henry/?g2_page=7

Edited February 8, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Anyway , when comparing only the size of the image in MF in digital and film (scanner)
it is obvious that the MF beats largely digital cameras (Canon 5D versus film cameras)

the proof when you watch in this thread your pictures in MF at the level of clarity ,color ,

contrast, definition .... the digital is not going to dethrone the film IMO for the moment !

 

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!

 

Henry

Edited February 8, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Keith (M)]

A crystal clear, cold January day at Lacock Abbey - home of William Fox-Talbot and the photographic negative.  IIIg, 5cm Summicron Collapsible, Acros100, Rodinal.  Not too bad for a sixty six-year old lens  

 

 

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!

[SilentShutter]

Anyway , when comparing only the size of the image in MF in digital and film (scanner)

it is obvious that the MF beats largely digital cameras (Canon 5D versus film cameras)

the proof when you watch in this thread your pictures in MF at the level of clarity ,color ,

contrast, definition .... the digital is not going to dethrone the film IMO for the moment !

 

I am not sure about this Henry, comparing just size and resolution and switchig between lines per inch and pixels doesnt help either.

If I look at the prints I get out of my Epson Stylus Pro 7900 proof printer from just one of my older 12mp digital cameras I use for street and travel

I have to admit it comes very close to some 6x6 midformat I used before.

 

Still I am a sucker for my old gear and film. 

[Wayne]

One last shot from the ADOX color implosion.

 

IIIA, 28 Summaron LTM

 

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!

[Doc Henry]

I am not sure about this Henry, comparing just size and resolution and switchig between lines per inch and pixels doesnt help either.

If I look at the prints I get out of my Epson Stylus Pro 7900 proof printer from just one of my older 12mp digital cameras I use for street and travel

I have to admit it comes very close to some 6x6 midformat I used before.

 

Still I am a sucker for my old gear and film. 

 

SS, "Everything is relative" as we say here in France

The comparisons make it possible to which is best , contrary to what is said.

Obviously if we want to have an impression in large format, iIs better to have the maximum

and if you want a small format , postcard type , not needed

 

I see it when I scan my 24x36 I get 110 MB in Tiff (Nikon Coolscan) reduced to 50 MB in Jpeg

for printing in silver (color Kodak paper)

In black and white, I pass directly the negative in the enlarger and sometimes it is amazing

in definition with an unmatched softness not like in the digital

Best

H

Edited February 8, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

One last shot from the ADOX color implosion.

 

IIIA, 28 Summaron LTM

 

image123053-2.JPG

 

A nice "painting" and superb grain . Really nice

I like the imperfect images rather than pictures where everything comes out

perfectly clean, well square of the robot photo machine !

Thanks Wayne

Best Henry

Edited February 8, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

A crystal clear, cold January day at Lacock Abbey - home of William Fox-Talbot and the photographic negative.  IIIg, 5cm Summicron Collapsible, Acros100, Rodinal.  Not too bad for a sixty six-year old lens  

 

Yes Keith sometimes old lens can still be used 

Very nice picture in b&w tonality

Thanks

Henry

[gnuyork]

One last shot from the ADOX color implosion.

 

IIIA, 28 Summaron LTM

 

image123053-2.JPG

That's some wild film there.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[philipus]

It is an interesting table, Henry, but I don't think one can compare various film/sensor formats like that, at least not in a meaningful way, in order to prove that film or digital is better than the other. Note that the table includes large format film as well (8x10 and 4x5). I realise this veers perhaps a bit off the topic of your post (apologies) but these are my thoughts. 

 

Fundamentally the file size and image resolution needed will depend on what the image is to be used for, particularly how large it is to be projected or printed.

 

That said, it seems to me that for sheer resolution "full frame" digital (24x36mm sensors) has had the advantage over small format (24x36) film since a few years for two reasons:

 

1) because manufacturers develop full frame sensors with ever more pixels (in addition to models with better small sensors and full format sensors with lower pixel count but large pixels), and

 

2) because most film users do not have access to scanners capable of pulling each little detail out from a negative/positive.

 

Re no. 2, inflated dpi numbers of consumer scanner makers do not normally correspond to real image information so to reach very high resolution with a 24x36 frame one needs specialised scanners. They are for instance drum scanners or one of the old professional flatbeds (Creo, iQ Smarts etc). These scanners are large and heavy, technologically quite obsolete (many use SCSI connections and repair is difficult) and slow to operate. Also, because of how drum scanners function they require a competent operator to get the best possible results. Only true enthusiasts and certain pros use them today.

 

Ironically, one of the best scanning solutions today is to digitize using a full frame SLR (or a smaller sensor SLR and stitch) and a good lens.

 

With the last models of the Nikon Coolscans it's possible to scan at close to 4000 "real" dpi worth of image information. For my purposes that is usually completely unnecessary. Even though the files will contain more actual image information than the 2000 dpi I normally scan with, I don't need that info for web presentation or even prints up to A4. So I choose not to scan at that level to save time and hard drive space. But I am quite sure (because I have tried this myself when I owned the Canon 5D2) that I could today set up a digitzation solution with a used 5D2 and a makro lens for much less than what the used Coolscans cost and still get scans of comparable (if not sometimes better, depending on the image in question) quality to my Coolscans. And the process would be a lot faster too.

 

For me personally, however, all the above is actually completely irrelevant because I use film for all the other qualities that film has and digital lacks.

 

Anyway, for some interesting scan vs digital comparisons have a look at these sites:

 

http://zeux.zlakfoto.ch/scanvergleich/index.html

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/#

 

br

Philip

 

Anyway , when comparing only the size of the image in MF in digital and film (scanner)
it is obvious that the MF beats largely digital cameras (Canon 5D versus film cameras)

the proof when you watch in this thread your pictures in MF at the level of clarity ,color ,

contrast, definition .... the digital is not going to dethrone the film IMO for the moment !

 

table.jpg

 

Henry

 

[Wayne]

That's some wild film there.

 

 

A nice "painting" and superb grain . Really nice

I like the imperfect images rather than pictures where everything comes out

perfectly clean, well square of the robot photo machine !

Thanks Wayne

Best Henry

Thanks for the compliments and comments.

 

It is pretty "wild." I do not know that I would make it a daily use film, but I ordered a few more rolls. I intend to keep it loaded in at least one camera. Having the benefit of being a witness to the original scenes, and the aftermath of use between the VC Color Skopar and the LTM 28 Summaron, I think there is some property to the film that allows it reflect, to a greater degree than normal, the optical differences in the lenses. With the Summaron, the film seems to render a more- to quote Henry- "impressionistic" result; with the Skopar, the strength of grain is increased in such a way that it appears, for all practical purposes, that you overlaid a normal photograph with a layer of grain.

 

OBTW, and this may be of special interest to Henry, of the scarce, specific claims ADOX makes about the film, they do stipulate that it is especially effective in enhancing reds.

 

Best,

 

Wayne

 

Thanks again.