StevieB Posted May 28, 2014 Share #1 Posted May 28, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Dear Leica M8 users.. I've recently been thinking about acquiring the M8 for B&W photography after pondering which film camera to go with for a long while. On the Web my eye has been tricked more than once in thinking some of the images taken with the M8 were taken with a film camera. I'm wondering can anyone offer any advice on best practice to produce stunning B&W? Many thanks..Stevie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Hi StevieB, Take a look here M8 v M7 for B&W images?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Universalb50 Posted May 28, 2014 Share #2 Posted May 28, 2014 Is it really possible to know if an image posted on the internet was made with an M8 or M7, or for that matter, just about any mid to high grade film or digital camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieB Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share #3 Posted May 28, 2014 Is it really possible to know if an image posted on the internet was made with an M8 or M7, or for that matter, just about any mid to high grade film or digital camera? Is it possible to tell an image made with, for example, a 1950's era Retina camera from one made with a Leica M3? Do you folks really think a photographer with MODERATE technical-artistic skills will make nicer pictures with a Leica M240 as compared with those made with a wide variety of Nikon or Canon or whatever-brand-you-choose products? No, not really..Just pondering a good camera system which would suit my needs at the moment..Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RexS Posted May 28, 2014 Share #4 Posted May 28, 2014 Hello Stevie, I don't know if this helps, but the photographs that please me the most have come from my film camera - although I wouldn't refer to any of my photos as "stunning." But, I should clarify that I develop and enlarge my own film. I have been less impressed with my ability to scan negatives. I do think there is a logic to having film and digital cameras that compliment each other. Someone once said that it's the lens that makes the picture (not the camera) and my initial choice to purchase an M8 was based on previous experience with my M6; for me the choice was partially based on the quality of the lenses but mostly because I already had the lenses. I fell in love with the M8 as a digital camera because of its simplicity (its functions just make sense to to me) and it really handles like the film cameras I am used to. If/when I replace the M8 it will be another digital M. Take care, Rex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kloss Posted May 30, 2014 Share #5 Posted May 30, 2014 Hi Stevie, if you like digital B&W photography (and can't or don't want to purchase the Leica Monochrom) I would recommend the M8 / M8.2. I came from B&W analog Leica photography to the M8.2 and did not regret the purchase nor can I see a reason for upgrading to M9 or M. To my opinion the IQ of the M8/M8.2 especially in B&W is still stunning and -to my opinion- superior to that of the M9. Leica Monochrom is another cup of tea though... Best regards Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieB Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share #6 Posted May 30, 2014 Many Thanks Thomas.. I am leaning towards the M8.2. B&W photos from the M8, M and MM can look nice, the M9 not quite so to my eye. I'm not sure why but the MM wouldn't tempt me even if I could afford it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted May 30, 2014 Share #7 Posted May 30, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Stevie, I have been very pleased with the M8/8.2 for B&W work. The biggest limitation in my opinion is the file size. Not that I need to make huge enlargements, but the files are not large enough to really manipulate very far before you start seeing deficiencies. The MM interests me for that reason - the ability to work more with the files. Regarding film vs digital, that is an argument that stirs up lots of emotions on the forum. I compared high res scans of Ilford 100 on my Hassy vs. digital files on my S2 and I found much more information in the S2 files than in the files scanned from the Hassy negs. Not just on the monitor, but prints of the same subject looked better from the S2. For example, textures in zones 1 and 9 were much richer in the S2 files. I was hoping to find the opposite because I like shooting with the Hassy, but the difference that I saw in my pictures was big enough that the Hassy is now a museum piece. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisRose Posted May 30, 2014 Share #8 Posted May 30, 2014 with regards file size, I have found more detail in my M8's black and white conversions than my black and white film shots, even when the film shot is scanned to a higher file size with a negative scanner. The M8 is wholly excellent at black and white, especially without IR cut filters, as you extend into the IR spectrum. With regards getting the best conversions: Always shoot to retain the highlights Always shoot RAW Choose to under expose rather than push the ISO, you can push the RAW files at least 3 stops Try and choose subjects with the greatest colour contrast, this will give you the best greyscale separation in post Use Silver Efex and try out the different films to see what grabs you Choose a colour filter in Silver Efex, Red for dark skies, yellow for pleasing portraits, all the same tricks you would use with coloured filters on film Make use of the individual colour sliders to boost the contrast and focus of subjects You may wish to run the same file through twice, with different film choices and colour filters, as you can produce very different final images this way. Here are some examples of my M8 black and white converted this way, I like to think they retain a film-like appearance, while maintaining greater detail. The Sun And The Dunes by Cris Rose, on Flickr Still Man's Best Friend by Cris Rose, on Flickr What A Lovely Little Pup by Cris Rose, on Flickr Vintage Rack by Cris Rose, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisRose Posted May 30, 2014 Share #9 Posted May 30, 2014 Oh, and I recommend the M8 over the M8.2 - I find the 1/8000th shutter to be sorely missed on my M9, and while it is a louder shutter, neither is loud. Put the extra you save, towards a wider focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddddan Posted May 31, 2014 Share #10 Posted May 31, 2014 I have used the M8 for a year now and thought of upgrading to M9, because of full frame, better high Iso and the black paint. But the M8 produces so sharp and nice images for less than half the price of a m9 so i decided that i dont need the m9. Sure film feels very good, but its faster and cheaper with the m8. Why dont go for a m8 and m6? Then you can have both. B getting scans with the resolution of the m8 either takes much time, or is expensive, or both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieB Posted May 31, 2014 Author Share #11 Posted May 31, 2014 The M8 photos look super. So much detail. Chris your Photos are wonderful! Thankyou for posting them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisRose Posted May 31, 2014 Share #12 Posted May 31, 2014 Thank you Stevie. I hope the pointers help you get something similar - what lenses do you have? It's only through a lucky situation that I have an M9, an opportunity I couldn't pass up. The M8 doesn't leave me wanting and is still used along side it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieB Posted May 31, 2014 Author Share #13 Posted May 31, 2014 Hi Cris..I like the 50mm fl on ff but also like portraiture and my 50 Cron will be good for that with the M8 cropped sensor. I'd need something wider too if I went with the M8..The M7 and my one lens would be quite simple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisRose Posted May 31, 2014 Share #14 Posted May 31, 2014 Well for a similar focal length, I can recommend the 35 Biogon f2, and for wider, the 25 Biogon 2.8 is bitingly sharp on the M8. I shot a lot of 50mm with my M8 when it was my only digital M. Totally recommend a 1.4x magnifier for 50mm lenses and longer btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prud Posted June 1, 2014 Share #15 Posted June 1, 2014 I love BW files from M8. I am using a CV40mm f1.4 and 40mm is a good focal length for M8. L9996511-M by esoztrk, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted June 1, 2014 Share #16 Posted June 1, 2014 This really comes down to the basic point of whether you like the look of the results from film or not, and I am not talking about the current fashion for really grainy looking images. I much prefer looking at scans of B&W film shot in my M7 to the M8 output, I like a bit of grain but not to much so I shoot Fuji Acros and T-max 400. I like the way film renders a scene. Some like to say stuff on the internet along the lines of this or that film is equivalent to X Mp which is of course nonsense due to the way film records things. At the most basic level the ability of film to record detail varies enormously depending on subject contrast. This is so obvious yet is more or less never mentioned in comparisons for some reason. The data sheet for Tmax 400 for example says 50 lines/mm at 1.6:1 and 200 lines/mm at 1000:1, quite a staggering difference. Looking at my scans the effect means I can see lamp poles a mile away (high contrast) when pixel peeping the 30 Mp scans yet I can't crop a picture of my wife stood 10 feet away much as soft facial features (low contrast) look fuzzy really quickly. I am OK with that but many people I am sure will not be in this day and age. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goorackerelite Posted June 2, 2014 Share #17 Posted June 2, 2014 my kind of vintage by minyanzhu, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goorackerelite Posted June 2, 2014 Share #18 Posted June 2, 2014 one more from the M8. It's fantastic at BW! I wish I could afford an MM but I can't. blinded by minyanzhu, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieB Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share #19 Posted June 2, 2014 This really comes down to the basic point of whether you like the look of the results from film or not, and I am not talking about the current fashion for really grainy looking images. I much prefer looking at scans of B&W film shot in my M7 to the M8 output, I like a bit of grain but not to much so I shoot Fuji Acros and T-max 400. I like the way film renders a scene. Some like to say stuff on the internet along the lines of this or that film is equivalent to X Mp which is of course nonsense due to the way film records things. At the most basic level the ability of film to record detail varies enormously depending on subject contrast. This is so obvious yet is more or less never mentioned in comparisons for some reason. The data sheet for Tmax 400 for example says 50 lines/mm at 1.6:1 and 200 lines/mm at 1000:1, quite a staggering difference. Looking at my scans the effect means I can see lamp poles a mile away (high contrast) when pixel peeping the 30 Mp scans yet I can't crop a picture of my wife stood 10 feet away much as soft facial features (low contrast) look fuzzy really quickly. I am OK with that but many people I am sure will not be in this day and age. Yes I think digital b&w and film b&w are different and I normally prefer the look of film but like the odd digital b&w photo very much. My concern is that b&w images that look ok online can become flat and uninteresting when printed, unlike the beauty and depth of film prints. However I have little scanning softwear knowhow and a cheap flatbed scanner and more familiarity with LR. Salgado says his technicians can make his digital work look like Tri-X in print. I can't comment as I missed his last exhibition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparobertsan Posted June 5, 2014 Share #20 Posted June 5, 2014 Sorry but, traditional B&W print are so much better than digital one..... Having said that I am not that fussy with result so M8 will do the job just fine. I have not actually printed anything for a long time. But I want to do B&W film photography one day. That is why I have kept a Durst under work bench in my office. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.