M8 v M7 for B&W images?

[gberger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also, a SOTA turntable with an SME arm can furnish acceptable vibration limiting results - - - and it's not as fussy.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Also, a SOTA turntable with an SME arm can furnish acceptable vibration limiting results - - - and it's not as fussy.

 

I prefer my SOTA and original Wheaton Tri-Planar arm.

 

Apologies for OT.

 

Jeff

[plasticman]

Sun is shining today, and I'm just waiting for the laundry to spin before heading out to join my kids in the playground, so I'll keep it short (hmmm didn't end up so short, after all).

 

1. Accusing someone of being a troll: When I see the ’troll’ accusation used without really backing it up with hard evidence or clear argumentation, in my eyes that person has forfeited the debate directly.

 

2. My film expertise: Just want to reinforce something I've said before - I'm a complete newbie at film, and I'm constantly amazed at the expertise shown by others. What I have to say here is totally my opinion, and not based on long years of experience.

 

3. “It's all about the final image”: The discussion often comes back to someone saying “it's all about the final image” as though film enthusiasts who see differences or preferences in their medium are dilettantes unable to grasp the ’greatness’ or concept of an intrinsically powerful photograph, and are caught-up instead in the ’trivial’ minutiae of grain or tonality.

This really isn't the point of these discussions - naturally their are great and moving digital images, and crappy superficial film images - but this fact isn't relevant to the discussion of which medium is more aesthetically pleasing.

Additionally, considering how often the phrase is bandied about, you'd expect to see masterpieces of modern photography on every flickr page. But the truth is that a vanishingly tiny amount of photography even aspires to go beyond the purely decorative - and the vast majority fails to even do that.

 

4. ’Invisible differences’: The Online Photographer recently discussed black & white tonality (The Online Photographer: 8/26/14 The Morning Coffee: Secret Weapon) and used a film example to show what he thought was a good example. Following the Flickr link in that article, I was amazed at the apparent variability of the photographer’s output: some images seemed rich in tones and texture, while others were flat and drab. I spent time clicking on the good images to see the larger sizes - all of them shot on various film cameras, particularly 120. Then I looked at some of the poorer examples - and was amazed to see they were digital.

Here was a photographer who had the aesthetic sensibility to make lovely images and transfer them into the digital domain - but who apparently lacked the capability to see that his digitally originated efforts were lacking in comparison.

I don't really know what to make of this example myself, as I can't claim to be able to distinguish film-emulated digital from real film in online images (see point 2 above). It was simply an interesting experience.

 

5. “go to photo galleries and museums and see for yourself if there is anything truly special about film vs. digital”: I wrote earlier about my experience at the Salgado exhibition. I've never been a fan, and I went along to see Genesis with appropriate skepticism - but it was only after the discussion on this forum that I did some research and found that the images I thought the best were shot on a Mamiya 645, and the appallingly bombastic nearly HD stuff was produced with a Canon digital camera. Anyone who doubts the difference in that particular exhibition should look for themselves.

[fotografr]

This thread is merely a re-cast version of Film vs Digital.

Y'all should just beg off, quit.

.

 

Well, the nice thing about forums is that people can discuss whatever they want to and those who don't want to can simply leave the thread alone (hint).

[dant]

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.

 

Digital can do so much more...

 

(nsfw)

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%27Left_Vintage_Silver_Gelatin_Print_-_Right_Inkjet_Print%27_Copyright_1973,_2013_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..JPG

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%27Left_Silver_Gelatin_Print_-_Right_Hahnemuehle_Ink_Jet_Print%27_Copyright_2013_Daniel_Teoli_Jr..jpg

 

But both of these examples started with film.

 

Flatbed scanned 35mm color negs = roughly 4mp digital.

 

Camera Comparisons

 

Digital can have an artificial look / sharpness, same as the digital HD movies that looks kinda plasticy to me. But I shoot all digital now and have gave up film for the most part. I would shoot film if I had a butler to do all my processing. I could never hope to keep up with the amount I shoot if it was film.

[pico]

Digital can do so much more ...

 

 

The moment film is scanned it becomes digital, removed from its source.

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The moment film is scanned it becomes digital, removed from its source.

True, but still different from digital originals.

A large measure of the film character can be retained.

[pop]

The moment film is scanned it becomes digital, removed from its source.

Isn't the reverse true as well: the moment an image is printed it becomes analog, removed from its source?

[peterjcb]

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.

 

r

 

beautiful images and thanks for the tips!

 

I'm also a newbie M8 owner and love black & white images. I like to use DxO but found out after I got my M8 that DxO doesn't support the M8 .dng files so I have to open up with PS6 and convert to .jpeg then process in DxO. I wish there was some sort of batch converter for the M8 .dng files so I can open them in Dxo first....