plasticman Posted June 5, 2014 Share #21 Posted June 5, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Well in this case I'm not sure Salgado is the best example: I've always thought his film work was pretty over-cooked with excessive burning-in and over-the-top drama in a lot of his landscapes, so I never bothered looking at Genesis images. The exhibition is coming to Stockholm now, so I thought I'd take a look online to see what sort of thing to expect... and it nearly burned my eyes! I know Salgado has an enthusiastic (almost fervent) following on the forum, but these latest landscapes looked to me like the worst sort of over-sharpened and HDR-style work I often see on Flickr: the sort of photographer who is egged-on to ever greater excess by all the 'likes' and 'love it!' comments. I know he aspires to the biblically epic in his imagery, but in my opinion he's descended into parodic self-indulgence. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Hi plasticman, Take a look here M8 v M7 for B&W images?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CrisRose Posted June 5, 2014 Share #22 Posted June 5, 2014 I've personally never seen any difference between my digital and film prints. I find that the added detail in the digital ones, and the perfect post-processed black and white conversion and level balance, often give the digital ones a bit more sparkle. But I still shoot both. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyril Jayant Posted August 6, 2014 Share #23 Posted August 6, 2014 I am an analogue photographer . Have several medium format cameras and a dedicated M6 user. I have initiated into Digital through M8 and have upgraded M8.2. I agree about the quality of M8 is very clean and pure and still if you have an access to a high-end scanner you can get a very high -end results with your negatives. My Hasselblad photos scanned in Flex tight can talk for themselves in comparison Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2014 Share #24 Posted August 6, 2014 m8 works fine for me! in comparison the the awesome mono the m8 files has the abenefit of much smoother high-lights which makes it easier for me to realize the grainy film look i prefer:) 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! lambda. Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! lambda. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/227885-m8-v-m7-for-bw-images/?do=findComment&comment=2644253'>More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 7, 2014 Share #25 Posted August 7, 2014 I know Salgado has an enthusiastic (almost fervent) following on the forum, but these latest landscapes looked to me like the worst sort of over-sharpened and HDR-style work I often see on Flickr: the sort of photographer who is egged-on to ever greater excess by all the 'likes' and 'love it!' comments. I know he aspires to the biblically epic in his imagery, but in my opinion he's descended into parodic self-indulgence. Salgado isn't my favourite photographer by any stretch of the imagination but I recommend you at least look at the Taschen book which, quibbles about "HDR" and other forum chatter stuff aside, is a body of work that few Flickr members could ever hope to come close to emulating. Oh to be as shit a photographer as Salgado... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 7, 2014 Share #26 Posted August 7, 2014 I've personally never seen any difference between my digital and film prints. I find that the added detail in the digital ones, and the perfect post-processed black and white conversion and level balance, often give the digital ones a bit more sparkle. Those sentences could have been written by two different people, on differing points of view. Best advice…don't get into film vs digital discussions….even with oneself. Jeff 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsprow Posted August 7, 2014 Share #27 Posted August 7, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Letting my clients speak, they generally give highest marks to the images (pro lab processed and hi res scans) from my M3 or M4 -- though to my eye the B&W from the M is also great, a bit more "snap" but less dynamic range I'd say. Money talks -- B&W film for me. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 7, 2014 Share #28 Posted August 7, 2014 I've personally never seen any difference between my digital and film prints. [... snip complete contradiction...] The reason you cannot see the difference is that you scan film instead of printing it in the conventional wet darkroom. Once digitized, film images immediately enter the digital paradigm which is totally different. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted August 8, 2014 Share #29 Posted August 8, 2014 Whichever camera you choose, I highly recommend Replichrome I and II for black & white (by Totally Rad). It's probably the best film emulation I've seen (and great for color too). The "Plus-X+" is especially good. Silver Efex Pro 2 is excellent too. DxO FilmPack (used by Salgado) is also very good, although I don't have the current version. By the way, I disagree about Salgado's work having anything like HDR style. It's expressive, not over-cooked. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 8, 2014 Share #30 Posted August 8, 2014 Letting my clients speak, they generally give highest marks to the images (pro lab processed and hi res scans) from my M3 or M4 -- though to my eye the B&W from the M is also great, a bit more "snap" but less dynamic range I'd say. Money talks -- B&W film for me. Letting clients speak is most important when it comes to a balance sheet. I know, been there, done that, still do a bit. But I rarely rely on a client to know more about my craft than I do. Often they know nothing. At best, all they know is what works for them. No problem. When it comes to 'art', it is reasonable to expect the photographer to know better. The fact that you prefer images processed out of your M3/4 is the final word. It is you (on this occasion) that must be satisfied. End of argument. Acknowledging that there are differences is important, especially when you need to select the differences for a purpose. Sounds like you have it all sorted. Well done. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted August 13, 2014 Share #31 Posted August 13, 2014 Film beats digital by faaaaaaar. But what's the point of scanning it? Really? You scan film then compare it to digital? You either print in a darkroom or forget about it, you're missing the whole point and the whole quality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted August 13, 2014 Share #32 Posted August 13, 2014 Cris, beautiful work there pal!! And thanks for the tips. Best. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted August 13, 2014 Share #33 Posted August 13, 2014 (edited) I love my M8 for b&w. Film or digital? Whatever rocks one's boat. If working for a client, whatever satisfies the client. Of course, one can like or dislike Salgado's work. Nothing wrong there. But the international recognition re: Salgado's recognition must either stem from the quality his lifelong work, marketing, or mixture of both. But there it is for all to see. And comment. As far as I am concerned, give me more of his ' overcooked ' landscapes. And his ' migrant workers ' and... Let's see who, on this forum, can do better. Or has the work to show to have done better. Here is an ' overcooked ' b&w from me.. Edited August 13, 2014 by fursan 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted August 14, 2014 Share #34 Posted August 14, 2014 Salgado isn't my favourite photographer by any stretch of the imagination but I recommend you at least look at the Taschen book which, quibbles about "HDR" and other forum chatter stuff aside, is a body of work that few Flickr members could ever hope to come close to emulating. Oh to be as shit a photographer as Salgado... I went to the Salgado exhibition today with my 5-year old daughter. She made some interesting observations about the images, at one point wondering why the photographer only shot in thunderstorm weather (“åskväder”)? I still thought most of the images were horrendously overcooked and bombastic - except for a number of the Africa images, which retained some subtlety and sensitivity - both in subject-matter and technical execution. The ones I liked the most turned out to be from 2006 - so I wonder if they were pre-digital or whether Salgado’s taste in post-processing simply underwent a change (for the worse) after that time? In any case, I don't even try to be this sort of photographer, really only taking snapshots myself. But I don't think that means I have to admire his work - either technically, emotionally or intellectually. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted August 15, 2014 Share #35 Posted August 15, 2014 I love my M8 for b&w. Film or digital? Whatever rocks one's boat. If working for a client, whatever satisfies the client. Of course, one can like or dislike Salgado's work. Nothing wrong there. But the international recognition re: Salgado's recognition must either stem from the quality his lifelong work, marketing, or mixture of both. But there it is for all to see. And comment. As far as I am concerned, give me more of his ' overcooked ' landscapes. And his ' migrant workers ' and... Let's see who, on this forum, can do better. Or has the work to show to have done better. Here is an ' overcooked ' b&w from me.. "Say, you're pretty good!" - Cary Grant s-a Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 15, 2014 Share #36 Posted August 15, 2014 Film beats digital by faaaaaaar. But what's the point of scanning it? Really? You scan film then compare it to digital? You either print in a darkroom or forget about it, you're missing the whole point and the whole quality. That is your preference and that's fine. But there is no such thing as 'beating' wrt to film and digital. It's like a carpenter saying a hammer beats a chisel. (). They are all only tools. All have their expertise and purpose. The point(s) of scanning? They are multiple. It could be to produce a book from film, it MUST be scanned by someone. It could be to give 'oxygen' to a film system deprived of a darkroom. It could be extend the PP possibilities of filmic output. All the above in addition to classic darkroom technique. There is no point or quality being missed here. Just selective use of additional techniques. The skill is in choosing the right one for a given task. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 15, 2014 Share #37 Posted August 15, 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. I would hesitate to use the word better. Different would be a more apt description. A Lambda print from the Monochrom can be stunning, with the M8 not too far behind. The puzzling thing to me is that people want film and digital images to look the same. It is like wanting an aquarel and an oil painting to look the same. Or maybe not so puzzling. Our eyes have been trained to film images for at least a century, and we haven't even got used to digital images for a decade. Up to the 1930-ies photographs were compared to paintings and deemed inferior art, the closer to painting the less inferior. The same thing is happening here. 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ansel_Adams Posted August 15, 2014 Share #38 Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) Film and digital have completely different aesthetics, driven by the strengths and limitations of each medium. As you asked for feedback I will give you my experience. Personally I still find the analogue aesthetic to be far superior. For B&W images digital fails to impress. I would get an M7. Digital photography is essentially a copy of analogue photography. I prefer the original. Edited August 15, 2014 by Ansel_Adams 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 15, 2014 Share #39 Posted August 15, 2014 Film and digital have completely different aesthetics, driven by the strengths and limitations of each medium. As you asked for feedback I will give you my experience. Personally I still find the analogue aesthetic to be far superior. For B&W images digital fails to impress. I would get an M7. Digital photography is essentially a copy of analogue photography. I prefer the original. I agree, except for the last statement. Digital photography is essentially a copy of analogue photography. I prefer the original. Both analog and digital are copies, primarily because in most cases we can't take the original with us. Serious, I don't think digital, in principal, is trying to copy film anymore than photography is trying to copy painting/drawing. They all have their own intrinsic values and must be assessed for their strengths and exploited accordingly. Individually, our personal taste will guide us in one direction usually. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 16, 2014 Share #40 Posted August 16, 2014 Serious, I don't think digital, in principal, is trying to copy film... There are digicams that offer film emulation modes and lots of film-mimicking programs. You are right, however. Digital does not copy film: people do it, and why? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.