M8 v M7 for B&W images?

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If asked, they wouldn't know the real answer, IMO.

[jaapv]

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?

 

Post #37

[Advertisement]

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

[semi-ambivalent]

the closer to painting the less inferior.

 

Painting has pulled that sh*t on us for a hundred and fifty years. I ain't buyin' it.

 

s-a

[SteveYork]

M7 w/o any hesitation.

[NB23]

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.

 

That's BS to me.

I still have my two darkrooms, four focomats, still put it in at least 12 hours a week in proper printing and I know what looks good.

 

Digital B&W? No thanks. Not even with a stick

[jaapv]

Still, an opinion, not a fact...

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Painting has pulled that sh*t on us for a hundred and fifty years. I ain't buyin' it.

 

s-a

Nor is anybody else since 1930 - exactly my point.

[erl]

That's BS to me.

I still have my two darkrooms, four focomats, still put it in at least 12 hours a week in proper printing and I know what looks good.

 

Digital B&W? No thanks. Not even with a stick

I'll thank you not to refer to my comments as B.S.

I could refer to yours with the same qualification by declaring your view as blinkered and myopic. I could quote my long term past of 30+ hours per week printing both colour and B&W and suggest that I too know what looks good.

 

It is precisely for that reason that do not dismiss digital processes, properly executed, Because I too know what looks good. I also know what sells. It is good images. NOT how they are produced.

[pico]

If it were not for digital rendering of film photos I would not have been moved to view the original wet prints which were significantly different, informing me of the printer's place in history.

 

On the other hand is the obverse where very old original negatives were scanned and printed to show tonal ranges unseen for decades beyond their original display. Such is exciting to experience, a good thing, and of questionable value to the history of photography 'as it were'.

[pico]

That's BS to me.

 

I still have my two darkrooms, four focomats, ...

 

 

So you got another Focomat since your previous mention of them, and another darkroom? Cool, and irrelevant.

[NB23]

So you got another Focomat since your previous mention of them, and another darkroom? Cool, and irrelevant.

 

3 in use, one for parts. Not even counting my complete V35. Not good enough vs the Ic & IIC.

 

Sure it's irrelevant. Is anything relevant? Certainly not an epson printer and even less a MM.

[Universalb50]

Can anyone post a picture taken with a film camera, and then the same image done with a digital camera, in both cases using the same lens? I'd like to see how different they are.

[pico]

Can anyone post a picture taken with a film camera, and then the same image done with a digital camera, in both cases using the same lens? I'd like to see how different they are.

 

 

Are you joshing us?

[pico]

The reason I am not taking your query seriously is because I do not know your presentation goal. Is it to display pictures on a large monitor,, a laptop or a mobile device!?

 

Clearly you do not care about prints of any source or means. They are not monitor experiences

 

Scanning film requires skills that like darkroom printing vary profoundly among individuals.

 

You have asked for an impossible comparison.

[plasticman]

Can anyone post a picture taken with a film camera, and then the same image done with a digital camera, in both cases using the same lens? I'd like to see how different they are.

 

This is an ancient and much-criticized example of an M9 vs M7 using a 50 Summilux:

Sample Image Comparisons from Leica M9 and M7 | Adventures in Photography

 

I've done a few simple side-by-side 'tests' myself and the differences are enormous and very obvious even on-screen.

[Jeff S]

Film versus digital discussion? Really?

 

What's the best bag for each?

 

Jeff

[plasticman]

Film versus digital discussion? Really?

 

What's the best bag for each?

 

Jeff

 

But then this sort of post is also its own repetitive cliché.

[Jeff S]

But then this sort of post is also its own repetitive cliché.

 

Like this one. Thanks for reinforcing the point.

 

BTW, is there a non-repetitive cliché?

 

Jeff

Edited August 21, 2014 by Jeff S

[plasticman]

BTW, is there a non-repetitive cliché?

 

Jeff

 

I'm not sure - but some responses are so predictable they only need to be posted one time to qualify.

 

Getting sort of back on topic, another member PMed me an interesting article on Salgado, and after reading that and doing a bit more research I found that he was using a film Mamiya 645 in the earlier Africa images in the exhibition which I thought were technically much better and more restrained than the later images.

 

I'd say this was typical of my experience of how most people 'mimic' film when shooting digital: there's no 'natural' place to stop, no in-built boundary to the 'look' the process is attempting to emulate, no upper limit to how much the button can be turned. Like Jaap, I prefer images that are true to their medium, rather than feeble attempts to imitate something else.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Basically, Mani, we are in agreement, the only difference being that you prefer the way film images look, whilst I prefer the way digital images look. And it is hard to discuss preferences.

 

I would say that the difference between film and digital is that in the case of film its flaws are its strength, whilst in digital its flaws are its weakness.