M8 v M7 for B&W images?

[leicaphilia]

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

 

Steve, as a dedicated b&w shooter of over 40 years, and an owner of both the m7 and m8, maybe I can help answer your question in some limited way.

 

First, let me say that I love the b&w rendition of the M8; its about as good as digital b&w can get, BUT it suffers from the same drawbacks as all digital capture: a linear exposure "curve" and susceptibility to blown highlights. Run an M8 DNG file through SEP2, give it all the film tweaks you prefer, and in the end a trained eye can easily identify it as digital. Its just the nature of the capture medium, and it goes back to the linear characteristics of digital sensitometry.

 

Obviously, the M7 isn't limited by this. Put a roll of TX through it, or any other B&W film (my favorite is HP5 rated at 800) and youre going to have the curved exposure characteristic of that given film. This manifests itself visually as that "film look" so many plugins like SEP2 etc attempt to emulate but can only do so to a limited extent because the underlying DNG file is what it is: digitally captured. In my eye, analogue B&W has a smooth tonal beauty, a glow as it were, that simply cannot be replicated by the M8 or any other digital camera, including the MM. Of course, this is ultimately a question of aesthetics; there is no objective "corr ect" way a B&W photo " should" look. But if you are looking for the "classic" B&W look, film is the only way to get it.

 

A quick word about ease of use. Yes, the M8 is much easier to use than the M7. No developing, scanning etc. However, I've found that the purchase of a Pakon scanner (lab quality 35mm scanner that will scan a full roll of 36 exp film in about a minute) has opened up the world of film for me again. I probably shoot 300 rolls a year, and every exposure is fully scanned and digitzed quickly and easily. I develop my film in 8 roll Patterson tanks further streamlining the process. In the end I have the absolute best of both worlds with the M7: classic film B&W with a digitized negative, and the archival permanence of a negative in a negative sleeve.

 

And finally, i'm not chasing my tail constantly upgrading cameras via the digital camera obselecence process. I have and use an m4, m5, m7, contax g1 and g2, a Nikon F and f5, a Hexar Rf. None of them will ever be "obsolete," and I've certainly paid less for all of them put together than I would have for one M9 or MM.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I am always reminded of the story of the Emperors New Clothes whenever someone touts digital B&W images... Sorry, I don't care how many pixels they have, they just don't look very good!

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Anyone who hasn't seen gorgeous prints, and crap prints, using film and digital, needs to get out a lot more.

 

Jeff

[Loren]

I am always reminded of the story of the Emperors New Clothes whenever someone touts digital B&W images... Sorry, I don't care how many pixels they have, they just don't look very good!

 

I suspect that it isn't the number of pixels that is important, but the dynamic range of those pixels that is important.

 

Leicaphilia's excellent post, if I read it correctly, shows you the perils of a insufficient dynamic range of digital compared to film.

 

The M8 has somewhere about 11 stops of dynamic range, whereas the new Nikon D810 is claimed to have 14.8 - at base ISO. The Leica Monochrome has about 13 stops at base ISO.

 

Some films like Tri-X are claimed to have as much as 13+ stops, but as Leicaphilia pointed out, film's response is not linear so once you start altering the digital's raw file to approximate the non-linear curve of film you must give up some dynamic range in some regions of the curve to accommodate others.

[pico]

.

Edited August 23, 2014 by pico

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Anyone who hasn't seen gorgeous prints, and crap prints, using film and digital, needs to get out a lot more.

 

Jeff

 

O I get out plenty Jeff but the digital images still don't look very good...

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's not really a matter of getting out more, but rather seeing more, to be pedantic.

 

I have seen plenty of crap analog prints and plenty of excellent digital prints but I do not allow that to be the sole basis of my judgement, because I have also seen plenty of the opposite.

 

The fact is, good/excellent is not dependent on either analog or digital, but a number of other factors such as operator skill and care, just start with. True excellent does not shout analog or digital but something more like great photographer/printer.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Sorry to bang on about this but I disagree entirely. Digital when printed always looks bad in my experience.

[erl]

That's OK to bang on about. At least you qualified your legitimate opinion by saying, 'in you experience'.

 

Can I suggest that maybe your experience would benefit from widening?

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

 

Can I suggest that maybe your experience would benefit from widening?

 

You are welcome to suggest it sure, but having seen the best that Lambda or Lightjet, etc. can produce I am still not enamoured with the digital medium, the very best of which is a poor imitation of analogue reproduction, particularly in black and white.

[erl]

You are welcome to suggest it sure, but having seen the best that Lambda or Lightjet, etc. can produce I am still not enamoured with the digital medium, the very best of which is a poor imitation of analogue reproduction, particularly in black and white.

I acknowledge you opinion and preference. Clearly you have made your assessment. It would be wrong of me to attempt to convince you otherwise as it is all personal preference and should remain so.

[Jeff S]

It's not really a matter of getting out more, but rather seeing more, to be pedantic.

 

Obviously, Erl. It's slang in these parts.

 

We agree, though, on the principle…digital or film can result in beautiful, or mediocre, prints. And we haven't even broached the issue of display….glass, lighting, etc…another huge factor in the experience.

 

Trying to convince anyone, however, is wasted energy. Much like every other film/digital debate….just tools…that the audience most often doesn't care, or know, about.

 

Jeff

Edited August 24, 2014 by Jeff S

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

 

Trying to convince anyone, however, is wasted energy. Much like every other film/digital debate….just tools…that the audience most often doesn't care, or know, about.

 

Jeff

 

Or the "audience" just doesn't agree with you and thinks digital just doesn't look that good. I am perfectly willing to accept that you see things differently from me, perhaps you should acknowledge my views likewise?

[Jeff S]

Or the "audience" just doesn't agree with you and thinks digital just doesn't look that good. I am perfectly willing to accept that you see things differently from me, perhaps you should acknowledge my views likewise?

 

I've asked my audiences.

 

I never said you had to agree with me….again, wasted energy. Whatever floats your boat. But you essentially seemed to say that all digital looks bad…as a general statement….not just your personal taste, or even acknowledgement that prints vary.

 

A great photographer doesn't necessarily make a great printer, and vice versa. But when a great image combines with a print that 'sings', it can be a wonderful experience, regardless the medium IMO.

 

I have vintage silver prints from lots of great photographers and printers on my walls, along with digital prints, and I regularly attend exhibits, meet with gallery directors and well known museum curators to see not just publicly accessible prints, but private inventory, and have been collecting prints for several decades. And I've done lots of my own printing and display….film and digital…over many years. So I have a pretty good idea what others with discerning eyes have to say.

 

YMMV.

 

Jeff

Edited August 24, 2014 by Jeff S

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I've asked my audiences.

 

So I have a pretty good idea what others with discerning eyes have to say.

 

YMMV.

 

Jeff

 

Again your hubris belies you. We don't all see things the same way. Shame you are unable to acknowledge that.

[erl]

Again your hubris belies you. We don't all see things the same way. Shame you are unable to acknowledge that.

In my view, Jeff S has acknowledged your POV. He and others do not agree with you. Jeff has elaborated on what leads him to his POV, which differ from yours. It would appear from reading the thread that you cannot accept his because it differs from yours. Further, accusing him of hubris contravenes forum rules.

 

Please consider all the fact when commenting in future, not just your own.

[jaapv]

Especially as the real Ansel Adams would never have endorsed such views...

 

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

Especially as the real Ansel Adams would never have endorsed such views...

 

Nor would a real "moderator" fan the flames!

[jaapv]

The flames shouldn't be there in the first place.

Another A.A. quote:

 

“No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.”

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

We don't all see things the same way. Shame you are unable to acknowledge that.

 

But I did.

 

Ironic, considering the issue of seeing.

 

Jeff