bruniroquai Posted September 12, 2014 Share #121 Posted September 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm agree, a good one is a good one, no matter with equipment or technique used. Maybe people have to change their minds, and think that the newer tecniques and equipments are capable of get same quality and to produce fine art than the classic photography methods. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 Hi bruniroquai, Take a look here M8 v M7 for B&W images?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
NB23 Posted September 12, 2014 Share #122 Posted September 12, 2014 I'm agree, a good one is a good one, no matter with equipment or technique used. Maybe people have to change their minds, and think that the newer tecniques and equipments are capable of get same quality and to produce fine art than the classic photography methods. Technique? Change of mind? Taste? Please. As far as I understand, you have never printed. So in all fairness, how can you even know a little on the subject? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted September 12, 2014 Share #123 Posted September 12, 2014 Preference can't be argued with. Just accepted.Blinkered vision can be worse than blindness. Blatant declarations of 'right' and 'wrong' just aren't convincing. Are we really argumenting about how a M8 bw conversion can be better then BW film? Really? REALLY?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruniroquai Posted September 12, 2014 Share #124 Posted September 12, 2014 NB23 not me, but I habe beautiful wet FB prints hanging in my walls, and a couple of inks. Anyway my only gear is a MP and few asph. Glasses, ouh Yes! And a Leitz focomat V35 and a Durst Laborator. Stupid me, Think that You were the only man on earth who know how to print "truly and beautifully! So arrogant mate, let me know since the beggining I was on your side, not this way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted September 12, 2014 Share #125 Posted September 12, 2014 NB23 not me, but I habe beautiful wet FB prints hanging in my walls, and a couple of inks. Anyway my only gear is a MP and few asph. Glasses, ouh Yes! And a Leitz focomat V35 and a Durst Laborator. Stupid me, Think that You were the only man on earth who know how to print "truly and beautifully! So arrogant mate, let me know since the beggining I was on your side, not this way. If i am not mistaking, you posted just one day ago at rff that you we're going to print your first ever wet print and we're seeking for help. If it wasn't you it's another bruniroquai, then. But i will ask you: who are you kidding? Link: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144559 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 12, 2014 Share #126 Posted September 12, 2014 Are we really argumenting about how a M8 bw conversion can be better then BW film? Really? REALLY?? Some film based prints are crap. Some film based prints are beautiful. Some inkjet prints (from digital cameras) are crap. Some inkjet prints are beautiful. Great photographers are not necessarily great printers….and vice versa. Really. Not that it should matter to you…but in addition to collecting prints for 30+ years (and having seen private inventory from dealers, curators, exhibitors and many others), I've built and used 4 darkrooms over that period and made thousands of prints, and for the last 5+ years have been printing digitally….and some of mine are beautiful, some not…silver and inkjet. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted September 12, 2014 Share #127 Posted September 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some film based prints are crap. Some film based prints are beautiful. Some inkjet prints (from digital cameras) are crap. Some inkjet prints are beautiful. Great photographers are not necessarily great printers….and vice versa. Really. Not that it should matter to you…but in addition to collecting prints for 30+ years (and having seen private inventory from dealers, curators, exhibitors and many others), I've built and used 4 darkrooms over that period and made thousands of prints, and for the last 5+ years have been printing digitally….and some of mine are beautiful, some not…silver and inkjet. Jeff User error. User skill. User Vision.Who cares about the user. All are unrelated to the reality that BW film is better then a M8 digital file converted to B&W. This is so insanely basic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 12, 2014 Share #128 Posted September 12, 2014 User error. User skill. User Vision.Who cares about the user. All are unrelated to the reality that BW film is better then a M8 digital file converted to B&W. This is so insanely basic. What qualifiers are you presuming? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted September 12, 2014 Share #129 Posted September 12, 2014 Hi All, I invite you to read this thread : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m7-mp-film-m/345620-i-love-my-m7.html This is not the "war" against the digital film. It is simply a search for what is simply beautiful ! Experience of one photographer with : - 40 years with Film - 5 years with digital Leica camera exclusive (no other brands) But the M8 is still a good camera first practical , secondly for color conversion in b&w for a cheap price (compared to MM). but the images still remain digital image ie pictures with "smooth" edges, "flat" "without consistency", "without soul, ", some are like "synthetic images". The practice of digital is triggering inflation, triggering without counting. M8 and M9 are now my back up cameras, my 2 M7 my main cameras (one with b&w film ,the other color film) ! This is the case of my last medical humanitarian mission to Southeast Asia. Regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaphilia Posted September 12, 2014 Share #130 Posted September 12, 2014 I'm with NB. Film b&w "looks better" than digital. Better tonality and tonal gradations, without doubt. Better highlights. If you don't see it, you're no looking with a critical eye. End of discussion (for me). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 12, 2014 Share #131 Posted September 12, 2014 Are we really argumenting about how a M8 bw conversion can be better then BW film? Really? REALLY?? No! I'm not, you are. I'm not arguing, I'm expressing a preference and declaring everyone's freedom to do so. Something you won't accept. Your loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 12, 2014 Share #132 Posted September 12, 2014 User error. User skill. User Vision.Who cares about the user. All are unrelated to the reality that BW film is better then a M8 digital file converted to B&W. This is so insanely basic. Sorry, but your statements are blatantly blinkered, biased and uniformed. They cannot be statements of fact, but simply opinion. Your opinion(s) based only on your limited experience. To make collective pronouncements you must use collective information, at least. Hold to your opinions by all means, that's fine, but don't preach it as unequivocal truth based only on what you experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 12, 2014 Share #133 Posted September 12, 2014 But the M8 is still a good camera first practical , secondly for color conversion in b&w for a cheap price (compared to MM). but the images still remain digital image ie pictures with "smooth" edges, "flat" "without consistency", "without soul, ", some are like "synthetic images". The practice of digital is triggering inflation, triggering without counting. Regards Henry Henry, you have accurately described some of the many images I have seen (and made myself ) using film cameras. Of course I have seen (and made) the same from my digital cameras. I have also seen and made, IMO, superb and crap images from both media. My point being that quality is more a product of the craftsman than the tools. In the right hands all tools can perform to optimum provided they are used for their intended purpose. My walls, and others I have contributed to, are decorated with prints made from both media with no regard to declaring which is which. Only some can be recognised as to their source. It does not matter! But if it does, the image itself is lacking I suspect, not the media. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruniroquai Posted September 12, 2014 Share #134 Posted September 12, 2014 NB I meant that I never do a wet print before, but I have few of them and seen tones. Anyway let me be clear, I love and prefer the feel of film over digital any day. I don't know why are You attacking me and being so intolerant with other people. It's just silly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 12, 2014 Share #135 Posted September 12, 2014 User error. User skill. User Vision.Who cares about the user. All are unrelated to the reality that BW film is better then a M8 digital file converted to B&W. This is so insanely basic. Then I presume you're content to drop off your film for prints at the local Walmart (or equivalent). Your implication that I (and anyone else who doesn't agree with you) must be blind, is beyond arrogant and ignorant. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted September 13, 2014 Share #136 Posted September 13, 2014 Henry, you have accurately described some of the many images I have seen (and made myself ) using film cameras. Of course I have seen (and made) the same from my digital cameras. I have also seen and made, IMO, superb and crap images from both media. My point being that quality is more a product of the craftsman than the tools. In the right hands all tools can perform to optimum provided they are used for their intended purpose. My walls, and others I have contributed to, are decorated with prints made from both media with no regard to declaring which is which. Only some can be recognised as to their source. It does not matter! But if it does, the image itself is lacking I suspect, not the media. Hi Erl, I agree with you for the universality of the support film vs digital. The problem is the fidelity of the image we want to reproduce and there the digital still can not.The color comes in 3 layers for the film (red, green, blue) and one layer for the sensor , with a filter placed on it. It should on the other hand, know how to work on the photo software (LR or PS or CO) to fully reproduce this color that we have captured when you take the photo. It is this lack of faithfulness found in digital.The only one who is good but not perfect is the Sigma Foveon sensor (3 layers) Look at the post n°1273 of the thread "I like film" on the "pink" bus 2 stage photos recently taken in London . http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-64.html There is also the "lacks of relief" or "flatness" found on digital images. For color to be corrected, but even for someone coming out of a school of photography, personally it's very difficult to have faithfulness to what we see in the realty.In addition the visual memory is "fleeting". I would like to add that I make b&w prints of my photos on an enlarger Focomat and what a pleasure to have beautiful images. Race pixels is valid if you make enlargements to cover an entire wall but it will always be the pixels and not silver grain , not the same I agree. Best regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 13, 2014 Share #137 Posted September 13, 2014 Henry, I have spent many many more hours in the darkroom printing colour than I ever will in processing colour. I clearly remember discarding print after print to get the 'perfect' copy. I am the first to acknowledge that darkroom prints can look different from digital prints. One issue is that once you are satisfied with the look of an image on a calibrated computer system, it is perpetually repeatable, from the first print. Both techniques demand skilled execution, otherwise both will be crap. Not sure what you mean by fidelity of the image but I reckon both will have their shortcomings, albeit different. I do know that reproducing works of art (something I have done quite a bit of), using digital is more accurate and viable than colour film, with its shortcomings, especially in earlier days gone by. Inescapably, it always comes back to 'how you want your image to look and then choose the technique and media that best suits. It will vary from case to case. I should add that the biggest (successful) print I ever make was from a colour negative in a Hasselblad, scanned and then printed on a Lambda machine which takes a digital file and then prints on conventional colour paper! Confusing? Yes! IIRC it was about 3mtr square. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted September 13, 2014 Share #138 Posted September 13, 2014 Erl, the "fidelity" of the image is something difficult to reach I recognize ! To tell you how much I research this " fidelity". I hold back now vinyl disc that many have abandoned or sold. Well, the sound is much better than the CD and even SACD ! how sweet and how faithfully especially classical piano listening through a tube amplifier ! a Steinway is a Steinway not a Bosendorfer Regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted September 13, 2014 Share #139 Posted September 13, 2014 Yes, I too have retained my vinyl records. Regrettably I currently have nothing to play them on, but plan to rectify the problem. I don't have a tube amp but will 'compromise' with a decent modern amp hooked up to my old turntable, when I can establish a steady, vibration free base to place it on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted September 13, 2014 Share #140 Posted September 13, 2014 Erl, for the record player you put on a stone slab , no vibration The record player still continue to be sold as those from England http://www.rega.co.uk/rp1.html I have a Thorens (made in Germany) with a cell moving coil Ortofon and Denon Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.