Mike Rawcs Posted May 29, 2014 Share #1 Posted May 29, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've just read this on Leicaphilia: Leicaphilia | Philia (/ˈfɪljə/ or /ˈfɪliə/) is one of the four ancient Greek words for love. Can anyone who has used both MM and Leica film cameras comment on the conclusions? I'd be particularly interested to hear from anyone who can compare prints made with both MM and film Leicas. Thanks, Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Hi Mike Rawcs, Take a look here Comparison of MM and M6. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Ansel_Adams Posted May 29, 2014 Share #2 Posted May 29, 2014 I've just read this on Leicaphilia: Leicaphilia | Philia (/ˈfɪljə/ or /ˈfɪliə/) is one of the four ancient Greek words for love. Can anyone who has used both MM and Leica film cameras comment on the conclusions? I'd be particularly interested to hear from anyone who can compare prints made with both MM and film Leicas. Thanks, Mike. Digital is just different. Much prefer film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj_61 Posted May 30, 2014 Share #3 Posted May 30, 2014 To be honest: I never cared much for 35mm film. I shot medium format in stead. Hasselblad and mamiya 6. I love my Monochrom. The handling is just like the Mamiya. The files have Hassy quality in rendering of tones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted May 30, 2014 Share #4 Posted May 30, 2014 Can anyone who has used both MM and Leica film cameras comment on the conclusions? I don't think there was a conclusion, just a pre-planned anti digital rant. The fundamental flaw is of course that it assumes everybody wants an image to look like Tri-X. A 35mm negative isn't going to look anything like large format fine grain film no matter how it is processed. But the MM can do this, and makes the M6 loaded with any type of film look pathetic if smooth rich tones are required. The other thing that was conveniently overlooked is that at 8000 ISO the MM has a nice noise pattern not dissimilar to Tri-X at 400 ISO. Now, let's think, what would Tri-X look like rated at 8000 ISO? So if all you want is a Tri-X look, an M6 and a fridge full of film is the way to go. But nostalgia for a classic Tri-X look isn't a good thing when all it does is re-hash imagery from a bygone age. It is unhealthy to wallow in battles between film and digital because it is self congratulatory from whichever perspective the argument comes from. And that is all the article does, wallow in self congratulatory smugness which misses the point that the image should come first, the process just gets you there. If an image relies on the fact it was made with Tri-X it has failed, it wasn't a good image to start with. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisRose Posted May 30, 2014 Share #5 Posted May 30, 2014 I can't say I agree. But that's my personal opinion, and taste. My M8 was already producing higher detail, film-like black and white than my M6 and Tri X, something that greatly surprised me when I got it, thinking it would play second fiddle in my 2 M setup. My M9's black and white walks all over TriX, in my personal opinion, and the files I've seen from the MM have an even more amazing quality. The article also makes the assumption that 35mm film will be produced forever. It won't. There's no such thing as future-proof... well, anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 30, 2014 Share #6 Posted May 30, 2014 I'd be particularly interested to hear from anyone who can compare prints made with both MM and film Leicas. While this might be interesting, any print comparison requires an assessment of the entire workflow from camera to paper to displayed print. Not only are there endless ways to generate a final print 'look', there are just as many individual styles and preferences involved. People made all kinds of prints with film Ms, and that will be no different with an MM. There are dozens of variables involved in either case, even starting with the same negative or the same file….and even more going back to the scene before the shutter is pushed. The point is whether you can get the print to look like YOU want it to look. And only you can determine that….based on a lot more than just the camera. The guy in the article didn't want to answer that question and, if he did, he's a poor technician. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted May 30, 2014 Share #7 Posted May 30, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I always find it amusing when someone, such as the anonymous Mr. Leicaphilia, uses 72 dpi digitized images on a webpage to prove that prints from a film camera are superior to prints from a digital camera. Personally, I thought the images from the MM were more pleasing than those from the M6/TriX. These comparisons always makes me wonder: did daguerreotype photographers condescend the new calotype process, and they the new celluloid and silver photographers? If by some twist of fate digital photography had come into being before silver halide chemistry was discovered, would the digital proponents condescend to the silver crowd? Are Selgado's images from Migrations superior to those from Genesis, since the former were made with film and the later with a digital camera? Are ink sketches better than charcoal? It's all silly nonsense. It is the image that matters, not the process or the tools. Museums are accepting inkjet prints made from digital camera files alongside silver prints made from 4x5 view cameras. I think we just need to get over it and get on with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 30, 2014 Share #8 Posted May 30, 2014 It's all silly nonsense. It is the image that matters, not the process or the tools. From the person named 'Likaleica" with the signature that says "Shooting with a Leica is like a long, tender kiss. - Henri Cartier-Bresson" Only on an internet forum. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted May 31, 2014 Share #9 Posted May 31, 2014 Infatuation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted May 31, 2014 Share #10 Posted May 31, 2014 What i don't understand is that all comparisons done with the MM with film that all compare ISO 400 (or base ISO) just because Tri-X is 400 (or 320 really) but what they all seem to miss, is that if you up the ante with the MM you get fantastic rich grain, with beautiful transitions, just like film. I almost always shoot my MM with ND6 filter so that i can use what, to me is the best looking of all ISO's which is ISO 6400. This ISO on the MM looks almost identical to the grain size of a TX400 film scanned on a Imacon/or drum scanner. The MM is a fantastic tool at high ISO's, but boring at base ISO (as all other digital camera's) and the MM is also the first digital camera that benefits from pushing the ISO boundaries, which makes it even more versatile... Here's an example shot with ND6 ISO 6400... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/227928-comparison-of-mm-and-m6/?do=findComment&comment=2601035'>More sharing options...
jmr237 Posted May 31, 2014 Share #11 Posted May 31, 2014 ... to me is the best looking of all ISO's which is ISO 6400. This ISO on the MM looks almost identical to the grain size of a TX400 film scanned on a Imacon/or drum scanner. Great point. There's a reasonable argument to be made that comparing 400 ISO film to a 400 ISO monochrom file is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Would love to see more of your examples of the monochrom at 6400. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted May 31, 2014 Share #12 Posted May 31, 2014 As someone who has moved to film I find the constant internet infatuation with tri-x and making definitive comparisons to everything based on tri-x like it is the only thing in the film universe really depressing. If you want fine grain and high resolution from 35mm film shoot something like Fuji Acros. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted May 31, 2014 Share #13 Posted May 31, 2014 Agree to some extent with NJH, film like 35mm Acros gives just a very fine grain indeed to 20x16 prints, essentially adding a little richness to the image, rather than the gritty look from a 400 speed traditional emulsion. And, rather ironically, when I've used Acros in 4x5, rather than in my Leica, it was so squeaky clean and completely grain free that the portrait started looking like a B&W conversion from a digital camera at base ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susie Posted May 31, 2014 Share #14 Posted May 31, 2014 As someone who has moved to film I find the constant internet infatuation with tri-x and making definitive comparisons to everything based on tri-x like it is the only thing in the film universe really depressing. I agree. I have never understood the desire for intrusive grain in a photograph, much prefering the smooth tones of medium and large formats, letting the subject supply it's own texture. However due to various circumstanses (age etc!) I no longer want to lug loads of kit about, prefering my Leicas which I find much easier to focus than either Hasselblad or Rolleiflex. The only Linhof I now have is a Super Technika54 which is even heavier, but easy to focus, being a rangfinder. Not having a wet darkroom at the moment (although I never got rid of my gear) I am currently processing scans of negs using Lightroom, and not really being pleased with the results. The grain is always too dominant. Perhaps if the MM would produce smooth tones similar to m/f I should invest in one. The argument about not doing digital processing with film doesn't apply, as I'm already doing it, but having to live with the restrictions of the characteristics of whichever film I use. Susie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted May 31, 2014 Author Share #15 Posted May 31, 2014 A lot of well reasoned comments here. My own thoughts are that the MM is being compared to Tri-X that has being scanned i.e. digitised. The only worthwhile comparison, for me, is how the photograph, film or digital, looks as a print. I'm coming ever more convinced that the photographic process is not complete until the print has been made. I'm so tempted to start a "Which is better, silver or inkjet print?". Perhaps another day! Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted May 31, 2014 Share #16 Posted May 31, 2014 I'm so tempted to start a "Which is better, silver or inkjet print?". The Online Photographer: Are They Or Aren't They? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted May 31, 2014 Share #17 Posted May 31, 2014 OK, so how many rolls of film and developing, including an M6 can you get for the price of an MM? A lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted May 31, 2014 Share #18 Posted May 31, 2014 Susie, how are you scanning film? I've had 350mb drum scans done off Acros 6x7, giving native print size at 200dpi to something like 50x60 inches, and grain is barely visible except for what is more like "noise" on the Caucasian skin of the subject matter. 200mb drum scans off 35mm Acros from my Leica M7 are very clean at an equivalent negative/image size that printed at approx 30 inches on the long side. This smoothness is what you get from a drum scan that is tough or impossible to achieve with other scanners. Digital cameras like the Monochrom are much less noisy, with huge benefit of minimal noise versus their higher film ISO equivalent. That is a large advantage in my view, given flexibility it allows in less light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted May 31, 2014 Share #19 Posted May 31, 2014 inkjet or not, i find the real difference comes with the printing. saw a ralph gibson exhibit at the leica gallery in nyc. his latest shots with the mm did not look, to me at least, nearly as good as his film shots. what he cranked up to look like grain looked like what it is, noise. anyway, it is an aesthetic so it is for each of us to choose. i do enjoy my m9, though, and the flexibility of digital. i agree about the tri-x comparison. here is a shot taken with my m4 and adox chs 100 II film shot at 100 iso. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/227928-comparison-of-mm-and-m6/?do=findComment&comment=2601372'>More sharing options...
atufte Posted May 31, 2014 Share #20 Posted May 31, 2014 OK, so how many rolls of film and developing, including an M6 can you get for the price of an MM? A lot. Put it another way...how many ISO 6400 pictures with similar results as 400 ISO film can you take with your M6? How many perfectly usable pictures can you take in pitch darkness with your M6? And last but not least, I would love to know how you change ISO several times during 36 exposures? So that argument does not hold up i'm afraid... Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.