Gerard Posted June 2, 2014 Share #41 Posted June 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here's a few... I love the second image. Beautiful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Hi Gerard, Take a look here Comparison of MM and M6. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tookaphotoof Posted June 2, 2014 Share #42 Posted June 2, 2014 Sblitz, I'd rather choose the camera / film on the looks I like to achieve that day. Money shouldn't be the deciding factor in this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted June 4, 2014 Share #43 Posted June 4, 2014 agreed, when money is no barrier …. believing equal images, digital is an upfront cost without having to carry around lots of film on a trip and deal with the variability of developing/scanning etc after taking the shot. personally i prefer the look of film, do less pp, but appreciate my m9 a lot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted June 4, 2014 Share #44 Posted June 4, 2014 I have always liked the look of film but IMO I can also get a look which I like with digital. I still own my M6 and every 1or2 years I think to shoot some film...but then the film ends up in the camera for long time, doesn't get developed, doesn't get scanned or printed etc. I also now miss the flexibility of changing the ISO or even better auto ISO. That's the reason why I much prefer a digital M over my M6. The discussion about tri-x in 35mm film (=grainy images) - is a little bit onesided IMO. It is a certain effect and it can look great and interesting in certain images, but I don't see it as "THE" film look. If I would still shoot film regulary I would rather have the tonality and resolution of medium format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted June 4, 2014 Share #45 Posted June 4, 2014 I just read the article...I would say a matter of taste when shooting ISO400. Reasons to use a MM for me are - the flexibility to use it in all kinds of different (including low) light - I don't like scanning + scanned files are really big - Sometimes I like grain but not allways - Sometimes I like printing big and the digital Ms give me more resolution Everything could look different if I had more time and patience available and if I had a very good lab nearby or if I was good in the lab myself. For me one big challenge for digital is "good" skin color. But I guess color is not so much the point for b&w Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tookaphotoof Posted June 4, 2014 Share #46 Posted June 4, 2014 agreed, when money is no barrier …. believing equal images, digital is an upfront cost without having to carry around lots of film on a trip and deal with the variability of developing/scanning etc after taking the shot. personally i prefer the look of film, do less pp, but appreciate my m9 a lot I think we're on the same boat, albeit I use the M240 for digital. About the looks, it's why I still shoot a lot with film. I develop b/w myself and recently started to experiment with color also. Takes time, but I'm saving huge on costs this way. Tom, I don't even use Trix. I prefer HP5+ for b/w. To me it has more character than Trix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 4, 2014 Share #47 Posted June 4, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some very interesting images and differing points-of-view in the thread. My own perspective is someone coming from 100% digital and almost entirely transferring to film now, though with very little experience or knowledge of black-and-white films, and still mostly using Kodak color films. One of the things that surprised (and delighted) me over the last year is discovering that there exists an enormous number and variety of b&w films, each with its own characteristics and unique look: different tonalities and richness; coarse or fine grain; each rendering the scene in a unique and organic way. I've barely scratched the surface. The other day Veikko - the guy who runs the Teamframkallning lab here in Stockholm - reached into his fridge and simply gave me some rolls of different 120 Ilford films to try. For me this is all part of the fun. I saw one post earlier in the thread that dismissed film as "nostalgia" but that doesn't figure in my experience at all: for me, all of this is new and exciting and totally unknown. The Monochrom output looks nice in many ways - maybe it's just one more expression of the black&white domain - but right now my untrained eye prefers the film renderings in the comparisons I've seen. That's just my feeling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted June 4, 2014 Share #48 Posted June 4, 2014 One of the things that surprised (and delighted) me over the last year is discovering that there exists an enormous number and variety of b&w films, each with its own characteristics and unique look: different tonalities and richness; coarse or fine grain; each rendering the scene in a unique and organic way. I've barely scratched the surface. ....... The Monochrom output looks nice in many ways - maybe it's just one more expression of the black&white domain - but right now my untrained eye prefers the film renderings in the comparisons I've seen. That's just my feeling. I'm going the opposite way to you, from film (Leicas since mid 90s, Mamiya 7, Ebony 4x5). I am surprised (and delighted)! by the look that I can get from now extensive testing of both the M240 and MM. For large prints, especially, I think high end full frame like the Leica Ms and their astonishing glass produce such high acuity that the image just launches out at you from the print. It's reminiscent of large format B&W in Rodinal, but without any post processing noise when sharpening in PS. It is quite astonishing what these small Ms can achieve versus all the bulky medium and large format that I've used for years. Completely different look between film and Monochrom, of course, in my view due to the acuity (ie, edge sharpness) of the latter. For prints to 20x16, I probably prefer 35mm film due to its tonal rendering. For large prints (50 inches on the long side) the digital Ms outpace my Leica M7 output very easily in terms of resolution (even when drum scanning brilliant film like Fuji Acros) and I like the Monochrom (if well processed in a subtle way) given its output appears more like 120 or 4x5 to my eye due to its grain-free and high acuity look. I'm not pixel peeping on a screen to form that opinion, rather, it's a feel I get after seeing the prints off a Lambda or Lightjet printer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted June 5, 2014 Share #49 Posted June 5, 2014 This is a very interesting perspective on the subject of this thread. I will lift a quote out of it by Peter Turnley: "... the Leica Monochrom is in my mind a game changer. The most important aspect about this camera is that it allows one to see and photograph in low light. The camera produces files at 1600 and 2500 ISO that are spectacular in the subtlety of the mid tones and in the detail in the shadows and highlights. ... Brassai would have loved this camera, as would have HCB, Kertesz, Doisneau, Boubat, Ronis, and many others." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotium Posted June 5, 2014 Share #50 Posted June 5, 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... Yo, how much of the work in your gallery is shot with the Monochrom? Very pleasing grain and tones in those. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 5, 2014 Share #51 Posted June 5, 2014 I think the most important thing to bear in mind, which sometimes gets forgotten in online discussions, is that different people will have totally divergent interests and priorities. The fact that in some cases digital will give 'more resolution' or 'sharpness' can be of no interest whatsoever to another person, who may judge the quality of an image by other criteria. Peter Turnley is a contemporary photographer - some people like his work while others don't particularly. He can speak for himself by all means, but I personally feel he is presumptuous to rope in some of the greatest dead photographers of the 20th century to bolster the expression of his personal preferences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted June 5, 2014 Share #52 Posted June 5, 2014 Yo, how much of the work in your gallery is shot with the Monochrom? Very pleasing grain and tones in those. Thanks, about 90%... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted June 5, 2014 Share #53 Posted June 5, 2014 agreed, when money is no barrier …. For a moment I forgot I was on a Leica forum, then this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archiver Posted June 5, 2014 Share #54 Posted June 5, 2014 I've just made a return to film in the last week after a three or four year hiatus. To be honest, I haven't had the chance to finish a roll or get anything developed, so I can't comment about the full experience yet, ha ha ha. But I do know that the last four years have been spent shooting with the M9, so I'm looking forward to how that improves my ability to shoot the M7! The costs of film vs. digital can be looked at in a number of ways. Film has its own costs, as does digital, but they can overlap depending on your workflow. For example: Film: - camera - film - development - scan - print or - camera - film - chems - tanks etc - enlarger - paper or - camera - film - development - scanner (varying cost) - computer - harddrives - prints if desired Digital removes the middle section and goes straight from camera and lens to computer and harddrive. And that is to say nothing of reliable increase in resolution, acuity and flexibility of digital files. Some compare the image quality of the M9 to medium format film. One could say that when you buy a M9, you are actually buying the equivalent of medium format film quality in a 35mm package with a built-in scanner. Same for the MM and M240. Whereas when you buy a M6 and you want digital output, you have to buy the camera, film, development (self or other) AND a scanner. And it is unlikely that you'll get medium format quality scans from 35mm film, no matter how good your scanner, film or lenses are. You can dirty up high quality digital files, but you can't increase the quality of 35mm to medium format. But I still enjoy film for the experience. I love the feeling of a good film camera, the colours of certain emulsions, the sense that I'm imprinting light permanently into a microcosmic record that I can see and touch. And by goodness, I love the gentle release and muted snick of the M7 shutter. Bliss. Digital M vs Film M in ten years time: I have a Canon S45, purchased in 2002. It is now 12 years old, and still 95% functional. The one thing that does not work is the Play switch, which is a bit tetchy. Otherwise, it still takes photos like it did in 2002. I have a Canon S70 which I bought in 2005, so it's about 9 years old, and it still works. Admittedly, I only used them for about two years each, so age isn't the issue. But I have a Ricoh GRD III which I have used constantly over the course of four years, and it is still going strong. Same with my M9. And I've taken tens of thousands of images, probably 36,000+ with each of those cameras in that time. That's like a thousand rolls of film. For me to buy and dev/scan/print a thousand rolls of film following my normal process, I would pay $30,000, because it costs me at least $30 to buy/dev/scan/print one roll of Fuji XTRA 400. $45 if I switch that to Ektar or Portra. $65 if I change that to Provia. Now, I wouldn't shoot film the same way I shoot digital, because I shoot a lot of digital test and training images. But 1000 rolls is a lot to consider. A film M is a camera for life. Or is it? Leica have long had the marketing slogan that a M, particularly a film M, is a camera for life. But that depends on whether film will be produced for your photographic life. I am confident that there will always be a method to scan negatives and slides, from dedicated machines to macro lens McGyver setups. As long as there are digital cameras with macro lenses, you will always be able to 'scan' a frame of film. But with the recent discontinuation of many film stocks, who is to say that film will still exist in another 20, 30, 40 years time? And in a roundabout way, this is another reason why I'm bringing film back into my life. I want to enjoy it while it is here, and not suddenly wake up to find all the labs closed and film consigned to the 8-track chapter of history. That time may be closer than we would want to imagine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 5, 2014 Share #55 Posted June 5, 2014 That time may be closer than we would want to imagine. You make some interesting points - until you get to that last defeatist sentence. These make me REALLY angry because they influenced me as a clueless photographic noob when I read them everywhere online at least ten or twelve years ago, keeping me from trying this 'imminently dead' medium until just four or five years ago, and missing thousands of images that could have been captured on film instead. These ominous, doom-laden statements scare people away - totally unnecessarily - and the fact that they're proven wrong year after year after year doesn't seem to lessen the number of times I still read them. As for M9 vs medium format: the resolution and sharpness is there, but doesn't come close in the richness and tonality of the film files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted June 5, 2014 Share #56 Posted June 5, 2014 As for M9 vs medium format: the resolution and sharpness is there, but doesn't come close in the richness and tonality of the film files. I agree with you there. MF film, whether colour or B&W, has beautiful richness and depth to it. A huge step up in image quality versus 35mm film too on both those parameters. MF images resemble how I recall a scene, ie, it produces a very "natural" looking output. Whereas 35mm Digital, whilst I love its workflow and convenience, often has the look (perhaps inevitably) of a freeze frame from my HD TV. Bitingly sharp and often pleasing, but with an image that is not quite "right" in terms of its naturalness. My eyes don't see the world with the same ultra high level of sharpness (resolution and especially acuity) that digital does .... On a side note, though, I do find the M240 files to be quite a lot richer in tone than the M9s, and with a smoothness and depth to the M240 files (ie, lower artificial digitised looking sharpness) that is more similar to MF film than what I've seen off the M9. With it's better dynamic range too, there is something of "MF Portra" to the M240 images that I rather like over the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted June 5, 2014 Share #57 Posted June 5, 2014 I personally feel he is presumptuous to rope in some of the greatest dead photographers of the 20th century to bolster the expression of his personal preferences. It didn't bother me that he made the statement since he worked closely with many of those photographers he named over years if not decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 5, 2014 Share #58 Posted June 5, 2014 It didn't bother me that he made the statement since he worked closely with many of those photographers he named over years if not decades. As far as I know his only close connection with Cartier-Bresson was sharing the same printer. Maybe that gave him special privilege in deciding which camera HCB would endorse if he were working today. I really wasn't aware he'd worked with Brassai, Kertesz and the others? But then I wouldn't have heard of him at all if I didn't read theonlinephotographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted June 5, 2014 Share #59 Posted June 5, 2014 Well eventually when we get to 50 Mp sensors digital will inevitably produce much more natural and filmic results as it will do that same thing film does where only high contrast definite structures stand out at very fine resolution if at all. Then it literally will be 'like' medium format film scans. Some of the early files from the A7r did in fact remind me of film scans, if anything many of those M lenses produce more impressive results in a 30 Mp 135 film scan than those early 36 Mp images! Its not about pixel peeping though is it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted June 6, 2014 Share #60 Posted June 6, 2014 I wouldn't have heard of him at all if I didn't read theonlinephotographer. I'm sorry you missed my point. I believe what Turnley was saying is that the high ISO performance of the MM is a significant advance that allows better photography in low light, which those earlier photographers would have appreciated. Nothing more. Nothing less. No claim of supremacy of one method of image capture over another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.