gotium Posted June 6, 2014 Share #61 Posted June 6, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks, about 90%... Well, that's interesting. They certainly don't have that plasticky, overly-smooth, blown-highlighty digital look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Hi gotium, Take a look here Comparison of MM and M6. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Archiver Posted June 6, 2014 Share #62 Posted June 6, 2014 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. Sorry you felt that way about what I wrote. If everyone who was interested in film would just go out and shoot it on a regular basis, the labs would stay in business and the companies would keep producing it. I guess many of us are doing our part for that outcome. In fact, what I said could also be interpreted as a call to action, because the best time to shoot film is NOW, rather than some indeterminate future. That's why I'm doing it. I want the enjoyment of shooting film, the thrill of leafing through my prints in the lab and seeing my work for the first time. I want the colours, the richness, the delicious haptic experience. I want albums full of emotional and yet imperfect prints with little handwritten notes beside them. I can't get those with digital. I never said, 'film is doomed, don't shoot it'. I said, 'you don't know what will happen in the future, so shoot film NOW'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tookaphotoof Posted June 6, 2014 Share #63 Posted June 6, 2014 Now that people are spending ridiculous money on plastic lomo cameras, manufacturers should start to bring out and marketing serious film cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted June 6, 2014 Share #64 Posted June 6, 2014 Then it literally will be 'like' medium format film scans. apart from that it won't LITERALLY be LIKE film as its digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted June 6, 2014 Share #65 Posted June 6, 2014 Not starting an argument but I used the word scan which I though was an obvious point of clarification. If one want to be really literal we may as well delete this whole thread as film and digital as sensors are so different that comparisons are mostly just peoples highly subjective opinion on the qualities they see in each medium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted June 7, 2014 Share #66 Posted June 7, 2014 Well it won't still though will it, because a medium format film is film and then scanning it, but a medium format sensor captures the images. It is literally entirely different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share #67 Posted June 7, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some very interesting points here. As many have pointed out, film and digital photography are different methods of producing an image: both have advantages and disadvantages. What most interests me is how the prints look. I know that film can look wonderful when printed on traditional silver halide paper in a darkroom, but I have no experience of how a digital print will look when printed on a high-end inkjet printer. Can anyone give their opinion of how the two compare? On the subject of inkjet printers; it would seem that in order to get a true black and white inkjet print, one has to purchase at least an A3 printer to get the required black and grey inks. It is a pity that an A3 printer capable of making good black and white prints is not available. Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ansel_Adams Posted June 7, 2014 Share #68 Posted June 7, 2014 I really don't get the MM at all. I just don't see its attraction personally. Film is just so wonderful to work with and aesthetically I much prefer it to anything I have ever seen digitally. I guess its a personal choice at the end of the day. So each to their own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 7, 2014 Share #69 Posted June 7, 2014 Some very interesting points here. As many have pointed out, film and digital photography are different methods of producing an image: both have advantages and disadvantages. What most interests me is how the prints look. I know that film can look wonderful when printed on traditional silver halide paper in a darkroom, but I have no experience of how a digital print will look when printed on a high-end inkjet printer. Can anyone give their opinion of how the two compare? On the subject of inkjet printers; it would seem that in order to get a true black and white inkjet print, one has to purchase at least an A3 printer to get the required black and grey inks. It is a pity that an A3 printer capable of making good black and white prints is not available. I've seen my share of crap looking film and digital prints, as well as some marvelous ones using each. Even using the same materials. Guess what, it's really not about the gear. And to make it more complicated, a good photographer is not always a good printer, and vice versa. And the part about requiring an A3 printer is nonsense. There are myriad options and variables in the entire workflow….film or digital…to consider. And even then, without a good eye and good judgment, the rest doesn't matter. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share #70 Posted June 7, 2014 I've seen my share of crap looking film and digital prints, as well as some marvelous ones using each. Even using the same materials. Guess what, it's really not about the gear. And to make it more complicated, a good photographer is not always a good printer, and vice versa. And the part about requiring an A3 printer is nonsense. There are myriad options and variables in the entire workflow….film or digital…to consider. And even then, without a good eye and good judgment, the rest doesn't matter. Jeff Jeff, I agree that it is easy to make both film and digital prints badly, but I have never had a chance to see great digital work from inkjet printers. I have been lucky enough to see silver halide b&w prints by W Eugene Smith many years ago, and I've also seen an exhibition by Sebastiao Salgado; although I believe he doesn't print his own photographs. I don't care: they were stunning. My own experience in printing b&w from an A4 Canon printer have been less than satisfactory. I don't blame the printer as it only has one black ink cartridge, so how could it be otherwise? I'd be very interested to hear the options and variables in your workflow that circumvent this problem. Which A3 printer do you use? I've come to the conclusion that the real test of any workflow, digital or film, is the quality of the print. The last stage of any workflow is the print. At first I thought that having a good inkjet printer would be the best option: I could print both colour and black and white, and in the comfort of my own home, but as I look further into the complexities of digital printing, and the need for a large A3 printer to get the range of black and grey inks necessary to make exhibition quality prints (please prove me wrong here) I'm beginning to think that the traditional darkroom may be an easier option - at least for b&w work. Hence my question. Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted June 7, 2014 Share #71 Posted June 7, 2014 What most interests me is how the prints look. I know that film can look wonderful when printed on traditional silver halide paper in a darkroom, but I have no experience of how a digital print will look when printed on a high-end inkjet printer. Can anyone give their opinion of how the two compare? Mike, recently I have experimented printing a well-prepared digital file on an inkjet printer (Epson 7800) and sending the same file to Whitewall for a silver print on Ilford paper. The silver prints are spectacular and probably the way I'm going to go for exhibition. Surprisingly, the inkjet prints were sharper and held the shadows a little better than the silver prints. They definitely had that inkjet printer "look," however. To me it doesn't make sense to expose on film and then print on inkjet. Seems like it defeats the purpose of using film. But the opposite does make sense, to capture digitally for ultimate control of the image then print to silver. I recently saw an exhibition of B&W inkjet prints from the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and they were horrible! Why museums are accepting poorly produced inkjet prints is beyond my comprehension. It's about $22 for a silver print from digital file, but I frankly don't make so many prints that that would break the bank. The ultimate test, I suppose, would be to take an identical photo using an M6 and a MM and make silver prints of both. Probably even better would be to have 4x5 internegs made and then process them traditionally in my own darkroom, but that equipment is in storage right now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevesurf Posted June 7, 2014 Share #72 Posted June 7, 2014 Mike, recently I have experimented printing a well-prepared digital file on an inkjet printer (Epson 7800) and sending the same file to Whitewall for a silver print on Ilford paper. The silver prints are spectacular and probably the way I'm going to go for exhibition. Surprisingly, the inkjet prints were sharper and held the shadows a little better than the silver prints. They definitely had that inkjet printer "look," however. To me it doesn't make sense to expose on film and then print on inkjet. Seems like it defeats the purpose of using film. But the opposite does make sense, to capture digitally for ultimate control of the image then print to silver. I recently saw an exhibition of B&W inkjet prints from the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and they were horrible! Why museums are accepting poorly produced inkjet prints is beyond my comprehension. It's about $22 for a silver print from digital file, but I frankly don't make so many prints that that would break the bank. The ultimate test, I suppose, would be to take an identical photo using an M6 and a MM and make silver prints of both. Probably even better would be to have 4x5 internegs made and then process them traditionally in my own darkroom, but that equipment is in storage right now. I have to agree; big differences now and later. I found DSI's promotion video, which is very interesting: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 8, 2014 Share #73 Posted June 8, 2014 I'm beginning to think that the traditional darkroom may be an easier option - at least for b&w work. I think you missed my key points, Mike. Neither is easy; each require time, understanding, skill, a disciplined workflow and a good eye. The print is the ultimate goal for me. I've collected them (and photo books) for over 25 years, and in that time have built 4 darkrooms in different houses for my own work. I do my own printing, matting and framing. Been there, done that. Five years ago I switched from film to digital, still doing my own work from picture to displayed print. Sure there was (and still is) a learning curve, but the issues are much the same. Only now I don't have to deal with smells, chemicals, washing, cleaning, and so on. Pick your poison. Jeff PS To answer your question, I use an Epson 3800. But that's not the point (or at least it's only one of many issues). One can use Epson inks or a dedicated b/w inkset, e.g., Piezography from Jon Cone. Search the digital PP section and you can spend a few days reading what's been covered many times on loads of digital b/w printing topics. More importantly, I encourage you to look at a lot more prints…silver and digital...there are galleries and museums and shows everywhere for this….I never stop looking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotium Posted June 8, 2014 Share #74 Posted June 8, 2014 Some very interesting points here. As many have pointed out, film and digital photography are different methods of producing an image: both have advantages and disadvantages. What most interests me is how the prints look. I know that film can look wonderful when printed on traditional silver halide paper in a darkroom, but I have no experience of how a digital print will look when printed on a high-end inkjet printer. Can anyone give their opinion of how the two compare? On the subject of inkjet printers; it would seem that in order to get a true black and white inkjet print, one has to purchase at least an A3 printer to get the required black and grey inks. It is a pity that an A3 printer capable of making good black and white prints is not available. Mike. My best prints are those that come from scanned negatives, printed B and W with either an epson 2880 or a canon pixma pro-1; some are from B and W film, others from Ektar converted to B and W digitally. I find the results can be absolutely lovely. Having said that, I've never had as much luck with darkroom prints from negatives; a few rare successes, and a lot of work to get them. I don't think that I have the skills. For whatever reason, I have more trouble getting the prints I like on the inkjets from digital files. No idea why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 8, 2014 Share #75 Posted June 8, 2014 The last stage of any workflow is the print. Matting, framing and especially glass and lighting can change everything…all part of the workflow. This has direct implications for the look and feel of the print, whether silver or inkjet, or hybrid. One often needs to print differently for different lighting and display conditions, or vice versa. I knew what you meant, but a lot of folks miss this critical part. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atournas Posted June 8, 2014 Share #76 Posted June 8, 2014 I believed that such comparisons and arguments had long been settled now that we are mature digital boys and girls. Or, at least, when they appeared, they were confined into personal statements about one's taste. Why should one try to convince the others that they are totally wrong in their choices? There are so many, frequently uncontrollable, factors in the process. Praise for the MM, but then the final print depends on the printer. Praise for the fine-grain film, but then the final print depends on one's expertise in the darkroom...Well, it doesn't look to me as a legitimate comparison scheme. In my view, the medium and large format film is still very impressive and alive. But when it comes to Leica, I only occasionally use the MP over the M9 for purely sentimental reasons. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share #77 Posted June 8, 2014 Jeff, I'll take a look at the Digital PP area: thanks: I too love photo books. I asked the question here because for many the MM has been a game changer. I have MP and M240 but I have been wary of trusting my archive to hard drive, and have decided to print my best work. Tim, I too am very interested in making traditional silver halide prints from digital files: either from whitewall or via an internegative that I can use myself. My local university has just opened up their darkroom for hire so next week should see me in there. As you say “The ultimate test, I suppose, would be to take an identical photo using an M6 and a MM and make silver prints of both.” and I intend to do just that. Gotium, that Canon Pro 1 is tempting. Big but tempting. Thanks for the link to DSI, Steve; very interesting. Some good comments here and some very good photographs on your websites. Mike. Zenfolio | The long term photographic essay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant Posted June 9, 2014 Share #78 Posted June 9, 2014 OP, I didn't read the report as yet. Here is M6 and MM test as well as Fuji X and M240. Camera Comparisons Can't compare M6 and M240 when you blow then up. M6 is about 4mp when flatbed scanned. MM is going in the direction of D800. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant Posted June 9, 2014 Share #79 Posted June 9, 2014 Sorry you felt that way about what I wrote. If everyone who was interested in film would just go out and shoot it on a regular basis, the labs would stay in business and the companies would keep producing it. I guess many of us are doing our part for that outcome. In fact, what I said could also be interpreted as a call to action, because the best time to shoot film is NOW, rather than some indeterminate future. That's why I'm doing it. I want the enjoyment of shooting film, the thrill of leafing through my prints in the lab and seeing my work for the first time. I want the colours, the richness, the delicious haptic experience. I want albums full of emotional and yet imperfect prints with little handwritten notes beside them. I can't get those with digital. I never said, 'film is doomed, don't shoot it'. I said, 'you don't know what will happen in the future, so shoot film NOW'. Film is on a downtrend. It may never go out completely. But film is dying more and more every day. I could never hope to keep up with things if I shot film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant Posted June 9, 2014 Share #80 Posted June 9, 2014 Mike, recently I have experimented printing a well-prepared digital file on an inkjet printer (Epson 7800) and sending the same file to Whitewall for a silver print on Ilford paper. The silver prints are spectacular and probably the way I'm going to go for exhibition. Surprisingly, the inkjet prints were sharper and held the shadows a little better than the silver prints. They definitely had that inkjet printer "look," however. To me it doesn't make sense to expose on film and then print on inkjet. Seems like it defeats the purpose of using film. But the opposite does make sense, to capture digitally for ultimate control of the image then print to silver. I recently saw an exhibition of B&W inkjet prints from the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and they were horrible! Why museums are accepting poorly produced inkjet prints is beyond my comprehension. It's about $22 for a silver print from digital file, but I frankly don't make so many prints that that would break the bank. The ultimate test, I suppose, would be to take an identical photo using an M6 and a MM and make silver prints of both. Probably even better would be to have 4x5 internegs made and then process them traditionally in my own darkroom, but that equipment is in storage right now. Do your own printing. Computer prints offer much more control than a silver print. nsfw File:'Left Vintage Silver Gelatin Print - Right Inkjet Print' Copyright 1973, 2013 Daniel D. Teoli Jr..JPG - Wikimedia Commons Inkjet does a good job matching silver. Vintage silver print left, inkjet right. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/'Left_Silver_Gelatin_Print_-_Right_Hahnemuehle_Ink_Jet_Print'_Copyright_2013_Daniel_Teoli_Jr..jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.