Comparison of MM and M6

[dant]

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.

 

The reason people like film is that it is = to a soft 4mp and has no pixels just grain. If they made a 6mp cam with grain and no pixels it would be like super sharp 35mm film.

[plasticman]

There's just too many inaccuracies and unfounded assertions in these posts to address them individually or seriously - I simply don't have the time or inclination. I'll do a couple of quick references to cover the main points.

 

One personal observation before just addressing a couple of the points is that there's no doubt in my mind the most anti-film faction are people who've switched from film to digital: it's a natural and well-recognized psychological reflex called Free-choice paradigm, a 'subset' of cognitive dissonance, so whenever I read anyone saying that they shot film for xx years before switching to digital, I don't see that as evidence of unbiased experience.

Naturally my background is digital imaging, so my enthusiasm for film as a personal hobby has the same bias in the opposite direction.

 

Anyway, just to quickly address a couple of the points - that film is like a blurry 4 megapixel sensor (because that's the way it looks on your flatbed scanner) - here's a post showing some 6x6 scans and a 'quick-n-dirty' comparison with the M9:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/120381-imacon-flextight-1-a.html#post1279770

 

and then on the limits of 'resolution' and the way digital adherents caricature the nature of film by describing it as a binary medium (even an article in LFI a couple of years ago did this), there's this classic post on photo-utopia:

 

Photo Utopia: Clumps and Chumps (or why film isn't binary)

 

Right now I can't find the article on film sales from Kodak last year showing an increase in their Pro film sales, but Ilford's results have been widely discussed. Naturally the consumer market is on an enormous and unstoppable slide - just like most people don't listen to vinyl anymore - but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the niche markets being discussed here.

 

Anyway, can't be bothered to discuss this much more. Each medium has its strengths and weaknesses, but unfounded statements based on some flatbed scanning that was probably done with little care or enthusiasm aren't a good basis for reasoned discussion.

[Guest Ansel_Adams]

I agree Plasticman.

 

Actually vinyl sales have been increasing for many years now, after plateauing in the 80s.

 

I personally do not like the aesthetic produced by digital cameras and have stuck with film since the 1970s. There are decades of outstanding work produced on film that are proof enough of its excellence.

[erl]

First up, I must declare to not have read this thread. Even now it is only because I am bound to read it because of a reported post.

 

However, the basic title IMO is ridiculous. I would never seriously attempt to come up with a 'solution' from comparing apples with oranges. That's exactly what the title thread attempts.

 

Futile!

 

Film is film and digital is digital. Who doesn't get that??

Both are brilliant media, just as oil paint and crayon are brilliant media.

 

Pontificating on any comparison, as opposed to preference, is ridiculous.

 

Take a look in the bathroom mirror tomorrow morning and ask the person you see, " are you serious about such comparisons?"

[Mike Rawcs]

The title of the post comes from the link, Tim. My original post asked "I'd be particularly interested to hear from anyone who can compare prints made with both MM and film Leicas.".

 

I agree that the two cameras are not comparable; just different. I'm more interested in how the files from the MM print as I have not had the opportunity to see any. I have found this thread to be most informative and I intend to follow up suggestions including having silver halide and

baryta prints made at Whitewall from a digital file and then having an internegative made from the same file and printing it myself in a darkroom. This, I think, will allow me to make an informed decision on how to print my best work. Thank you everyone.

 

Mike.

[Jeff S]

...and I intend to follow up suggestions including having silver halide and

baryta prints made at Whitewall from a digital file and then having an internegative made from the same file and printing it myself in a darkroom. This, I think, will allow me to make an informed decision on how to print my best work. Thank you everyone.

 

Trying different things is good, a lot better than just asking others, which is what some do. But, I don't see that this approach will enable you to reach any general conclusions about how you should print your work.

 

Any image can be printed myriad ways using the same gear and materials, and even more when changing papers or many other variables including display conditions.

 

Add to this the issue the fact that some of these variables will be controlled by an outside service, in ways probably not understood by you, and you've further made it impossible to reach any universal truths. There isn't a single, or right, 'look' for any given medium or for any given image.

 

You will, however, gain experience and by lots of further experimentation you may come to realize the potential for many different results.

 

Jeff

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is one of the most interesting posts in a long time. Not the actual discussion, but the link to the photos. It confirms what I have known all along: that I really don't NEED a Monochrom. I really, really want one, don't get me wrong, but it is really hard for me to justify trading my M7 and MP, then pay another couple of thousand dollars to get the MM.

 

There is no doubt that the MM shows more detail and has the flexibility of incredibly high useful ISO, but I love the grain of the film images, something I would emulate in post with the MM, and considering how little black and white I shoot it is really a lot more economical to stick with my film Ms and let a custom lab give me great processing and scans for about $30 a roll.

 

All that said, I'm sure I will pick up an MM at some point, but not because I need it.

[Mike Rawcs]

Trying different things is good, a lot better than just asking others, which is what some do. But, I don't see that this approach will enable you to reach any general conclusions about how you should print your work.

 

Any image can be printed myriad ways using the same gear and materials, and even more when changing papers or many other variables including display conditions.

 

Add to this the issue the fact that some of these variables will be controlled by an outside service, in ways probably not understood by you, and you've further made it impossible to reach any universal truths. There isn't a single, or right, 'look' for any given medium or for any given image.

 

You will, however, gain experience and by lots of further experimentation you may come to realize the potential for many different results.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, I hear what you say with regard to print materials and display conditions, types of cover glass etc. affecting the result. I just want to get a feel for the offerings available. My primary motive is to make a print archive of my best work; not so much for display but for preservation. I'm rather hoping that the inkjet test looks really good and that it spurs me to print my own - after a steep learning curve, of course. Can you recommend any good books on the subject?

 

Mike.

 

Mike.

[Jeff S]

Jeff, I hear what you say with regard to print materials and display conditions, types of cover glass etc. affecting the result. I just want to get a feel for the offerings available. My primary motive is to make a print archive of my best work; not so much for display but for preservation. I'm rather hoping that the inkjet test looks really good and that it spurs me to print my own - after a steep learning curve, of course. Can you recommend any good books on the subject?

 

Mike, my comments relate to the print itself, not just the display conditions; I only pointed those out as a secondary but critical issue. There is no one inkjet print result. Your same file could be printed to look many different ways right out of the printer. Whitehall holds no patent on any given look. This is no different than in the darkroom days.

 

As I've tried to say, printing is an art and some do it well and some don't, irrespective of photo taking talents. (And of course a great print of a bad pic means nothing.)

 

There are tons of books, videos, and other resources on printing, digitally and in the darkroom. I again refer you to the Digital PP section for many related discussions. For the front-end basics, there are books by folks like Kelby and Evening, and Julieanne Kost's free video tutorials using Photoshop and LR are useful. For use of Epson printers, Eric Chan has written extensively, as have others. Choosing a paper can be key; I recommend picking one or two at most to keep variables to a minimum as one learns and experiments.

 

In the end, it's not as much about the tools as how they're used. This is cliche for a reason. Why should it be any different than using a camera? The techniques can be understood and learned over time; the eye and judgment required to excel is harder.

 

If your goal is preservation, some of the nuances that, for me, make a print 'sing' or not may not be as relevant for your needs. The only way to know is to give it a shot…and some time…don't expect immediate satisfaction; it's not plug and play.

 

Jeff

 

Addendum…You might want to pick up two paperbacks by Jeff Schewe…The Digital Negative and The Digital Print….lots of good tips on getting to, and refining, the digital print. It's written for users of Photoshop, LR or Camera Raw, but many of the points are more general.

[erl]

OK, I have just allowed myself to skim the original article referred to (curiosity got the better of me) and, for me, it changes nothing.

 

Comparisons of images on the net are not good enough to be convincing, but I have , for a couple of weeks, been able to 'compare' an MM with my film cameras. M, M7 and 111f (and other nameless ones). I rate all the film cameras as equal for this debate, as it it really is film V's digital, isn't it?

 

I must say I am blown away by the MM's ability to render detail, which must be properly processed in some way to get a good result. Likewise, film must be carefully processed appropriately to be any good. The MM's ability to retain fabulous 'quality' at very high ISO's is just too good. Wow.

 

The acid test is yet to be reached. The print!

Yes, the MM does print beautifully, and I habitually print to full A2 size. The funny, but obvious thing is, sometimes that 'super' quality is not the best result for an image. To condense my point, currently my best selling and most sought after image is one from Venice, shot on my Leica 111f with Summitar 50/2.0 lens using Ilford Delta100 film.

 

So a possible conclusion to comparing the M6 (or any film camera) to the MM depends, I would suggest, on the desired result, which can and will vary wildly.

 

Like BerndReini (earlier post) I don't need an MM but I really want one because I love using fine gear, just for starters.

[kanzlr]

Actually, as a hobbyist it is not only the technical quality of the final image. I enjoy using my M4 and I enjoy working in the Darkroom, but I cannot deny that my M8 gives me superb results, the MM would provide even better files I am sure. Still, I do it for the joy of pulling out a well exposed, artistically pleasing image from the tray

[NJH]

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.

 

Here is one of mine, full size scan as it came back from the lab with no 'extra' PP

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97808778/FilmScans/25880013.JPG

 

Film is Fuji Acros shot with the Elmar-M 50 on my M7. The scan works out at about 29 MP (6774 x 4492 pixels). The window at the bottom of the building in the middle looks like it has a clothes horse in it.

 

Its funny actually that an obvious limitation is the foreground is slightly out of focus because shooting at 50 ISO (yellow filter) in the evening doesn't given me enough scope for closing the lens down to get the depth of field. I learned recently that contrary to some internet myths I am needing at least 1/2xFL to get consistently sharp hand held shots on 35mm film. I always felt I have very steady hands and the M7 is a wonderfully damped slick and quiet camera but this is what I am finding for me.

 

I am happy with the image quality and 'look' of what I am getting from this film and processing chain which is all that matters to me, anyone else is welcome to look at that image above and see how they feel about it. Its not an especially good photograph but hopefully it adds something to this thread.

[Archiver]

Here is one of mine, full size scan as it came back from the lab with no 'extra' PP

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97808778/FilmScans/25880013.JPG

 

Film is Fuji Acros shot with the Elmar-M 50 on my M7. The scan works out at about 29 MP (6774 x 4492 pixels). The window at the bottom of the building in the middle looks like it has a clothes horse in it.

 

That is seriously impressive in terms of detail resolved. What did the lab use to scan this image? Did they also develop the film?

[Archiver]

The reason people like film is that it is = to a soft 4mp and has no pixels just grain. If they made a 6mp cam with grain and no pixels it would be like super sharp 35mm film.

 

That's an interesting assertion. I do think that the dynamic range has a lot to do with it, too.

 

Although it doesn't entirely fit your criteria, the original Sigma DP1 offered an aps-c sensor with only about 4.7mp resolution. It also had excellent colour depth (not accuracy) and dynamic range, and it produces some of the most film-like images I've seen from a digital camera. So much so, that I stopped shooting film for a while after I bought one. The black and white conversions were quite amazing, as well.

[NJH]

That is seriously impressive in terms of detail resolved. What did the lab use to scan this image? Did they also develop the film?

 

They develop a lot of B&W apparently, more than anything else. He does all the B&W in ID-11 I guess in some kind of dip and dunk system, I haven't done any home development yet. The scanner is a Noritsu but they are buying another one as apparently it is slowing them down to much. I think that puts our home process chain into context as commercial scanners are unbelievably fast compared to home scanners.

 

Thanks for your comments Archiver, I am very happy with the results I am getting and feel I just don't need more quality. I feel comfortable getting 16" or slightly bigger prints done, much bigger than that and the cost goes up dramatically anyway. The main thing I need to do in my photographic life is get much more and shoot much more film

[Archiver]

They develop a lot of B&W apparently, more than anything else. He does all the B&W in ID-11 I guess in some kind of dip and dunk system, I haven't done any home development yet. The scanner is a Noritsu but they are buying another one as apparently it is slowing them down to much. I think that puts our home process chain into context as commercial scanners are unbelievably fast compared to home scanners.

 

Thanks for your comments Archiver, I am very happy with the results I am getting and feel I just don't need more quality. I feel comfortable getting 16" or slightly bigger prints done, much bigger than that and the cost goes up dramatically anyway. The main thing I need to do in my photographic life is get much more and shoot much more film

 

When you get black and white results like that, it's a matter of 'how good is good enough'. I think that's good enough!

 

The only time I've had scans from a Noritsu was when I was one time on holiday in Hong Kong. I walked into a photo lab and came back in the afternoon to surprisingly large and good quality scans. Most places in Melbourne use Fuji Frontier machines, which, while good, seem to default to a smaller res scan than the Noritsu. I once asked my local lab, who uses a Frontier, if they could do higher res scans, and they said they would have to fire up the Nikon Coolscan to do so. I'll have to hunt around and see if anyone else uses a Noritsu in Melbourne.

 

Some people are buying secondhand Pakon/Kodak commercial scanners and getting very good results, although it's tied to an older version of Windows.

 

Film is awesome. I've just come back to it after a four year hiatus and it is just lovely.

[tobey bilek]

how many rolls of film = cost of MM. here in nyc, about $30 per roll for film, develop, and scan all shots on roll at a top notch place. MM is $8000. Simple math, that comes to 267 rolls of film. If you are a pro, a roll a day, one year's worth. Unless on vacation, I venture to say about a roll a week for me, say two to be liberal. At a roll a week, a little more than 5 years for payoff. Just the math side of the equation.

 

Ahmen. Digi is not cost effective for most of us.

 

But to be able to make 6 shots and load into computer is worth it. No developing, no drying, no scanning.

 

As chems get more difficult to find to low volume home use and as more more places process less and less , the quality goes down.

 

And I can do things with digital I can not do with film like change color saturation, contrast, film curve, precise dodge,burn, that is the same from print to print.

 

On to of it all, I still find film has a certain fun factor so I have kept a few film cameras.

[plasticman]

And I can do things with digital I can not do with film like change color saturation, contrast, film curve, precise dodge,burn, that is the same from print to print.

 

I do all of this within my hybrid workflow after scanning on the Coolscan. It's absurd to claim these parts of the operation as an 'advantage' for digital - they are just part of the same decision process regardless of originating medium.

 

Just as a footnote, I tend to do a lot less post-processing on my film images, because (given enough light) the original is far more pleasing (to my eye) in its native state, than an equivalent raw capture.

[MattMaber]

Just as a footnote, I tend to do a lot less post-processing on my film images, because (given enough light) the original is far more pleasing (to my eye) in its native state, than an equivalent raw capture.

 

Totally.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Archiver]

I do all of this within my hybrid workflow after scanning on the Coolscan. It's absurd to claim these parts of the operation as an 'advantage' for digital - they are just part of the same decision process regardless of originating medium.

 

Just as a footnote, I tend to do a lot less post-processing on my film images, because (given enough light) the original is far more pleasing (to my eye) in its native state, than an equivalent raw capture.

 

Raw capture is flat by its nature, and I usually create Lightroom presets for each digital camera I use. Film obviously has its own preloaded 'look' or 'profile' or (ugh) 'filter'. I don't have my own scanner yet, so that part is outside of my experience, but when I get film scans from the lab I am usually very, very happy with them.