A fun comparison of MM with real film grain (albeit digitized)

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have taken photos at two Brooklyn Nets games over the past year with my old-yet-trusty 135 tele-elmar.

One game was shot with the MM; the other was shot with my M3 and Ilford 3200

I shot the lens wide open at f4 on both occasions.

The exposure of the shots was essentially the same (although I shot the MM at 2500 per the slight ETTL routine).

Below is one shot from each game.

I added grain to the MM shot, very simply in LR (nothing fancy) (i'll show you later how clean the MM shot came before grain was added).

Can you tell which is from the MM and which is from the Ilford 3200?

#1

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!

 

 

 

#2

 

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting that I can trick anyone here. I'm simply trying to have some fun with this. The right answers may indeed be clear to all. However, I thought there were some serious similarities.

 

Best,

Adam

[leicaphilia]

Hard to tell from a small jpg on a computer screen, but my guess is #1 is the MM and #2 is film.

 

Right?

[jmr237]

My guess is that #1 is digital. It has a brightness and clarity that I usually associate with digital. And the grain in #2 looks like high-ISO film.

[jaapv]

#1 has aliasing in the “pix” sign thus MM...

[billo101]

Kevin Love, this is true!

[leicaphilia]

My guess is that #1 is digital. It has a brightness and clarity that I usually associate with digital. And the grain in #2 looks like high-ISO film.

 

Yes. Its the tonality, detail and relaxed contrast of the #1 that gives it away as the MM. Even though it has "grain" it doesnt have the contrasty look of hi speed film; one look at the crowd and how its rendered in each gives it away- in#1 there's too much clarity and detail which gives it away as digital.

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks to all who played along.

The first is the film shot and the second is the MM shot.

 

Here is the unprocessed (and intentionally flat) film shot directly from the scanner, which is nikon coolscan 9000 that produced a 40MB tiff file. Out of curiosity, I had prints made from the lab in connection with the processing of the 3200 film. I wanted to see how they would come out. They would need quite a bit of "dodge and burn" work to tame the highlights and open the shadows a little. I like the digitized processed version much better (certainly was easier and cheaper than commissioning a customized analog print!). I'm confident that the sharpening artifacts would wash away in a manual silver gelatin print using baryta paper (which I do with Whitewall).

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!

 

 

Here is the processed MM file (shot at 2500 ISO), which was my final version before adding grain for purposes of this comparison.

 

My take on this is that the MM is a very versatile tool which can produce a wide range of renderings assuming the requisite processing skills (which I don't profess to have).

[Jeff S]

One could also fool the audience, as you did, using the M240, with its terrific file flexibility. Or using many other cameras, lenses and/or techniques.

 

This is why I'm always amused when folks draw conclusions….or even make purchases…based on viewing others' work on screen. And similarly amused at locked-in opinions about digital versus film 'looks'. There are far too many variables at play, which the casual viewer generally doesn't know…including the differences between monitors.

 

The only way to make informed judgments is to do make your own prints, with your own pics, using careful and disciplined processing (or carefully directed custom lab work) aimed at a specific rendering. Even then, different papers, and different lighting and display conditions, can significantly alter appearances.

 

Jeff

[A miller]

Hi Jeff -

 

I would have expected no less of a contrarian viewpoint from you.

 

Thank you for your perspective.

 

Best,

 

Adam

[Jeff S]

 

I would have expected no less of a contrarian viewpoint from you.

 

 

I actually supported your view…only further generalizing on the experiment.

[A miller]

Jeff - Thanks for the translation. To be clear, though, my intention wasn't to "fool" anyone. And my view regarding this particular experiment doesn't extend beyond the MM (and it's superor ISO capabilities) vs digitized high ISO B&W film.

 

If you think there are similarities that could be extended to other cameras and gear, you are of course welcome to conduct your own experiments and share the results on the forum.

 

Best regards,

 

Adam

[Jeff S]

...you are of course welcome to conduct your own experiments and share the results on the forum.

 

While the forum remains a source of entertainment (and occasional difference making), I'll be making prints, thanks. I do, however, think there is some learning beyond your 'fun' post, given that all 4 people who made a guess were wrong. I thought there was more of a "method to your madness"…but apparently not. Carry on.

 

Jeff

[Nr90]

Too bad I was too late to answer before the results were given.

 

I would've said #1 was film because of the lesser shadow detail. With delta 3200 being a pushed film I would expect it to show less shadow detail (look at the crowd) vs the MM shot.

A bit cheating perhaps as this isn't really telling them apart from the grain.

[250swb]

With delta 3200 being a pushed film I would expect it to show less shadow detail (look at the crowd) vs the MM shot.

 

I'm not entirely convinced by that analysis because if you look at the highlights the film is far more subtle and tonal, and the MM highlights are on the verge of blowing if not blown, so the exposures were different, or the characteristic curves are different, or both. The film image could have had either a bit more exposure and brought the crowd in, or even more exposure and then compensated in development, which would bring the crowd in and keep the highlights in check.

 

As they stand on the aesthetic side the film image is more harmonious than the MM image because viewers accept dark shadows (because they would never know how dark the shadows really were anyway), but find blown highlights harder to deal with unless they are clearly part of the sought after visual effect. At the arena watching the game the eye would compensate for the bright lights and ignore the shadows, as the film image appears, not see equal amounts of detail in shadow and highlight as the MM image appears. It is part of the 'film is more natural' debate.

 

Steve

[A miller]

Nr90 and Steve - Interesting perspectives, thanks for sharing.

[BerndReini]

Many here have probably seen this excellent comparison between the MM and TriX. I have to admit that I was very surprised by the results especially with regard to the highlights. It seems that the MM holds just as much highlight detail as TriX and it becomes a matter of processing how the digital file is interpreted.

 

I have been lusting for an MM for a long time and I shoot with a friend's occasionally. My ultimate conclusion is that whenever I shot with the MM, I feel the need to "dirty up" the files in post because they are just too clean. Now, on the other hand, I have some black and white negatives where I feel that the extra sharpness and detail I could have gained from shooting with the MM instead, especially in low light situations when I had to use slow shutter speeds, might have benefitted the images.

 

It is a tough call, and I would say that if I didn't live in a city with great photo labs at my finger tips, I would gladly switch from black and white film to the Monochrom.

[Nr90]

I'm not entirely convinced by that analysis because if you look at the highlights the film is far more subtle and tonal, and the MM highlights are on the verge of blowing if not blown, so the exposures were different, or the characteristic curves are different, or both. The film image could have had either a bit more exposure and brought the crowd in, or even more exposure and then compensated in development, which would bring the crowd in and keep the highlights in check.

 

As they stand on the aesthetic side the film image is more harmonious than the MM image because viewers accept dark shadows (because they would never know how dark the shadows really were anyway), but find blown highlights harder to deal with unless they are clearly part of the sought after visual effect. At the arena watching the game the eye would compensate for the bright lights and ignore the shadows, as the film image appears, not see equal amounts of detail in shadow and highlight as the MM image appears. It is part of the 'film is more natural' debate.

 

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

I do agree that it this difference in shadow could come from different exposures and curves as well.

My reasoning was that with Delta 3200 being an ISO 1000 film that when exposed and developed at box speed is pushed to 3200, this will come at the expensive of shadow detail when compared with an image taken at a "true" 2500 ISO, like the MM image.

Thus, with equal lens (which I presume to be true given that the OP mentioned exposures being almost the same), I would expect that the MM is able to retain more shadow detail then the Delta 3200 film.

 

That said, my original comment was not intended as film bashing. I prefer the film image as well.

I just picked up another 6 rolls of Delta 3200 yesterday

[A miller]

Many here have probably seen this excellent comparison between the MM and TriX. I have to admit that I was very surprised by the results especially with regard to the highlights. It seems that the MM holds just as much highlight detail as TriX and it becomes a matter of processing how the digital file is interpreted.

 

I have been lusting for an MM for a long time and I shoot with a friend's occasionally. My ultimate conclusion is that whenever I shot with the MM, I feel the need to "dirty up" the files in post because they are just too clean. Now, on the other hand, I have some black and white negatives where I feel that the extra sharpness and detail I could have gained from shooting with the MM instead, especially in low light situations when I had to use slow shutter speeds, might have benefitted the images.

 

It is a tough call, and I would say that if I didn't live in a city with great photo labs at my finger tips, I would gladly switch from black and white film to the Monochrom.

 

Excellent points. The MM can't be relied on as a direct substitute for film as an absolute proposition (which leaves plenty of situations in which one would prefer to shoot B&W film). But it comes damn close and provides the versatility to toggle b/n 35mm and medium format transparancy levels as well as a range of ISO renditions. The versatility comes as a steep price, however, which is where the rub comes in.

[A miller]

here is the original raw file from my camera

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!

 

here is a link to a post of more film photos from the game http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/356896-some-royal-sightings-last-weeks-brooklyn.html

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M