phovsho Posted May 15, 2007 Share #1 Posted May 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) How do people find the performance of an M8 (raw) versus their M film cameras? I've heard very good things about the M8's performance as a B+W camera. But does it produce superior results than a film camera, from your point of view? I'm sick of the poor quality of the prints I'm getting from my B+W printers, and don't have time to do my own developing and printing. I'm hoping the M8 plus a good printer (epson 2400?) will allow me to get pretty close to the results I used to get when I had access to good developers and printers in NY. I know digital isn't film photography, so it is a case of apples versus oranges, but I want to think that the M8 isn't a step backwards. I'll be keeping a few M film cameras. Best M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 Hi phovsho, Take a look here B+W: M8 vs. Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted May 15, 2007 Share #2 Posted May 15, 2007 The M8 is an excellent b&w camera IMHO. I've posted lots of photographs in the photo forum, most of them have probably been in b&w. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 15, 2007 Share #3 Posted May 15, 2007 It's okay. In my opinion the output is not as aesthetically pleasing as properly exposed and developed B&W film but the M8 is hardly alone in this regard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 15, 2007 Share #4 Posted May 15, 2007 Hard to compare. Film-chemical prints are hard to beat and have a look of their own that is very appealing - but you must do it yourself or have a lab you can trust to do it your way. Digital B&W by the M8 looks superb as well, albeit different. But you must do the postprocessing to get it optimal and you must have a good printer set up right or have a good lab that will print it to your taste. In other words, to get the best results you must choose your workflow and then optimize it.For both systems! Film or M8? A matter of taste....If you are unhappy with the results from film now on account of the print quality you manage to get out of it I'm sure you will find the M8 superior - provided you get the processing right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 15, 2007 Share #5 Posted May 15, 2007 Ian's right, they don't look like traditional b&w, but I think they can look ok in their own right. A couple of recent shots I posted in the photo forum... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/24312-blackpool-dancing-day-away.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/24351-blackpool-tower-ballroom-no-2-a.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/24318-knott-end-ferry-quay.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted May 15, 2007 Share #6 Posted May 15, 2007 Here's one from the weekend, taken in jpeg bw mode. 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/24204-bw-m8-vs-film/?do=findComment&comment=255824'>More sharing options...
thrid Posted May 15, 2007 Share #7 Posted May 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Obviously the M8 images will have less grain at pretty much any asa. This may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your taste. If you can live with 25asa document film you can generate images that reportedly have 500 megapixels of resolution, but that's not really a practical solution. Digital sees further into the shadows, but is lousy at dealing with highlights. Film deals superbly with hghlights and struggles with shadow detail. The M8 has better dynamic range than slidefilm, but less than negative. Useable range should be around 8 stops. Useable being the keyword. This is pretty much standard for a good digicam, with the exception of the new Fuji Finepix S5 PRO, that gets a solid 10 stops out of it's HDR Super CCD sensor. The new Canon 1D mk III should also do very well, due to it's new highlight mode and 14bit A/D converters. I really wish the manufacturers would get out of the megapixel race and concentrate on dynamic range. More exposure range and higher color resolution (16bit min) is what we need. Depending on how you process black and white film (and who's claim you believe) you can get between 10 and 18 stops of range. To me what ruins black/white in digital are clipped highlights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted May 15, 2007 Share #8 Posted May 15, 2007 In color it's no contest, the M8 is head and shoulders better then 135 film with it's mushy dye cloud grain. B+W is a different story. The M8 produces a look that is different. If you like it it's better, but if you are in love with the look of Tri-X developed in Rodinal and printed analogue -then the M8 is not going to be a satisfactory replacement. I don't think the various digital grain effects are a replacement for film -although they are useful in providing some tooth to an image- again not better or worse just different. The M8 has a look a bit more like medium format B+W which is for some a plus and for others not the same as the look they love from 35mm B+W film. Of course if you are getting lousy lab results and don't want to deal with chemicals yourself then it's no contest, go digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 15, 2007 Share #9 Posted May 15, 2007 In color it's no contest, the M8 is head and shoulders better then 135 film with it's mushy dye cloud grain. Like all these issues, this is a matter of personal opinion. I like the M8 as much as the next man (perhaps not as much as Guy), and am committed to the camera for the foreseeable future but, all things being equal, I'd take film capture over digital capture for most of my work. Unfortunately film needs scanning in the modern workflow and that pretty much kills it for me at present. One man's "mushy" is another man's more pleasing (less harsh?) rendition of detail. I've also yet to find any digital camera which does skin tones as well or as easily as even the crappiest colour film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted May 15, 2007 Share #10 Posted May 15, 2007 Like all these issues, this is a matter of personal opinion. I like the M8 as much as the next man (perhaps not as much as Guy), and am committed to the camera for the foreseeable future but, all things being equal, I'd take film capture over digital capture for most of my work. Unfortunately film needs scanning in the modern workflow and that pretty much kills it for me at present. One man's "mushy" is another man's more pleasing (less harsh?) rendition of detail. I've also yet to find any digital camera which does skin tones as well or as easily as even the crappiest colour film. If they still made and processed Kodachrome in medium format I'd feel differently. Color negative film in 4x5 uses the wide range and soft grain to it's advantage -it's beautiful in large format. But 35mm color film, no thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericperlberg Posted May 15, 2007 Share #11 Posted May 15, 2007 I know purists will squirm with agony just at the question but anyone try Alienskin's Exposure to replicate film grain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 15, 2007 Share #12 Posted May 15, 2007 To me what ruins black/white in digital are clipped highlights. Not meaning this in any nasty context, but can those not be classed as exposure error? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted May 15, 2007 Share #13 Posted May 15, 2007 seems to be a lot of ill-defined subjective terms being thrown around here "performance", "better" etc... for me, B&W raw or jpeg form the M8 look like like what they are, digital black and white images. sometimes though you have the benefit of the soft/sharp magical nature of leica glass shining through. if you like B&W film and want to move them closer to that then in my experience you have to work on them. Alien Skin Exposure does a good job with some stocks. Aside from the grain though all its doing is nothing over and above what you might do in a basic copy of photoshop. Not sure why purists should squirm, imo its out of the box digital pictures that are the anomaly, they are the images that are "wrong". Sending them through a proper set of tonal curves is not only fair and just but also necessary and normal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 15, 2007 Share #14 Posted May 15, 2007 I know purists will squirm with agony just at the question but anyone try Alienskin's Exposure to replicate film grain? I use it all the time. I find some of the colour settings to be a bit odd - does 100GX really have such a strong magenta cast? - but I think most of the b&w ones are excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylianos Posted May 15, 2007 Share #15 Posted May 15, 2007 Digital will never achieve the quality of a good black and white print in the darkroom! It will never achieve this 'sweet' grain and the texture of film! Realize that: digital may offer convenience but it is inferior in terms of 'artistic' needs. In Photoshop you sit for hours and try to emulate what b/w film offers with just one click. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 15, 2007 Share #16 Posted May 15, 2007 Digital will never achieve the quality of a good black and white print in the darkroom! It will never achieve this 'sweet' grain and the texture of film! Realize that: digital may offer convenience but it is inferior in terms of 'artistic' needs. In Photoshop you sit for hours and try to emulate what b/w film offers with just one click. a. I used to spend hours in my darkroom to get it right. "One click" guarantees grotty results. b. I don't want to emulate film. Both capture media offer their own look, both desirable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted May 15, 2007 Share #17 Posted May 15, 2007 Digital will never achieve the quality of a good black and white print in the darkroom! It will never achieve this 'sweet' grain and the texture of film! Realize that: digital may offer convenience but it is inferior in terms of 'artistic' needs. In Photoshop you sit for hours and try to emulate what b/w film offers with just one click. Different strokes. Some would'nt touch 35mm B+W because for them only medium format or large format, or glass plates, or etc., etc., blah, blah,. As to artistic merit that does not reside in any media or tool but in the mind of the artist. You can make art with a cell phone camera, a cheerios box with a pin hole punched in it or an M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ylianos Posted May 15, 2007 Share #18 Posted May 15, 2007 As to artistic merit that does not reside in any media or tool but in the mind of the artist. You can make art with a cell phone camera, a cheerios box with a pin hole punched in it or an M8. I agree, but with digital media it is harder... The so many options digital has, disorientate the achievement of an artistic result. Simplicity and the lack of many means gives inspiration and facilitates the creation of art Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted May 15, 2007 Share #19 Posted May 15, 2007 I agree, but with digital media it is harder...The so many options digital has, disorientate the achievement of an artistic result. Simplicity and the lack of many means gives inspiration and facilitates the creation of art Yes, exposure meters, integrated rangerfinder viewfinder focusing all those modern conveniences make it to easy. We should all get hair shirts and Leica I's so we can focus our creative energies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 15, 2007 Share #20 Posted May 15, 2007 Digital will never achieve the quality of a good black and white print in the darkroom! It will never achieve this 'sweet' grain and the texture of film! Realize that: digital may offer convenience but it is inferior in terms of 'artistic' needs. In Photoshop you sit for hours and try to emulate what b/w film offers with just one click. Edgar Degas painted some wonderful pictures. That of course was because of his brushes. Modern paintings will NEVER achieve the quality of a Degas painting because those brushes are not available anymore. I DESPISE modern brushes. Doesn't it sound silly? The old man from the Age Before Tri-X Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.