ylianos Posted May 15, 2007 Share #21 Posted May 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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 I don't say you become creative because of film, but film HELPS you become more creative - don't change my words. And photography of course is not like painting, - it is more medium dependent. I didn't say you cant be creative with digital but film puts you more in a discipline. You choose what type of film you want, b/w or colour, you construct and think your image before the click. With digital you shoot without worrying and thinking too much about the shot and then you decide if you want it b/w or colour... you lose your orientation... Is it a coincidence that you see better digital photos from ex film shooters than from those who have only used digital? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 15, 2007 Posted May 15, 2007 Hi ylianos, Take a look here B+W: M8 vs. Film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted May 15, 2007 Share #22 Posted May 15, 2007 With digital you shoot without worrying and thinking too much about the shot and then you decide if you want it b/w or colour... you lose your orientation... I would not call that photography, digital or otherwise.That is snapshooting. Speaking for myself I visualize the photograph before I press the shutter. The advantage of digital is not having to change the film in mid-shoot, but being creative shot by shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted May 15, 2007 Share #23 Posted May 15, 2007 Is it a coincidence that you see better digital photos from ex film shooters than from those who have only used digital? That is merely a function of the fact that digital has only been around for a few years. Any photographer who has been shooting for more then 4 or 5 years started with film. The more transparent the tool is the more you can focus on your vision. Fiddling with exposure, difficult to use focusing systems, film that is to slow for the light you have encountered that's a distraction. Some people like large format becuse it is slow and diliberate, it requires a tripod and much planning. The focus on process suits them. The point of the small format camera is it allows sponteniety and does away with all that focus on procedure and technique. It frees the photographer and digital just moves the small format camera further along that path. If you need the discipline of less choice to stay focused, well that's you, others like more choice as it expands their creative options. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirvine Posted May 15, 2007 Share #24 Posted May 15, 2007 The same digital negative can actually improve over time as converters improve. Sensors will also improve rapidly. How long did it take for 35mm film to be as good as what we're holding up against a relatively newly deployed technology (at least in mass markets)? The idea that film is inherently better than digital is just embarrassingly wrong-headed. The two processes are totally different. It's like trying to compare a car with an airplane--they both get you there, and they both have their own problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted May 15, 2007 Share #25 Posted May 15, 2007 B&W film looks better than digital... doesn't need to get any more complex than that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted May 15, 2007 Share #26 Posted May 15, 2007 film looks better than digital... doesn't need to get any more complex than that Depends on whose looking. I wouldn't use 35mm color film, only medium format or larger. The quality just wasn't good enough in such a small film format with color stock. But I am very happy with the results of the M8. It's got me using Leica for the first time in years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 15, 2007 Share #27 Posted May 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the same way that beef is better than chicken? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted May 15, 2007 Share #28 Posted May 15, 2007 nope, thats a totally erroneous analogy if you asked a large sample size of people what they prefferred you would get an even mix of answers of beef and chicken VERY different from B&W photography....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted May 15, 2007 Share #29 Posted May 15, 2007 In the same way that beef is better than chicken? I thought it was lamb that was better then chicken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted May 15, 2007 Share #30 Posted May 15, 2007 Revisiting the original post, I see you want an opinion of the RAW format transformed to bw. I would say the DR is excellent. Tone ditto, but film has merits which digital will never duplicate, IMO. The converted file will suffice for almost anything you wish. I've sold images made both ways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted May 15, 2007 Share #31 Posted May 15, 2007 One further opinion. We can beat this issue to death with a carrot. I can assure you those who buy my images to hang in their homes don't care if the image was made with a pinhole camera or an MF or film or digital. The bottom line is if the image is pleasing to them. Emphasis on "them". Not us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted May 15, 2007 Share #32 Posted May 15, 2007 Allthough I love the M8, I've always loved the look of film more, both for color and B&W. I've been considering going film many times and I'm close to selling my M8 and instead use a Leica film only system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjphoto Posted May 15, 2007 Share #33 Posted May 15, 2007 M8 +BW = Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted May 15, 2007 Share #34 Posted May 15, 2007 I'm leaning in your same direction, Martin. I like the M8, but I'm not in love with it. It certainly hasn't made the same impact in my life as my film M's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted May 15, 2007 Share #35 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. Hmmmm.....perhaps in your experience, yes. But I can tell you that what I shoot in color on film with my M's looks quite a bit different than what I am seeing from M8's. I wouldn't say better - just different. I personally prefer the texture that I can get with film...keep in mind that I shoot digital all the time - I have no choice. But for my own personal work, and certain clients - film still gets the nod. It's really an apples & oranges comparison in any case...I certainly didn't expect the M8 to be the death knell of film. The B&W files do have a certain smooth look from the M8...and I've seen a few that have quite Noirish atmosphere...but it's still a different medium. I can't understand why we can't simply leave it at that.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted May 15, 2007 Share #36 Posted May 15, 2007 @lars - that cracked me up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted May 16, 2007 Share #37 Posted May 16, 2007 IMHO it depends on what you like about film. If you loved shooting Tri-X or TMZ and amping up the grain, then the M8 is not going to rock your world, although you might like to try 640 with maximum contrast. If you were using 25iso and developing for maximum tones and minimal grain then I'd say you will like 160iso. If you're scanning your negs and printing on an inkjet - then the stuff I'm getting from the M8 is at least as good as the best machine scans I got from 100iso film, probably better. One thing I was worried about was not having nice dof fall off wide open on a 35mm fov due to the sensor crop (I never used a 28 before, so I suspected that maybe it would have too much dof at 3-6m ranges). I had a play with one the other day and was reassured, I can still get sharp figure and ever so slightly fuzzy street in the background. One area I've not been so happy with so far is the results I get when shooting into the light compared to using film in my M7, I'm either getting blown highlights or underexposure. I've also noticed that the meter in the M8 is more affected by flare coming in from the top of the lens than the M7, to the extent that it can jump from 1/360 down to 1/4000-1/8000 from the effect of non-image forming light. I suspect this is due to the central placement of the sensor. I don't recall ever seeing this in the M7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSee Posted May 16, 2007 Share #38 Posted May 16, 2007 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 You're obviously not a painter, and that's OK... rgds, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted May 16, 2007 Share #39 Posted May 16, 2007 i think the m8 is an excellent tool for bnw. Tim's shot above is a testament to that. I have had great results and the prints look fantastic. Here's a recent one that i like. punakaiki rocks, west coast-new zealand.....b 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=256542'>More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 16, 2007 Share #40 Posted May 16, 2007 You're obviously not a painter, and that's OK... rgds, Dave Well Dave, I did work a bit in oil in my younger days. So I do know about brushes. They are important, but they don't determine the quality of the painting. The painter does. The same goes for the photographer. He knows his tools and uses them well – just like the unknown but famous people who painted Altamira and Lascaux. In the past (recent past!) many photographers have worked by rote. They really didn't understand what they were doing, they just followed a mechanical procedure. When they had to change, they became disoriented. And when new tools and materials appeared they condemned them roundly. Film was declared useless; roll film was declared useless; 35 mm photography was a useless German aberration, and immediately after WWII people wrote articles in photo magazines expressing their satisfaction that it would now go away for good. Indeed photography was declared artistically useless, vulgar and despicable; real ART had to be painted in oil. Oh yes, that was those stupid Neanderthalers of the 19th century. Like Delacroix. He wrote in his diary that he found the wealth of useless detail in the newfangled Daguerreotypes physically revolting ... Nowadays we are of course not stupid anymore but clever, and anything we condemn is really useless. 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.