Jump to content

M8 vs B&W film - examples


tashley

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One problem with comparing the M8 with these scans is that they are only 1900 pixels wide originally. A 4000 dpi scanner gives more than twice that, and the difference is very significant. Also, scans from inexpensive labs often are pre-set for contrast and "punch," and sharpened a bit. All of which obscures details and subtleties of tonal range. So film, even scanned at home, may be better than shown in this thread.

 

I'm not going to make a claim that one is better than the other. It may vary with ISO, lighting and the choice of subject. I will say that the M8 does very well, and is competitive with 35mm film in many cases.

 

I will also say that Tri-X can be a thing of beauty. The Tri-X look and tonal distribution of its grain is very different from digital. And Kodak's BW400CN--properly exposed in good light--is just gorgeous. I'm not counting B&W film out for all my photography, even though I have the M8.

 

The M8 is noticeably sharper and smoother than the ISO 400 color negative film I've been shooting in recent years. It's more like slide film. And the film (formely Kodak Supra 400, lately UC400) was not bad at all.

 

--Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Tashley, if stuff is to be exhibited on screen as the basis, none of us need a $5,000. Leica M8 with $3,000 lenses for it.

 

Nor do I think Tri-X scanned to be the measure since most desktop scanners are not well used by many. An enlarged silverprint or a drum scan/Imacon 949 scan with it's diffused light source is a better comparison (which I've done). Besides, Tri-X isn't for creamy dreamy tonal qualities, it's sharp, with sharp whites and black blacks to produce it's signature visual punch. Chromogenic XP2 is a flat, soft toned film in comparison.

 

BTW,I based my observation on the full frame versions posted here which look to exhibit more contrast, not the crops which I always suspect because film fairs worst due to regimented screen resolution and random grain. Scanned film always looks better printed than on screen.

 

Hardly "Apples to Apples", there are just to many variables in this to have posted it in the first place. The B&W aren't even posted as B&W, and they aren't from B&W film they're from Chromogenic B&W film which is notably softer in feel than most true ISO 400 B&W films. Were the cameras on a tripod? They weren't even shot on the same day in the same light.

 

"Scanned to disk @ 1909 pixels" ... that's a 4"X6" file. What scan resolution was used? What Profiles? What For that matter, what scanner?

 

For example, I scan Leica M films at a minimum of 6300 ppi on an Imacon 949 which produce a file that's 8737 X 5848 pixels or about 24" X16" @ 360 ppi for printing on an Epson 3800. Note that the Imacon will scan in landscape mode @ 8000 ppi. for a 11,096 X 7424 pixel file ... which I do if using a film in the ISO 200 or 320 area. I have custom profiles for each type of film loaded into the scanner software.

 

Film and digital are different, and I personally like each for their unique qualities. But please don't post some inferior scan from a chromogenic film with the pronounced objective of saying the digital shot is better. It's subjective, and subjectively from experience I say digital isn't film and may well never be.

 

Here's a Tri-X shot ... it's from a flat bed scan made from an 8X12 silverprint which looks a LOT better than this web upload. Titled "Passing Ages" it was shot in Germany with a M6 and 351/4 non ASPH.

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

Andrew, I appreciate all you above points. In fact I appreciated them all so much that I made pretty much all of them already, quite specifically.

 

However, I would like to make some further points:

 

These shots reflect my real world, not yours. In my real world I have two M8 bodies and some nice glass. I live in the middle of nowhere and the nearest town has one shop that sells one B&W film and processes it one way. I possess a crappy scanner, probably no better than the one in the shop.

 

If I want to shoot analogue B&W I therefore have to either do so in a way that reflects MY real world or I have to change the realities to match yours, which I would certainly do if the M8's B&W performance disappointed me. I could lay in some film stock, send it away to a pro lab for processing, and scan it on the Hubble space telescope. I could then have three different master printers produce different versions for me. And yes, in the end, I am quite sure I could prove that the results were in some way preferable to the same scene taken at the same time on a tripod with an M8, blah blah blah.

 

However, if you had read the posts above you would see that I actually like the look of the 'not real' B&W film in a 30 year old SLR with a light leak in its body, badly scanned and reproduced on screen. Indeed you yourself on the previous page, fully aware of the circumstances, claimed that the 'the film versions look better'...

 

So, I am sorry if the thread has been a waste of your time but life IS unscientific and it DOES represent the realities of other people.

 

I for example, would say that more of my work gets seen on screen than in prints, so actually it does matter very much how they look that way: the screen is not an inferior way of judging how the choice of equipment and process affects the end-result. For many shots it is THE way to judge it.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

ps your shot above is very nice but the way it should be done is for both ladies to be on thirds and for the lady with the bags not to have her legs cut off. And the whites look blown.

 

;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim

 

Looking through all the posts it's actually extremely obvious what you intended to IMPLY by your "M8 versus b&w film" thread - in spite of your defensive and patronizing reply to fotografz's thoughtful and considered refutation of the IMPLICIT premise of your posts.

 

For example:

//-------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by jackal

yep, i only noticed one thing

THE BEST ONE IS THE ONE YOU LIKE THE MOST

Well well, is this the man who recently stated quite categorically in another thread that:

 

'B&W film looks better than digital... doesn't need to get any more complex than that'

???

See, Jackal (ooh what a scary and aggressive name!) when you shout at people they tend to look up your posting history.

Best

Tim

//-------------------------------------------------

 

On the other hand, maybe you'd rather we didn't actually read the posts...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim

 

Looking through all the posts it's actually extremely obvious what you intended to IMPLY by your "M8 versus b&w film" thread - in spite of your defensive and patronizing reply to fotografz's thoughtful and considered refutation of the IMPLICIT premise of your posts.

 

For example:

//-------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by jackal

yep, i only noticed one thing

THE BEST ONE IS THE ONE YOU LIKE THE MOST

Well well, is this the man who recently stated quite categorically in another thread that:

 

'B&W film looks better than digital... doesn't need to get any more complex than that'

???

See, Jackal (ooh what a scary and aggressive name!) when you shout at people they tend to look up your posting history.

Best

Tim

//-------------------------------------------------

 

On the other hand, maybe you'd rather we didn't actually read the posts...

 

 

I'll leap to my own defence obviously: I never meant to imply anything. Nothing at all. Ever. Your quote of me above is actually me quoting Jackal in order to point out that not only was he shouting but that he was contradicting himself. And if I am patronising to Fotografz it is because he was extraordinarily patronising of me - he deconstructed my comparison as if I had made it scientifically (in fact I started the whole thread with the word 'unscientific') and as if I had then failed to disclose basic information (I did not).

 

Blimey, this was supposed to be a bit of Sunday afternoon fun from which some interesting and non-definitive thoughts might emerge. So for the purposes of clarification and richly deserved self-flagellation:

 

The above, bad shots of my cruddy garden were taken in uncontrolled conditions without a tripod on B&W film that isn't actually B&W film, two days before the digital shots to which I compare them. They were then processed and scanned in a PhotoMe store at intermediate resolution, the digital files were downrezed and I couldn't find a way of posting prints to all forum members. And guess what, I don't 'prefer' any of them, or think any of them gives a 'better' result. I just think they all look different and interesting in their own ways and I have now expanded my vocabulary of potential 'looks' as a result of the exercise. Some other people have found the exercise useful, within it's unscientific constraints, and some have taken it as a direct attack on something or other, not quite sure what.

 

Please Lord, let this thread now die. I should quite clearly never have started it! But given that I did, I would be grateful if people actually did read the posts before jumping down the barrel of my lens!

 

Best

 

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hehe, Tim, have a nice week! Take lots of pictures, and post none of them, except under the most anonymous of conditions :D

 

Thanks Carsten! I appreciate your very good advice with the exception of the 'He he' which clearly 'implies' a sense of humour. How inappropriate to this most serious of all debates.

 

;-)

 

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - only uncritical fans of the M8 have a sense of humor. As can be clearly seen from Tim's gracious advice to Marc above.

 

EDIT: incidentally, if you're now 'implying' that the initial intention of your post was not to favorably compare the M8 output to film... i think the polite description for that sort of defense could be termed 'ingenuous'.

Yes you did list all of the conditions under which the shooting took place, but your questions were clearly rhetorical in the first posts - and in fact you jumped at jackal's statement with a clear "got you!"

 

Incidentally - just to be totally clear - i do intend to get an M8 (or possibly M9) in the future, so i'm not in any way a film vs digital fundamentalist. But digital is not better (or worse) than film.

 

Of course Tim, i'm not in any way attacking you - this is just some 'monday-morning fun' you understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - only uncritical fans of the M8 have a sense of humor. As can be clearly seen from Tim's gracious advice to Marc above.

 

EDIT: incidentally, if you're now 'implying' that the initial intention of your post was not to favorably compare the M8 output to film... i think the polite description for that sort of defense could be termed 'ingenuous'.

Yes you did list all of the conditions under which the shooting took place, but your questions were clearly rhetorical in the first posts - and in fact you jumped at jackal's statement with a clear "got you!"

 

Incidentally - just to be totally clear - i do intend to get an M8 (or possibly M9) in the future, so i'm not in any way a film vs digital fundamentalist. But digital is not better (or worse) than film.

 

Of course Tim, i'm not in any way attacking you - this is just some 'monday-morning fun' you understand.

 

I really am genuinely confused and am being neither ingenuous nor disingenuous: I had no implication in mind at all in the OP and have clearly stated several times that I like different things about the different renditions!

 

In fact, I am now so confused that I can't tell if you think I'm overly denigrating or overly praising the M8 and its B&W rendition but I genuinely assure you it was not my intention to do either and I struggle to see where there was any implication that I was!

 

I took a pop at Jackal because he shouted and clearly implied that I was trying to say that one or other thing was better (not true) and I was robust with Fotografz because he seemed utterly to be ignoring both the spirit and the factual content of my post. If anything, what I learn from this whole sorry thread is what you yourself pointed out: none is better or worse, they are just different. I also learn that a sense of humour can get lost in the typing!

 

Happy Monday

 

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, I scan Leica M films at a minimum of 6300 ppi on an Imacon 949 which produce a file that's 8737 X 5848 pixels or about 24" X16" @ 360 ppi for printing on an Epson 3800. Note that the Imacon will scan in landscape mode @ 8000 ppi. for a 11,096 X 7424 pixel file ... which I do if using a film in the ISO 200 or 320 area. I have custom profiles for each type of film loaded into the scanner software.

 

You can do a scan of 30,000x20,000 pixels but the detail in the negative is fully extracted with a much smaller pixel matrix. If you increase the scan resolution you only get noise or nothing. The slogan "I can get 200MB files from my negatives" is meaningless. Film and digital are different mediums and a comparison is very difficult. R. N. Clark has a very careful analysis in his website:

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stnami
Please Lord, let this thread now die. I should quite clearly never have started it!
Tim starting something half baked is my job on this forum, please don't send me to the unemployment line.

Placing M8 images and film images side by side in a quasimodo fashion is asking for a drubbing............ and it came happily to your doorstep.:):p:rolleyes:

 

I also learn that a sense of humour can get lost in the typing
.......type faster and think later
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great - so we're all agreed - the side-by-side placement of film and digital images was just coincidental, as imants says.

 

There was absolutely no intention to 'compare' them.

 

Fim and digital are 'different' media, and everyone thinks they both have advantages and disadvantages - but one is definitely no better than the other.

 

Tim was just having some 'fun', and he does have a sense of humor.

 

So that's that, i guess.

 

We're done - move along now - nothing to see here.

 

EDIT: (sorry to keep forgetting to add stuff i meant to say) One thing that i always do wonder at, is the idea that the required end-result of a photograph is it's >DIGITAL< incarnation. Right now, having (temporarily) rediscovered film and how wonderful it CAN be, i'm totally indifferent to how much it can or cannot be scanned...

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I couldn't find a way of posting prints to all forum members.

 

I don't know Tim, this doesn't sound very professional to me... Did you really try hard enough to get our home adress? ;)

 

Blimey, this was supposed to be a bit of Sunday afternoon fun from which some interesting and non-definitive thoughts might emerge.

It still is to me! At least threads like this one, help guys like me to make up our minds about these interesting issues. I myself posted a non-scientific test here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/23557-robs-tri-x.html

 

I agree on your computer screen remarks; 99% of the distribution of my images is via a screen. I'm used to that, I used to work as a cinematographer and television cameraman. Than you learn quickly that no matter how hard you try to make the perfect exposure and lighting, everyone's television gives a different image. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make an effort. Just don't have any illusions about it...

 

Prints are more refined, and under controlled circumstances - in gallery light - the closest thing to what the photographer/printer 'meant'. A computer screen, a television, the 'big screen' in the cinema, they're all not to be trusted when it comes to 'intended' colour, contrast, sharpness, etc. But nevertheless millions of people get to see your image.

 

Please go on posting non-scientific threads like this, to me they are very inspiring.

 

BTW, about the original post; I like the Canon better than the Contax. I own two Contax G's and I find the Zeiss lenses way to contrasty.

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys - real images, under real conditions, and guess what - I like them both, and so did my clients.

 

All are Leica images - either M6/M7 or M8. Lenses anything between 28 ASPH to an old Canadian 90 Cron. Question - which shots are digital, and which are film? Different conditions, obviously, some at very high ISO, others at lower - some informal portraits of friends, others part of my work in theatre, but hey - that's part of the name of the fun isn't it?

 

And - FWIW, I feel a bit of sympathy here for Tim - it was only a bit of Sunday afternoon fun... I don't think it matters so long as the images do the job, but I still enjoy the game...

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

Thanks Chris,

 

Like numbers two and three particularly and I have no idea whether they were shot on film or digital!

 

This whole exercise puts me in mind of a U2 song: Sunday Bloody Sunday!

 

Which lens did you use on number three?

 

Best

 

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know Tim, this doesn't sound very professional to me... Did you really try hard enough to get our home adress? ;)

 

Nope, but at least one person tried to get mine!

 

Please go on posting non-scientific threads like this, to me they are very inspiring.

 

BTW, about the original post; I like the Canon better than the Contax. I own two Contax G's and I find the Zeiss lenses way to contrasty.

 

Peter

 

Thanks Peter - I know what you mean about the Canon shot (though of course we can't tell anything real from any of this...) but I quite liked the sheer extent of the Contax's aggressive contrast. I might try it with some real B&W film on some gritty urban landscape stuff.

 

And thanks for posting your comparison shots on the other thread, verrry interesting!

 

Best

 

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim,

 

Could you post the color version before B+W conversion? There is a lack of separation/contrast in the tall grass in the M8 shot, as it is the digital looks a bit bland but that I chalk up to the B+W conversion and tone curve used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris,

 

Like numbers two and three particularly and I have no idea whether they were shot on film or digital!

 

This whole exercise puts me in mind of a U2 song: Sunday Bloody Sunday!

 

Which lens did you use on number three?

 

Best

 

Tim

 

Tim - for information, 2 and 4 were taken with film - probably Provia 400 pushed 2 stops or Provia 1600 (can't remember which). Lens for #3 was the 28 ASPH - such a good lens.

 

M8 images were all RAW converted in Lightroom and sharpened / resized in CS2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struck by how, to me (and allowing for poor choice of B&W film and processing) the film shots look like what Sean Reid calls 'small sensor drawing' and indeed if I really wanted to replicate the broad brush, high contrast look of the film shots I would use a PanaLeica LX2...

 

Horses, courses, as ever!

 

Best

 

T

 

Hi Tim

I quite agree with this - even more so with the Ricoh GRD (which produces nice black and white jpgs).

 

I also find it fascinating that Marc (for one) is so sure that the film shots show more detail, and others so sure that they don't. I can only assume that we have different ideas of 'detail'. In this instance there is a lot more contrast in the leaves from the scans - is that it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim,

 

Could you post the color version before B+W conversion? There is a lack of separation/contrast in the tall grass in the M8 shot, as it is the digital looks a bit bland but that I chalk up to the B+W conversion and tone curve used.

 

 

Sure Hank, here's a version jpeg'd so as to fit the file size limit for posting here. It is opened in Lightroom but otherwise untouched. The B&W conversion was the same apart from clicking the B&W tab in Lightroom.

 

The issue with the long grass is probably that at F4, and focussed on the wooden pillars of the pavilion, that area of the shot is simply in front of the area of focus as the 100% crop shows

 

Best

 

Tim

 

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...