M8 vs B&W film - examples

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ideally .....*Note I shoot f8-f22

- Ilford Delta 400 ,fine grain

- HP5 for lotsa grain,

- anything above that, FUJI NEOPAN 1600 PRO or push 400 to 800

-If I know the images will be scanned and converted to B&W I use colour film Fuji Press 400-1600, I can get it cheap and because it is easier to scan along with the extra latitude in B&W post processing

- Colour that remains colour Provia if I can

 

What really happens is that I shoot whatever is available, in or out of date as I forget to either buy it or leave it at home except for a roll or two. I do heaps of PP and usually dumb down the films so I guess I can shoot any old crap as far as digifilm stuff goes

[mwilliamsphotography]

The wedding images Mark posted are beautiful but film is not a required ingredient in making beautiful wedding images. Here is a former M film shooter now using Canon digital:eek: with a zoom:eek:, shooting jpgs:eek: and producing stunning B+W work:

 

Jeff Ascough's Wedding PJ Resource

 

My point is it is pointless to have debates about which medium or lens is better. Discussions about the atributes and look/results that can be achieved with various kit are always interesting though. I'm always curious about what others are using and what they are accomplishing with it. No medium or piece of equipment has mystical qualities that make it more conducive to producing more creative work. You can find examples of photographers using just about anything from film to digital, old wooden view cameras to the latest DSLR's doing interesting work.

 

That wasn't the point of this thread was it Hank? In fact, it was the opposite. To somehow prove digital was better. I happen to agree completely with you, and said that both film and digital have their charms, so use each as you see fit ... just don't keep dissing film in the proceess.

 

I am very familiar with Jeff Ascough's work ... have met him, took one of his rare seminars, discussed things with him, and even recently was one of the beta testers for his actions. He's a talent that trancends the technical.

 

There is no doubt that weddings today are the domain of the digital shooter, and have been so for me for years (which I also said above). Doesn't preclude migrating back to film for some work IF it brings pleasure to ME. Most wedding prints are 7X10 or smaller, and frankly, the clients can't tell the difference in most cases... all they care about is the content well presented which any medium can be made to deliver if you have the eye.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[hankg]

That wasn't the point of this thread was it Hank? In fact, it was the opposite. To somehow prove digital was better. I happen to agree completely with you, and said that both film and digital have their charms, so use each as you see fit ... just don't keep dissing film in the proceess.

 

I am very familiar with Jeff Ascough's work ... have met him, took one of his rare seminars, discussed things with him, and even recently was one of the beta testers for his actions. He's a talent that trancends the technical.

 

There is no doubt that weddings today are the domain of the digital shooter, and have been so for me for years (which I also said above). Doesn't preclude migrating back to film for some work IF it brings pleasure to ME. Most wedding prints are 7X10 or smaller, and frankly, the clients can't tell the difference in most cases... all they care about is the content well presented which any medium can be made to deliver if you have the eye.

 

Your point is taken and I agree with what you say. I find myself occasionaly fantasizing about picking up a Littman 45Single and loading an old grafmatic back on it with 4x5 Tri-X or color negative film but it will have to wait untill my workload permits it. Perhaps I'll come up with a project that can financially justify it (I still have to make a living). As to the purpose of the thread, I'm not quite sure what it was but inviting comments on a comparison of digital and film is always dangerous.

[plasticman]

but inviting comments on a comparison of digital and film is always dangerous.

 

Couldn't agree more! Always amazes me, quite frankly, that the debate re-surfaces over-and-over.

The absurdity of it would of course be even MORE obvious if the film image was taken from a pinhole camera, or even the incredibly beautiful collodion prints by Sally Mann that i mentioned above.

I guess that some of the breathtaking images by Josef Sudek didn't have such a great line resolution either, for that matter - but take a look at the way he handled light!:

 

http://www.masters-of-fine-art-photography.com/02/artphotogallery/photographers/josef_sudek_01.html

[hankg]

Couldn't agree more! Always amazes me, quite frankly, that the debate re-surfaces over-and-over.

The absurdity of it would of course be even MORE obvious if the film image was taken from a pinhole camera, or even the incredibly beautiful collodion prints by Sally Mann that i mentioned above.

I guess that some of the breathtaking images by Josef Sudek didn't have such a great line resolution either, for that matter - but take a look at the way he handled light!:

 

JOSEF SUDEK - PHOTOGRAPHS

 

Both film and older alternate media are alive and well. Witness the recent series of daguerreotype portraits by the well known painter Chuck Close:

 

Chuck Close: A Couple of Ways of Doing Something

[tashley]

That wasn't the point of this thread was it Hank? In fact, it was the opposite. To somehow prove digital was better.

 

You genuinely have convinced yourself of that, haven't you? Despite there being no evidence whatsoever, anywhere.

 

It's a libel (oh yes it is!) that you are happy to repeat because it suits the real agenda here: your own. Even Imants, normally pretty logical, fell for your version of me, rather than the original.

 

In fact I am so confident of this, that I hereby undertake to give $200 to the charity of your choice if you can produce any evidence that my point was to 'prove that digital (is) somehow better.'

 

I will do this By PayPal. Today.

 

I am stating quite categorically and for the last time: I had no intention, whatsoever, of stating or implying that either film or B&W are 'better' than each other: I am perfectly intelligent enough to know that that would not only be futile but fundamentally uninteresting. What I was interested in was the different looks, within the (totally obvious to everyone and quite explicitly stated) constraints of the exercise.

 

Furthermore, given the utterly unwarranted attacks to which I have been subjected (in fact it was more of a witch-hunt judging by the level of 'if he drowns he's innocent' 'logic' I have had to endure) I think you should apologise.

 

If you take the time, as I have, to read the entire thread, you will see that the first time anyone declared there to be a 'pronounced objective of saying the digital shot is better' it was you, not me. It is a poor rhetorical technique, let alone being utterly illogical, to hang people for words you have put in their mouths.

 

If you are so insanely intent on manning whichever barricades you are so fanatical about, so be it: but do not throw petrol bombs at innocent bystanders. They do not appreciate it.

 

And do not presume to judge my agenda because I do not have one.

 

Tim

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tim

 

Honestly it's better to let this rest. No-one would ever notice.

 

I think a few of us definitely read the first few posts with a clear indication of what was meant - the mere fact that you didn't expressly state what i'd have to say was a pretty obvious implication doesn't detract from that fact. I mean, simply this post:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/24951-m8-vs-b-w-film-examples.html#post260666

 

isn't really so ambiguous, now is it?

 

Now all this talk of libel is just going too far. Marc has always been a thoughtful and informative contributor to the forum, and there's no reason to take his opinions quite so personally imho.

 

I'd also say that if I'd thrown $5k into an M8 i'd also be convincing myself it was better than film.

 

Let's just forget the whole thing - waddya say?

 

//mani

[tashley]

Tim

 

Honestly it's better to let this rest. No-one would ever notice.

 

I think a few of us definitely read the first few posts with a clear indication of what was meant - the mere fact that you didn't expressly state what i'd have to say was a pretty obvious implication doesn't detract from that fact. I mean, simply this post:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/24951-m8-vs-b-w-film-examples.html#post260666

 

isn't really so ambiguous, now is it?

 

Now all this talk of libel is just going too far. Marc has always been a thoughtful and informative contributor to the forum, and there's no reason to take his opinions quite so personally imho.

 

I'd also say that if I'd thrown $5k into an M8 i'd also be convincing myself it was better than film.

 

Let's just forget the whole thing - waddya say?

 

//mani

Hi Mani,

 

You and I are clear, that's all done and dusted and I had really only rejoined this thread for some advice (ironically ) about which film stock to try out these days.

 

FWIW I still cannot see any possible way of interpreting either the post you refer to, or any other post I have made in this thread or elsewhere, as having the implications that have been laid at my door. I wouldn't have implied them, or stated them, because I don't think them. Hell I was raised on a rangefinder, developing my own film and printing it from before puberty! I miss the stuff.

 

I think what has happened here is a case of mistaken identity: there are people around who are ignorantly but glibly dismissive of film, or who are so terrified by the price they have just paid for this or that camera that they have to develop a belief system to justify the choice. But I am not one of those people. I just happened to stroll unwittingly into a minefield where my every sentence was picked over for hidden meanings or implicit agendas.

 

But I actually DO resent Marc's continued misrepresentation of me even after I had shut up and gone away. It does constitute libel, since it is indeed a lie, if not on a world-threatening scale. And it's not good for anyone to go unchallenged when they are illogical and unfair at the expense of others.

 

So as I say, I would like him to provide substantive evidence to back his claim (which he cannot) or apologise. And I don't think, given what has gone on here, that this is an unreasonable request.

 

Best

Tim

 

ps $5k? You think a man is safe with just one M8? I mean, SDS means two bodies minimum. And then there's the glass...

 

[stunsworth]

I'm sorry Tim, but talk of libel and all that entails is an over-reaction IMHO.

 

Misinterpretation, misunderstanding and mischief occur all the time. It's sometimes best just to correct the error and move on.

[tashley]

I appreciate the advice Steve, and regard you as a voice of sanity but I am afraid that I had already done exactly this and Marc nonetheless continues to repeat his untrue accusation.

 

It's not good enough, IMHO, and given that this is a public place, I would rather be tarred with my own brushes, for which I can at least be held responsible, than those which are thrust into my hand dripping with other peoples' stuff!

 

Best as ever

 

Tim

[Eoin]

Wow :eek:

 

I'd just like to jump in here before the war starts and thank everyone for the advice and thoughts expressed as to what makes good B&W in a B&W image.

 

Sincere thanks to everyone, I'm off to the trenches to take cover. LOL

[sergiolov]

clearly OT, but I noticed here and there in this thread that xp2 is not generally and enthusiastically appreciated. Now my experience with bw film ended 30 years ago, but recently ,waiting for the m8, I took the dust of my m2 and loaded it with this film. I appreciated the results.

 

M2 with summicron 50, scanner V750 flat bed.

 

Best to all.

Sergio

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!

[peterv]

Tim,

 

sounds like a good idea to buy an MP! I'm waiting for mine to arrive next week...

 

Have an inspiring look at this long thread:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/8842-i-love-my-mp.html

 

It's so nice and quite in the Filmforum. Not as hectic as this place.

 

There's also a lot of good advice on all the different b/w films that are out there at the moment.

 

Cheers,

 

Peter

[mwilliamsphotography]

I apologize Tashley.

 

I mistook your intentions when you titled this thread "M8 vs Film- examples" ... where I come from "verses" means one against the other as in "a competition" ... then posted obviously inferior film examples, and made statements about digital such as "more ISO per ISO" ... and so on.

 

Evidently others mistakenly took your implications in the same manner. Yet if they were NOT your intention then an apology is in order which I freely give. A simple misunderstanding of opinion and intention ... and to be clear not all my posts were singularly aimed at you, but the general discussion.

 

However, at no time did I call you a lier, threaten you, or any burst forth with any other personally degrading epithet just because I disagree with your opinion.

 

Differences of opinion or misunderstandings of intentions are not slander. Publicly calling someone a "Lier" is ... just so you know the difference : -)

[Guest guy_mancuso]

My unwanted 2 cents . at no time in this thread or at least the very first post and his next immediate post did i think this was a serious test and Tim pretty much said that. Personally i could care less about film since i never shoot it anymore but that's me and my work i just can't shoot film anymore but that does not mean i don't like it but just no use for it . Anyway back to your program and have fun. Debating the 2 is a useless excerise , there different

[tashley]

I apologize Tashley.

 

I mistook your intentions when you titled this thread "M8 vs Film- examples" ... where I come from "verses" means one against the other as in "a competition" ... then posted obviously inferior film examples, and made statements about digital such as "more ISO per ISO" ... and so on.

 

Evidently others mistakenly took your implications in the same manner. Yet if they were NOT your intention then an apology is in order which I freely give. A simple misunderstanding of opinion and intention ... and to be clear not all my posts were singularly aimed at you, but the general discussion.

 

However, at no time did I call you a lier, threaten you, or any burst forth with any other personally degrading epithet just because I disagree with your opinion.

 

Differences of opinion or misunderstandings of intentions are not slander. Publicly calling someone a "Lier" is ... just so you know the difference : -)

 

 

I do know the difference and I considered that difference very carefully before any of my replies. I don't want to perpetuate this by picking over bones BUT I have to defend myself again: I did draw short of calling you a liar. I said that you were repeating a lie. There is a subtle difference and as it happens, I absolutely do not think you are a liar, I think you misread my intention at the outset of the thread and repeated the misreading as if it were fact, when it was not.

 

In fact, gush, I think you are highly intelligent and competent, not to mention being someone to whom in a happier world I would readily come to for advice, since this area IS you special subject and it is NOT mine.

 

I fully accept your apology, and I add that if any of the terminology I used had a different and less neutral resonance for you than for me, it really was unintentional. I do in fact have no agenda or preference and that was perhaps worth stating explicitly at the outset - stupid of me, on reflection, to expect that to be taken as given.

 

There was here, as so often in life, a set of unknown sensitivities, and I am very sorry to have trodden on them. Smaller shoes and more tentative steps next time.

 

With best regards

 

Tim

[Guest stnami]

Hey isn't this thread called M8vs B&W film, meaning we are pitting one against the other, so as a betting man( love watching the dish lickers run around) I am happy to pick a winner, it's unfortunate that nobody was willing to run a book.

Don't know what I fell for TIm but evidently you have worked that out already so it's a non issue???

 

B&W film sure looks better than digital and is probably aethetically more pleasing as a print than digital................. so the winner is film for prints . Now if I was offered 6 to 4 on and I have invested 5 1/2 big ones, that means I won ... hang on minus two cups of coffeee and a lamington from Marge, petrol was $1.27 a litre and I used............hmm it would have been a good little earner:)

[j_w_davies]

Yep, looks to me like B&W film is the winner.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

B&W film sure looks better than digital and is probably aethetically more pleasing as a print than digital................. so the winner is film for prints

 

 

Sorry i would say that is absolute BS and your opinion but maybe not others. And were are the hard cold facts here. Who is to say what is better in print, it's all up to the viewer viewing it and the main reason i stay away from these threads because no one is right but folks will argue to the death that they are. Sorry but saying stuff like that does no one any good trying to learn anything . There different and have different qualities and frankly no one is a expert on it and only your opinion counts to yourself as well as anyones elses . You simply can't argue ART it is just like religion no one is right and no one is wrong and all based on opinion but there is no hard facts. okay my 3 cents and have a good day. Enough for me

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest stnami]

Has ha hahaha. I don't give a rat's arse who won, but I got better odds on film than digital from my local bookie, at 6 to 4 on was a heap better than 5 to 4....................... ah the sun's come out, time to count the slab of green ones