giganova Posted January 20, 2016 Share #101 Posted January 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) To me it's all about the look of film (grain, contrast), the ergonomics of the camera (no menus!), and the workflow (developing and scanning negatives is like zen!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Hi giganova, Take a look here Convince me to buy a film M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Doc Henry Posted January 20, 2016 Share #102 Posted January 20, 2016 Doc, no I don't own the S....maybe another Jeff. I don't doubt the results you see....but I can assure you that my results, and the results from others, differ. I'm well aware of the ink/paper distinctions....as I said, I have some of the best silver prints ever made on my walls....and I've seen and made fantastic inkjet prints, some with lustrous rich blacks, if that's the intent. There are some fabulous inkjet papers and ink sets available these days, but that's not all... No offense, but I suggest that you haven't yet taken advantage of the full potential of the digital workflow (from camera to PP techniques to printer settings to inks to papers to lighting, etc). It's no different than in the darkroom days.....some people get fantastic results with minimal gear, while others turn out mediocre prints with the best equipment available (Edward Weston's stark darkroom with his lightbulb comes to mind). BTW, I've seen a lot of crappy silver prints in my day, too....even from some talented photographers. Printing is another skill altogether....probably far fewer great printers than great photographers around...film or digital. Jeff Jeff sorry for the confusion Yes , inkjet paper but at what price ? certainly very costly if we want quality, but in this case better use silver halide paper ! I noticed that it is expensive , not offered in any case and less good quality (and I mean beautiful in the sense of art). Photographs of renowned photographers are selling at high prices and yet they are printed on argentic paper For the workflow, I let that to specialist who comes out schools of photography. No sorcerer's apprentices and incompetence that we are working without any basic knowledge. Finally I forgot to say that I have lost tens of pictures because it has dust on the sensor. And I'm not talking about the stress of having a cracked sensor. Yet I even clean myself these sensors with the products you know (Eclipse etc ...) People are "formatted" now for digital , it's sad ! all that to go fast and with inflation in triggering without thinking ! what a waste ! In addition it requires a battery with the camera, so we are "dependent battery". My next purchase is a M-A without any batterie ! Rg Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 21, 2016 Share #103 Posted January 21, 2016 Yes , inkjet paper but at what price ? certainly very costly if we want quality, but in this case better use silver halide paper ! I noticed that it is expensive , not offered in any case and less good quality (and I mean beautiful in the sense of art). Photographs of renowned photographers are selling at high prices and yet they are printed on argentic paper For the workflow, I let that to specialist who comes out schools of photography. No sorcerer's apprentices and incompetence that we are working without any basic knowledge. Finally I forgot to say that I have lost tens of pictures because it has dust on the sensor. And I'm not talking about the stress of having a cracked sensor. Yet I even clean myself these sensors with the products you know (Eclipse etc ...) People are "formatted" now for digital , it's sad ! all that to go fast and with inflation in triggering without thinking ! what a waste ! In addition it requires a battery with the camera, so we are "dependent battery". My next purchase is a M-A without any batterie ! If I worried about spending money on paper (I spent even more or silver paper and film combined), the trivial effort dealing with dust or batteries (even some of my film cameras had them), or allowed someone else to make my fine print decisions and/or execute my printing, I'd frankly just give up the hobby. If you think inkjet papers lack quality, you really have no understanding of current options....just as with camera choices, these are glorious days for digital materials. Unfortunately, many of my former materials....silver paper and film....are either no longer produced, or are not the same quality (see Tri-X). My workflow is every bit as disciplined now as it was over my 35+ years shooting film and working in a darkroom. By a recent accounting, I'm shooting roughly the same amount of pics as I did with 35mm film (of course my 4x5 and 8x10 output was far lower). The gear doesn't control me; I control it. I bet if I showed you framed prints under glass....some silver, some inkjet....you'd be hard pressed to distinguish.....but even if you could, you'd agree that the best digital work can be gorgeous. It's mostly about the picture anyway. At the beginning of the thread, someone posted a pic of a tree trunk using both digital and film. No offense to that person, but that was a very poor digital rendering of that particular image if the intent was to mimic the film based result. The 'plastic' rendering is due to the photographer and his shooting and editing choices (or lack thereof), not inherently due to the medium itself. And that doesn't even take into account the fine nuances of a printed version. No wonder he preferred film. YMMV. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 21, 2016 Share #104 Posted January 21, 2016 Why should we convince you? Are you looking for co-conspirators? An excuse to pass to your mate? Buy her something stupidly expensive and have your own way. . Or convince me to shut the F-up. Good luck on that. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 21, 2016 Share #105 Posted January 21, 2016 At the beginning of the thread, someone posted a pic of a tree trunk using both digital and film. No offense to that person, but that was a very poor digital rendering of that particular image if the intent was to mimic the film based result. The 'plastic' rendering is due to the photographer and his shooting and editing choices (or lack thereof), not inherently due to the medium itself. And that doesn't even take into account the fine nuances of a printed version. No wonder he preferred film. Always plenty of talk, Jeff. Why not show that poster (Colin?) something you've done to demonstrate your point? (Don't give me that waffle about prints and web display, etc. – far better photographers than any one in this forum, including many of today's greats, are not shy of showing their work via the web.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted January 21, 2016 Share #106 Posted January 21, 2016 Always plenty of talk, Jeff. Why not show that poster (Colin?) something you've done to demonstrate your point? (Don't give me that waffle about prints and web display, etc. – far better photographers than any one in this forum, including many of today's greats, are not shy of showing their work via the web.) I don't even bother reading his posts anymore. Aggressive and rarely helpful. There... I said it. 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/255498-convince-me-to-buy-a-film-m/?do=findComment&comment=2973224'>More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted January 21, 2016 Share #107 Posted January 21, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Taken with cheap cheap cheap Kodak ColourPlus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted January 21, 2016 Share #108 Posted January 21, 2016 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! Notice who liked it on Instagram? No less than @MadeInWetzlar! High praise indeed. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Notice who liked it on Instagram? No less than @MadeInWetzlar! High praise indeed. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255498-convince-me-to-buy-a-film-m/?do=findComment&comment=2973232'>More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted January 21, 2016 Share #109 Posted January 21, 2016 Didn't have the heart to say it was a Solms model ;-) being made in 1997. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 21, 2016 Share #110 Posted January 21, 2016 Always plenty of talk, Jeff. Why not show that poster (Colin?) something you've done to demonstrate your point? (Don't give me that waffle about prints and web display, etc. – far better photographers than any one in this forum, including many of today's greats, are not shy of showing their work via the web.) If you're going to highlight a sentence in my post, maybe you could leave in the most important part....I wrote that the digital rendering was poor (the part you quoted) if the intent was to mimic the film based result (the part you left out). I've been on this forum for 7 years and never once to my recollection made a negative comment about anyone's personal photography, nor to any photo in the photo section of the forum.....I rarely comment at all. My comment here was a rare exception only because the photo was posted specifically to make the apparent point that digital (or the MM?) is incapable of producing a tree in b/w that doesn't look like plastic. And that's just nonsense. I think there are probably one or two examples of the billions of pics on the web that might just show otherwise...let alone in a fine print somewhere. I'll be happy to PM you with a link to a site that I finally developed to show some of my work....if you're that interested. But that's not relevant to the comment I made above, which is about the myriad choices each of us has when editing and printing photos, film or digital....there is no one specific 'look' that necessarily results from any given camera or lens or other gear...how boring that would be. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 21, 2016 Share #111 Posted January 21, 2016 I'll be happy to PM you with a link to a site that I finally developed to show some of my work....if you're that interested. Yes, please do – I would be interested. The forum is essentially a glorified camera club (certainly the closest I will get to being part of such a club) and IMO part of what makes it worthwhile is to see what others are up to photographically (it also, for what's it worth, helps de-anonymise participants). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colint544 Posted January 21, 2016 Share #112 Posted January 21, 2016 Wow, you really need to don a tin hat to drop in on this forum sometimes. It was I who posted the two photos of the tree near the start of this thread. I happened to have both my cameras with me the day I chanced upon the tree, and thought it might be fun to shoot the same scene two ways. I rather liked the shot of the tree on the M Monochrom, but some months later I dev'd the film and made a 10x8 fibre-based wet print from the film shot. The digital image was printed to A4 size on heavy weight archival Museum paper on an inkjet printer by Deadly Digital in Glasgow. (One of the joys of film is still the hand-made quality of a fibre-based print, something I think can be done from a digital file, but must be quite complicated) I can get by in a darkroom, and I'm not bad with Photoshop - I've been using it professionally for 20 years. I can do layers and everything. Less is usually more when it comes to Photoshop, I find. But, to my eyes, even on a computer monitor, the TIFF files of the MM shot and the M2 shot looked subtly different. The film image simply looked nicer somehow. I largely put it down to the existence of grain, and the absence of eye-watering sharpness. I wasn't trying to make the digital picture look like film, nor was I trying to make it look plastic. I just thought it'd be interesting to see the strengths and weaknesses of both mediums. To conclude, my take is that the M Monochrom, at low ISOs, produces very smooth and detailed images. I find it produces the most attractive files at around 1600 ISO - in fact I'd venture that 1600 ISO is the 'sweet spot' for the M Monochrom. I'd also say that, for me, the M Monochrom is a great low light machine. I think I prefer the organic and gentle look of film for better lighting conditions. But hey, that's just me. And perhaps I'll change my mind again in the future. Feel free to look at some of my other snaps here: https://www.instagram.com/colintempleton/ - they're shot on anything from an M Monochrom/M2/M5, iPhone 4, Canon EOS 1DX/5Dmk2, or Holga. One of the most popular shots is of a man walking through a snow shower, shot on an iPhone4. Proves to me that it pretty much doesn't matter what anything is shot on - it's the content. Off now to climb into my flame-proof suit. Best wishes all, Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 21, 2016 Share #113 Posted January 21, 2016 Wow, you really need to don a tin hat to drop in on this forum sometimes. It was I who posted the two photos of the tree near the start of this thread. I happened to have both my cameras with me the day I chanced upon the tree, and thought it might be fun to shoot the same scene two ways. I rather liked the shot of the tree on the M Monochrom, but some months later I dev'd the film and made a 10x8 fibre-based wet print from the film shot. The digital image was printed to A4 size on heavy weight archival Museum paper on an inkjet printer by Deadly Digital in Glasgow. (One of the joys of film is still the hand-made quality of a fibre-based print, something I think can be done from a digital file, but must be quite complicated) I can get by in a darkroom, and I'm not bad with Photoshop - I've been using it professionally for 20 years. I can do layers and everything. Less is usually more when it comes to Photoshop, I find. But, to my eyes, even on a computer monitor, the TIFF files of the MM shot and the M2 shot looked subtly different. The film image simply looked nicer somehow. I largely put it down to the existence of grain, and the absence of eye-watering sharpness. I wasn't trying to make the digital picture look like film, nor was I trying to make it look plastic. I just thought it'd be interesting to see the strengths and weaknesses of both mediums. To conclude, my take is that the M Monochrom, at low ISOs, produces very smooth and detailed images. I find it produces the most attractive files at around 1600 ISO - in fact I'd venture that 1600 ISO is the 'sweet spot' for the M Monochrom. I'd also say that, for me, the M Monochrom is a great low light machine. I think I prefer the organic and gentle look of film for better lighting conditions. But hey, that's just me. And perhaps I'll change my mind again in the future. Feel free to look at some of my other snaps here: https://www.instagram.com/colintempleton/ - they're shot on anything from an M Monochrom/M2/M5, iPhone 4, Canon EOS 1DX/5Dmk2, or Holga. One of the most popular shots is of a man walking through a snow shower, shot on an iPhone4. Proves to me that it pretty much doesn't matter what anything is shot on - it's the content. Off now to climb into my flame-proof suit. Best wishes all, Colin Colin - You've been sharing your photography with this forum for many years and I have always been impressed. You are really good from end to end. Any criticism of any point in this end to end spectrum is really misplaced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 21, 2016 Share #114 Posted January 21, 2016 I don't even bother reading his posts anymore. Aggressive and rarely helpful. There... I said it. ImageUploadedByTapatalk1453359526.073307.jpg Yash - please don't take offense to my question, but what is the point that you are making with your photo? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 21, 2016 Share #115 Posted January 21, 2016 Thanks for the follow-up, Colin. As I said, no offense was intended....truly. Even though it wasn't your intent, I bet with a few tweaks in Photoshop (or LR or whatever), you could still make your digital version appear much more film-like, i.e., more gentle, life-like and less 'plastic' (adjusting perhaps clarity, tone curve, sharpness, and various other actions/settings), not to mention other workflow adjustments within the entire chain from capture and lighting (had you so intended) to editing and print (including paper selection, print settings and more) to final display (matting, framing and lighting). There of course is no right or wrong...your tastes, preferences and desired output are all that count...I was making a different point, which is always dangerous in any film/digital discussion, especially when it seems (intended or not) that negative generalizations are being made. No armor needed. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted January 21, 2016 Share #116 Posted January 21, 2016 Yash - please don't take offense to my question, but what is the point that you are making with your photo? No point. Just wanted to break things up and give the thread a few photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 21, 2016 Share #117 Posted January 21, 2016 No point. Just wanted to break things up and give the thread a few photos. ok, gotcha. thanks for spicing things up. photos are welcome any time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 21, 2016 Share #118 Posted January 21, 2016 Yes, please do – I would be interested. The forum is essentially a glorified camera club (certainly the closest I will get to being part of such a club) and IMO part of what makes it worthwhile is to see what others are up to photographically (it also, for what's it worth, helps de-anonymise participants). PM sent. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted January 21, 2016 Share #119 Posted January 21, 2016 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! Another from the same roll. I'm shooting a roll a week at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Another from the same roll. I'm shooting a roll a week at the moment. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255498-convince-me-to-buy-a-film-m/?do=findComment&comment=2973681'>More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 21, 2016 Share #120 Posted January 21, 2016 Another from the same roll. I'm shooting a roll a week at the moment. Ah, you're on a roll ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.