Jump to content

Leica M6/Tri-X vs Ricoh GR-D and Leica D-Lux 3


Guest malland

Recommended Posts

Guest malland

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The grain factor is the reason that I've stuck to small-sensor cameras (the Ricoh GR-D and Leica D-Lux 3) rather than getting an M8, with which I would have to shoot at ISO1250 or 2500 to get a grain effect -- I don't like to put in grain artificially because, although I do a lot of post-processing, I like to work more "directly" with regard to grain.

 

At the url below you can see a "slideshow" of 112 B&W pictures, my "Bangkok Series", of which 48 were taken with the Leica M6 (mainly with Tri-X, HP5 and some Fuji 1600) and the rest with mainly with the GR-D, and some with the Leica D-Lux 3. Granted that they're only small jpegs, but I think they nevetheless show the qulaity of B&W that you can get with small-sensor digital cameras:

 

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

 

Incidentally, this series is in four "chapters", but without any chapter titles.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

 

 

Note: I originally posted this in a response to another thread that wasn't getting many readers and am reposting it here because I thought it might be of more general interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you do a lot of post-processing/retouching then you should know it is MUCH easier and far better to work on a clean, low-noise/low-ISO image than it is to do so with a noisy image.

 

take cloning for example. if your image is very grainy to begin with, you need to match the grain patterns with what you are cloning, otherwise it becomes quite obvious the post-work done.

 

in the advertising world, many post-production houses prefer working with files from medium format backs and canon SLR's over nikon's because they are cleaner.

 

just my two cents.

 

/a

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland
if you do a lot of post-processing/retouching then you should know it is MUCH easier and far better to work on a clean, low-noise/low-ISO image than it is to do so with a noisy image.

 

take cloning for example. if your image is very grainy to begin with, you need to match the grain patterns with what you are cloning, otherwise it becomes quite obvious the post-work done.

 

in the advertising world, many post-production houses prefer working with files from medium format backs and canon SLR's over nikon's because they are cleaner...

/a

I don't really do "retouching" and, as for cloning, it's only something I would do on a film scan to remove dust — and in shooting Tri-X you'll have a lot of grain anyway. In any case I prefer not to add grain to digital pictures, not only because I like to work more "directly" but also I'm not out to imitate film — I just go for the look I want in any particular picture. Altough I do extensive post-processing it's what I would do in the darkroom: contrast changes and dodging and burning. As I said, I'm not into retouching and, to me, the advertsing example has no relevance at all.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Woderful images Mitch. At least in my computer I couldn't guess which camera took what shot, and I don't care, they all are about content, one more proof that is not the violin, is the violinist.

 

Regards,

Ricardo Villagran

 

Zenfolio | Ricardo Villagran photography

Yes, Ricardo, that is the point I really wanted to make: it's not that important with what camera you use -- it's the content and the statement the pictures make — it's more important what you have to say with your pictures.

 

—MItch/Bangkok

Link to post
Share on other sites

point taken, but the fact still remains, any sort of post-processing is easier and better with cleaner files. even "traditional" darkroom techniques like dodging/burning. noise is essentially variations in tones/colours/patterns, and it makes it more (read, not impossble, but more difficult) to isolate midtones to dodge, for example if the midtones are made up of grains with deep shadows and highlights, you end up posterizing REAL fast. **this is just my advice as someone with a fair bit of post-production experience.

 

if you're not out to imitate film, then why the need for digital high ISO /small sensor noise? what's the difference with shooting at high ISO's vs. shooting low ISO and adding noise BEFORE you do your post-processing?

 

in my mind there is no difference, so long as you intend to have a final image with noise in mind when shooting. its like shooting a digital RAW black and white photo--you compose the shot/exposure for a B&W image even though the camera spits out a colour file.

 

but hey, i gave up shooting film years ago, and couldnt be happier shooting B&W with my M8 now, maybe my perspective is skewed.....

 

/a

 

 

I don't really do "retouching" and, as for cloning, it's only something I would do on a film scan to remove dust — and in shooting Tri-X you'll have a lot of grain anyway. In any case I prefer not to add grain to digital pictures, not only because I like to work more "directly" but also I'm not out to imitate film — I just go for the look I want in any particular picture. Altough I do extensive post-processing it's what I would do in the darkroom: contrast changes and dodging and burning. As I said, I'm not into retouching and, to me, the advertsing example has no relevance at all.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland

Andy:

 

It certainly needs to be considered, and I'm not entirely rejecting the approach that you are suggesting; it's just that, at this stage, I don't want to get into adding grain — it's sort of the "zen" apsect of doing without this, obviously not entirely rational.

 

On the other hand, I find that using LightZone I can manipulate exatly the tonal range that I want and it doesn't really matter if there is a lot of grain or none.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi mitch,

 

there are a lot of strange things and different directions one must take in transitioning from film to digital JUST to get the same look and response from one's photographs. they are VERY different media in many respects.

 

it took me a LONG time to really get comfortable with digital, especially going from my main camera a Mamiya RZ 67 ProII to a 35mm DSLR canon (but fell in love with the M8 immediately!).

 

there's some really good stuff in your Bankok series, i hope you figure out the look and workflow issues you are after sooner than later.

 

regards,

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland
there's some really good stuff in your Bankok series, i hope you figure out the look and workflow issues you are after sooner than later.
Thanks for the kind words, disingenious as they sound. I do have the look I want and I don't have any workflow issues. The point of the original posting was that it doesn't really matter whether you shoot digitially or on film if you can get the look that you want: it's the image that matters. And I don't try to get a "film look" digitally, which us another reason that I don't like to add grain because that would tend to push me in that direction. Instead, when working digitally, I just try to get the look that I want from each photograph, which may vary according to the nature of the image. That was the purpose of asking people to look at the slide show.

 

—MItch/Bangkok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, I greatly admire your work.

 

I was wondering whether you've had a chance to try Ricoh's new GX-100. If so, what is your sense of it; and if not, what do you think of the shots you may have seen posted by other early users?

 

Clearly, its specification is interesting.

 

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland
Mitch, I greatly admire your work.

 

I was wondering whether you've had a chance to try Ricoh's new GX-100. If so, what is your sense of it; and if not, what do you think of the shots you may have seen posted by other early users?

 

Clearly, its specification is interesting.

 

Rob

Thanks, Rob. Although the GX100 looks interesting I haven't tried it because I have the D-Lux 3. If I were choosing between it and the latter I would probably buy the GX100 because the controls are similar or the same as my GR-D and also because it seems bettter at higher ISOs. I shoot in RAW format and while the D-Lux 3 is fine at ISO 400 and seems okay at 800, it is virtually unusable at 1600 because, even in RAW, there is some in camera processing that really messes up the files. My impressionis the the GX100 does not have this problem but, of course, I haven't tried it.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I've been looking at some of the many the GX-100 images posted and, compared to the range of d-lux 3 images, they seem on average a little less intense, less contrasty and sharp. But some I've seen have been beautiful.

 

I like that the GX-100 has a stepped zoom lense, and I like the control setup too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well clearly you don't think highly of what i have to say, but quite frankly i am not about to get into an argument with you.

 

in my defense though, i read from your posting as you having "workflow issues" since you are clearly comparing images generated from film/digital and digital amungst several cameras (and your reluctance to getting an M8). if you're getting the images you want, then there's no need to compare, you should present your work as your work, PERIOD. if cameras don't matter, and if the process towards getting the images you want isn't the issue, then digital noise/grain wouldnt matter if it comes in camera or otherwise. so the title of your thread is misleading. this thread should be a photo critique and NOT a discussion about cameras.

 

if you want my full opinion on your series, i really do think there are some good images. what detracts from these good photographs however, is that the presentation is slightly scattered given such a large body of work--especially when you come across the nudes (which although are good images in their own right) seem out of place.

if i am incorrect in that criticism, then there should be some sort of additional context to given them relavance.

 

finally, i agree with you that it doesn't matter what kind of camera (film, digital, sensor size, noise etc.) or process is used so long as it produces images that one is after. afterall i am in the advertising industry, where i only shoot digitally, retouch A LOT and *GASP* add noise to my digital files afterwards.

 

a lot of people get caught up in all the technology and forget the photography aspects, and i usually try to avoid getting into the long internet debates, so i will stop myself here.

 

you can take my opinion/critcisms/advice for whatever they are worth to you.

 

-Andy

 

 

Thanks for the kind words, disingenious as they sound. I do have the look I want and I don't have any workflow issues. The point of the original posting was that it doesn't really matter whether you shoot digitially or on film if you can get the look that you want: it's the image that matters. And I don't try to get a "film look" digitally, which us another reason that I don't like to add grain because that would tend to push me in that direction. Instead, when working digitally, I just try to get the look that I want from each photograph, which may vary according to the nature of the image. That was the purpose of asking people to look at the slide show.

 

—MItch/Bangkok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stnami
if you want my full opinion on your series, i really do think there are some good images. what detracts from these good photographs however, is that the presentation is slightly scattered given such a large body of work--especially when you come across the nudes (which although are good images in their own right) seem out of place.

if i am incorrect in that criticism, then there should be some sort of additional context to given them relavance.

Andy,it doesn't seem that Mitch has any intent of babysitting his audience through the images, the relevence of the images should come clear if you read the whole group of images as a narrative,.................. too many people want to be spoonfed all the information

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest malland

I couldn't say it better than Imants has: it is a narrative, and the only thing that I would add is that I'm depicting rather than documenting. As for the nudes, they are an integral part of the series in terms of form and in terms of the narrative.

 

Andy, I don't think this is an argument: it's a discussion -- and discussions are not of much interest if everyone has the same view. As I said, I don't think I have workflow issues, although I recognize that there could be better ways of doing what I'm doing. And it is in that spirit that I muse about using different cameras. And camera equipment can be interesting to talk about.

 

—MItch/Bangkok

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...