Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fauxtog

Into the Rain

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bad weather I like. Well, for photography that is... It can make an otherwise dull place that little bit more interesting. My home town is decidedly dull. Even duller on a rainy day. But I managed to get three shots that was worthwhile. This one of them, hope you like it! (M9 with an old 35mm Summicron)

Share this post


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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Henry Taylor
      "Just a little rain won't bother me - Lets go out and pay🙏 "
       
      My little English Spaniel is always ready  but Dad isn't 😔
      Z6  Leitz Elmar (3.5/50mm)

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
    • By camalogica
      Hi everybody,
      I’m a computer science engineer who has been working, as a hobby, the last three years in a new, more precise, way of recreating film look with digital cameras.
      I’m posting here for feedback, in case anybody of you would like to test the application (with the M9) and show the results and your opinions.
      I usually shoot film photography but also I like the comfort of digital. The problem is that I’ve never been happy with existing film emulations. Mainly because of that, because they are emulations instead of simulations.

      METHOD USED
      For doing so, instead of doing a generic conversion for every camera, I’ve done a specialised conversion for the Leica M9 based on simulating the chemical process and spectrum response, instead of applying curves and other stuff.
      In the end, I thought, if analog and digital are just two instruments which capture light, I thought, maybe is there any mathematical conversion to make the digital to look like film?
      I mean, if I take the same photo with analog and digital, under exact same conditions (light / aperture / exposition /…) could I make them look exactly the same?
      It’s based on chemical simulation and the Leica M9’s response to spectrum. Then LUTs and finally some extra calibration. I think that it could be improved because I’ve used home made or open source tools for calibrating and so on, which are far from perfect.
      EXAMPLES (Analog vs Converted Digital)
      Following are some examples of Superia 200 and TriX 400.
      Click in each photo to see high resolution.
      DNGs shoots taken with Leica M9 (left), and FILM shoots taken with Minolta CLE (right) at same conditions (aperture / exposition / ISO).
      All shoots taken with Zeiss Biogon T* ZM 35mm f/2.
      The examples show several photos, which are the following:
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      |      original DNG      |                        |
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      |      converted DNG     |     scanned FILM       |
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      |      developed DNG     |     developed FILM     |
      +------------------------+------------------------+
      For the generated simulated negative TIFF file and the scanned TIFF file I’ve applied exactly the same develop parameters.
      TriX 400 - 1
      TriX 400 - 2
      TriX 400 - 3
      Superia 200 - 1
      Superia 200 - 2
      Superia 200 - 3
      Superia 200 - 4
      Superia 200 - 5
      Superia 200 - 6

      CONCLUSIONS
      Tonal range - Biggest difference between digital and film
      Dynamic range - Digital is faaar more detailed in the blacks, film never gets burnt, meanwhile digital gets burn quite fast.
      Film has more microcontrast, it's more sharpen
      Digital is a little bit more contrast after developing, I imagine it’s because it reach white level faster, then, when doing autolevels with the developing program, as a result, it’s a more contrast image.

      DOWNLOAD
      I'm having a console application ready, if interest is shown it will be ready quite soon!
      CAVEHEATS / LIMITATIONS
      The program only accept DNG, because I need all the light captured by the camera, instead of a JPG already converted and really dependent on camera self made adjustments.
      The program only accepts photos taken at the ISO of the certain film that is gonna be used. For example, for TriX400 it will accept only Leica M9 DNGs at 400 ISO. I’ve also done tests with ISO 200 and 800, and the results were quite satisfactory but, for complexity reasons, I prefer to let it be native film ISO for the moment.
      Highlights are not always correct, and sometimes they look weird, mainly in color film. This is due to bayer sensor pattern and its different intensity response (for Red, Green and Blue channels).
      FUTURE (& PAST) WORK
      Leica M10-D
      Leica M8.2

      THANKS
      Super thanks to the creator of LibRaw, a wonderful C++ library for working with RAW files.
      Any questions I’m open to answer 🙂
      Best regards everybody.
      Tomás AKA “Camalogica”
       
    • By R6M6
      Ist es heute nicht zehn Jahre her, dass in NY die M9 vorgestellt wurde!
      Meine begeistert mich noch heute durch Form, Funktion und Bildqualität. Sie besitzt den 3. Sensor, allerdings war der Leica Service beim Tausch immer sehr gut.
      Ich hoffe auf weitere zehn Jahre!🤫
    • By Kwesi
      Over the span of about six years I went from an M9-P to an M240-P and recently an M10-P. What struck me immediately was how similar the M10 and M9 files were in terms of color and contrast. The M240 files reminded me of Kodak Portra film whereas the M10 output just reminded of the M9. I thought i was alone in this observation until i read this article today.
      https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/7/29/the-myth-of-the-leica-m9-ccd-vs-cmos-sensors
      Thoughts?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy