Film Leica vs M10-P

[Nitnaros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

not sure where the 2 M10-P and the one M7 photo went from my previous post - here we go again:

2x M10-P:

 

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!

[Nitnaros]

and here an M7 pic, Ilford Delta 3200:

 

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!

[caloosajo]

I use an M10 and MP (just upgraded from M6 classic). Tend to lean on the digital if I’m chasing my little daughter around or shooting with limited light, but both M’s are thoughtful teachers. I’ll take the film M on my commute to work, maybe test what I know about the zone system and zone focusing, then bring that knowledge back to the digital M. Push the 400-speed film to 1600 or 3200, and see how that translates to my exposure settings on the digital M. Shoot the 50 lux at f/1.4 on the M10 and humbly see where my focusing was off, or stop down my 28 Elmarit and test the limits of hyperfocal distance. All this and more with the end goal of making the MP my main instrument. 

[A miller]

The posts succeeding mine in this thread have just reinforced my love for film and clarity on this issue.  

[sblitz]

While my first choice is film, M4 or MA, I do shoot the digital CL on occasion, most often at night inside with grandchildren and I want to be sure I got the shot.  But I always love the film shots better.  After all vision is an illusion and.film captures that magic soooo much better, to me at least.

[Doc Henry]

.....big lack of light on RGB pixels sensor (only 25% on Red & Blue , 50% on Green ) in comparison with film >  Color not satisfying <  Hack and approximate correction by camera algorithm software   ...    and lack of details in shadows when converted color to b&w * !  a reason of my film choice and  I agree with Adam and Steve.

Best Henry

* did a comparison with digital M

Edited December 28, 2019 by Doc Henry

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

42 minutes ago, Doc Henry said:

.....big lack of light on RGB pixels sensor (only 25% on Red & Blue , 50% on Green ) in comparison with film >  Color not satisfying <  Hack and approximate correction by camera algorithm software   ...    and lack of details in shadows when converted color to b&w * !  a reason of my film choice and  I agree with Adam and Steve.

Best Henry

* did a comparison with digital M

The distribution mirrors the response of the human eye, does it not?

[jaapv]

45 minutes ago, Doc Henry said:

.....big lack of light on RGB pixels sensor (only 25% on Red & Blue , 50% on Green ) in comparison with film >  Color not satisfying <  Hack and approximate correction by camera algorithm software   ...    and lack of details in shadows when converted color to b&w * !  a reason of my film choice and  I agree with Adam and Steve.

Best Henry

* * did a comparison with digital M

I don't think that these comparisons even begin to be valid due to the totally different ways in which  the systems work.

Lack of light? That depends on the sensitivity of the film you are comparing and the base sensitivity of the sensor. And do you think that there are no light-eating filters in colour film?
Compare a B&W film to a monochrome sensor, if you will, but compare a Bayer matrix sensor to an RGB-filtered film.
You'll find, except when you are using slide film (which reacts the same as a sensor), that the detail loss of a sensor is in the highlights and the detail loss of film in the shadows.
As to colour, digital can create just about any colour you like, with film you are stuck with the manufacturer's choice. Anybody who has done any colour printing in the darkroom will confirm that getting the colours satisfactory is the hardest part of all.

All in all, you are comparing apples to CDs and are coming to totally wrong conclusions.

[A miller]

14 hours ago, jaapv said:

As to colour, digital can create just about any colour you like, with film you are stuck with the manufacturer's choice. A

talk about not making sense...  

It is precisely the reason why I shoot film - to be stuck with the manufacturer's choice!!  

And guess who chooses the manufacturer??

Duh!!

To be brutally honest, I think the dearth of quality landscape photos in the "Travel & Landscape" section of the forum  - which is dominated by digital photos - is the pudding.  

Contrast this with those presented in the "I Like Film" thread - even those shot on Leica film Ms...

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

"My options are:

1. Just keep the MP and get nothing else

2. Keep the MP and M9-P

3. Keep the MP and get an M10-P"

here's one vote for #4:  Keep the MP and M9-P and buy the M10-P your coworker is offering for sale.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, A miller said:

talk about not making sense...  

It is precisely the reason why I shoot film - to be stuck with the manufacturer's choice!!  

And guess who chooses the manufacturer??

Duh!!

To be brutally honest, I think the dearth of quality landscape photos in the "Travel & Landscape" section of the forum  - which is dominated by digital photos - is the pudding.  

Contrast this with those presented in the "I Like Film" thread - even those shot on Leica film Ms...

Precisely why I prefer Nature Photographers Network - woops - nearly all digital. I find good stuff in the film thread - about the same percentage as on the digital forums. Why? because the medium has not a d*mn thing to do with photographic and artistic skills. as soon as one has to depend on the tool/medium to create one has lost the artistic quality. This whole film vs digital debate is an absurdity laced with fake artistic snobbery - on both sides. And about fifteen years out of date too.

Disclosure: I shoot both film and digital. And in the end I judge my image - not the process.

Come to think of it, there are very few real film photographers left. At a guess 90%  of film photographs are digitized and displayed on-screen or printed digitally- which, in the end, I find a bit of kitsch (guilty as charged, m"lud ) I see film as a very specific sensor, as vulnerable to postprocessing as any digital photograph.

[A miller]

47 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Precisely why I prefer Nature Photographers Network - woops - nearly all digital. I find good stuff in the film thread - about the same percentage as on the digital forums. Why? because the medium has not a d*mn thing to do with photographic and artistic skills. as soon as one has to depend on the tool/medium to create one has lost the artistic quality. This whole film vs digital debate is an absurdity laced with fake artistic snobbery - on both sides. And about fifteen years out of date too.

Disclosure: I shoot both film and digital. And in the end I judge my image - not the process.

Come to think of it, there are very few real film photographers left. At a guess 90%  of film photographs are digitized and displayed on-screen or printed digitally- which, in the end, I find a bit of kitsch (guilty as charged, m"lud ) I see film as a very specific sensor, as vulnerable to postprocessing as any digital photograph.

I can speak for myself - and only for myself - in that serious film photography (using serious tools and pro grade film stocks) unlocked something inside of me that I never knew I had when I shot digital.  Maybe it's because I don't have a PHD in graphic arts.  But it is very real.  

And the whole thing about digitizing negatives is really overblown and misplaced.  The aesthetic of the particular film stock absolutely comes through in the initial scan.  And then whatever the photographer does with the file from that point forward is purely additive and expressive.   But nothing is lost in the process.  

Here's the proof:

Silver gelatin wet prints  - complete analog:

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!

 

These images look exactly the same on my computer screen as they do in the prints - at least I could achieve the exact same rendition - in a few cases I chose to extract a little more tonal range in the shadows.  

In fact, I did my own little test with the photo of the Brooklyn Bridge in the fog on the far left and tried to replicate the clean detail that I was able to extract from the piers in the foreground - and couldn't.  There simply wasn't enough give in the negative.  And to make matters worse, there were a couple of spots on the negative that needed to be cloned out, which requires more skill (and money if someone else is doing the printing).  It took 2 seconds to clone these spots out in Lightroom.  

If I printed scans of these on Ilford Baryta paper using a lightjet process I guarantee that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.

Color may be a little different but a complete analog workflow just doesn't make sense when you are making 8-12 foot prints.  But you can definitely carry out the film aesthetic to a large extent.

Edited December 29, 2019 by A miller

[A miller]

40 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Precisely why I prefer Nature Photographers Network - woops - nearly all digital. I find good stuff in the film thread - about the same percentage as on the digital forums. Why? because the medium has not a d*mn thing to do with photographic and artistic skills. as soon as one has to depend on the tool/medium to create one has lost the artistic quality. This whole film vs digital debate is an absurdity laced with fake artistic snobbery - on both sides. And about fifteen years out of date too.

Disclosure: I shoot both film and digital. And in the end I judge my image - not the process.

Come to think of it, there are very few real film photographers left. At a guess 90%  of film photographs are digitized and displayed on-screen or printed digitally- which, in the end, I find a bit of kitsch (guilty as charged, m"lud ) I see film as a very specific sensor, as vulnerable to postprocessing as any digital photograph.

Here's another comparison  - two prints, one completely analog and the other a print of a film scan on Ilford Baryta paper using a lightjet printer (from Whitewall).

Can you tell the difference?  There is a slight difference in rendition, but this can be easily matched with more attention to this (which I did not attempt).

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!

The look and feel is the same, here's a photo of the finish and texture of the paper:

 

The answer - The top is the analog print.  Putting aside that it is little more contrasty (and toned) than the digital print (which I couldn't have easily replicated in my digital rendition but wanted a little more tonal range), the big problem that I had with the analog print is that I couldn't get the same amount of detail in the woman's face than I got with the digital file.  The professional printed with whom I was working tried so hard that it left a smudge on her face - and it still didn't extract the same amount of detail!!

[jaapv]

If it works that way for you that is a respectable -artistic- argument and nothing wrong with it. However, it does not make the attempt at technical rationalization that triggered this discussion more valid. 

Speaking for myself - I do not have your academic credentials but 60 years of photographic experience must count for something- the advent of digital technology revitalized my photography as it was a new medium to master. In the end, I don't care at all through which process an image was taken, nobody claims that Rembrandt was a great master because he mixed his own paints.

Claiming superiority because an image was taken on film does trigger the "if you want a film image, keep it chemical" comment, though.

[A miller]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

If it works that way for you that is a respectable -artistic- argument and nothing wrong with it. However, it does not make the attempt at technical rationalization that triggered this discussion more valid. 

Speaking for myself - I do not have your academic credentials but 60 years of photographic experience must count for something- the advent of digital technology revitalized my photography as it was a new medium to master. In the end, I don't care at all through which process an image was taken, nobody claims that Rembrandt was a great master because he mixed his own paints.

Claiming superiority because an image was taken on film does trigger the "if you want a film image, keep it chemical" comment, though.

I am sure you have much more academic credentials than me, Jaap 😉  I am entirely self taught through a couple of books, youtube, trial and error and this forum 🙂

And i totally respect you and anyone who has been liberated by the digital age.  I don't want to offend or disrespect anyone but - keeping it real - it doesn't really work that way for everyone. 

I will say this - no matter how hard i try to amplify it - an all film workflow doesn't really mean all that much to people who purchase my cityscape and landscape prints.  They simply love the image and want it on their wall.  I can talk anyone's ear off about my workflow and how extensive and traditional it is but in many case it leads to eyes glazing over.  😂

 

[davidmknoble]

raj,

I have been in the same place you are now.  I've shot film since the late 1970's and I still shoot film today, but I love digital as well.  One area that helped me was to limit my film and developers.  I use only Kodak Tri X and Ilford FP4+ and I only use Ilford chemicals.  I scan my negatives and then enjoy the digital workflow beside my other digital images.

In terms of use - I shoot film when I know I will take the time to develop and scan it.  If I really don't have time, I shoot digital.  I almost always take both a digital and film body on vacations and alternate between the two.

Mechanically, the MP is a great, long lasting tool, which you already alluded to.  I think the key is to decide to use the film body, not worry about whether you will.  Just make the decision to use it and you will...

Best of luck to you!

 

[01af]

Digital is technically better and way more convenient than film ... but film is more beautiful. I keep saying that the Leica M-A, loaded with Ilford B/W film, is my M Monochrom. But I would not want to get separated from my M10-P. I keep using both and I wouldn't give up any of them.

I use film for B/W and digital for colour ... but that doesn't keep me from converting many digital shots to black-and-white.

[A miller]

8 hours ago, 01af said:

Digital is technically better and way more convenient than film ... but film is more beautiful. I keep saying that the Leica M-A, loaded with Ilford B/W film, is my M Monochrom. But I would not want to get separated from my M10-P. I keep using both and I wouldn't give up any of them.

I use film for B/W and digital for colour ... but that doesn't keep me from converting many digital shots to black-and-white.

“Digital is technically better“? 

So

blown and uncharming highlights,

choppy transition between in focus and out of focus areas in a scene,

undistinguished color palette 

Ugly skin tones

plastic look

so boring that you need Silver Sfex to keep your high going

...

is technically better??

oy, you have sold your soul... 🤦🏻‍♂️

[01af]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb A miller:

“Digital is technically better“?

Yes, it definitely is.

.

vor 11 Stunden schrieb A miller:

So

blown and uncharming highlights,
choppy transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas in a scene,
undistinguished color palette,
ugly skin tones,
plastic look ...

Just because you cannot handle digital, doesn't mean no-one can.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[raj]

On 12/12/2019 at 11:48 PM, erniethemilk said:

I have an M6 & an M10-P. Both have their place and both are blooming awesome! 

"Both have their place"

This is what I'm interested to know more about. When do you use one or the other?