plasticman Posted January 7, 2020 Share #101 Posted January 7, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think there's an aesthetic preference here, to which a person is either sensitive or indifferent. I'm currently scanning some Portra 400 images from last summer, and the colors and overall tonal harmony are simply incredible. I think many people who prefer or are accustomed to a digital aesthetic would think they are pastel and insipid. As for this discussion, a digital file pushed through a filter can look pretty film-like - but it won't look the same as a film image taken at the same time, under the same conditions. Obviously the discussion is moot, as it's best to take film-like images on film, and use the digital aesthetic for its own strengths. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Hi plasticman, Take a look here Film Leica vs M10-P. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Posted January 7, 2020 Share #102 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) Am 5.1.2020 um 02:23 schrieb A miller: Totally agree with Ian. I would also add that Mitch's statement that it "Really doesn't matter what you shoot" is not really going to inspire anyone to run out and spend $6000 on a Leica digital camera. 😂 To me, this thread is really all about someone wanting others to justify his GAS. This to some extent is depressing in and of itself. So why not have some fun with it and throw some realism into the discussion! With all due respect for your results and contagious smile, Adam: don‘t your film & lab expenses over the years surpass the costs of a satisfied GAS attack every time a new digital-M body comes out? Cheers, Simon PS. Mind you I‘m a film shooter, too. But my lab-people don‘t see me every month and my results haven‘t found anybody to pay Whitewall for them, so nor do I. Sold my M9-P years ago (after it got a free new sensor) and bought a 240 for my older daughter‘s wedding in Venice 2018, the digibody setting me back quite a bit less than what the wedding-photo pro got. Now I use it with an old bellows and it’s slide dup. Edited January 7, 2020 by tri Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted January 7, 2020 Share #103 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, plasticman said: I think many people who prefer or are accustomed to a digital aesthetic would think they are pastel and insipid. IMHO I think that’s right. I much prefer the aesthetic of film over digital, and whilst I still shoot 5x4 and Leica M7, when I use digital I try to get it as “film like” as possible. I tend to find achieving a similar aesthetic is much easier with digital images when they’re taken in shade (film is much more gentle with bright highlights and high contrast subjects, and I find this aspect of the film aesthetic to be impossible to closely match with digital). I also take down colour saturation, contrast etc, almost regardless, for my digital images to get it closer to how I perceive the film look. I’ve found it a useful exercise to split my iMac screen in two halves for a similar image - putting a drum scanned film image on one side, and the digital camera image on the other ... and then adjusting the digital to get it as close as possible. Edited January 7, 2020 by Jon Warwick 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 7, 2020 Share #104 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, andyturk said: "effortlessly"? with more effort, perhaps skies and skin tones might match across images. "beautiful film aesthetic"? not a compelling argument with the photos posted. "native sterile and soul-less? could you link to some examples to support your observations? "lots of time in front of the computer"? how much time is "too much" for a photo you love? etc. etc. I'll take my answers off the air... Andy - these photos were taken across many years, as you can tell from the ages of my kids. You've made my point -I love them precisely because they are all different don't "match," even though they are mostly shot on the same film. I view hundreds if not thousands of photos per day here and on social media from the film culture (check out "@kodaklosers, @analoguepeople and @deathb4digital on instagram) and can tell you that there is a whole swath of film shooters out there who covet the drugstore film look. I rarely am allowed to hang around in that culture because my photos are thought to look too clean and modern (go figure). It seems as though you are viewing me as one of them in the same way as I view them. But I am not them. Hence, who are you? 🤷♂️ I would also add that one photo that I shared above (#91 of my two sons at the dead sea) is particularly demonstrative of my point because it was very much overexposed (I don't use a meter and it was one of those situations that I was off). Probably a good two stops at least. With a digital camera, this would have been a "kick myself" moment because the digital sensor would have blown the highlights so bad that the file would be unrecoverable. Yet, with film I got a very special result. Perhaps not optimal, but nevertheless usable enough that it has become one of my recent favorites. Like making sweet lemonade out of lemons. I rarely ever get results that I cannot use with film. Such is NOT life with digital. 2 hours ago, plasticman said: I think there's an aesthetic preference here, to which a person is either sensitive or indifferent. I'm currently scanning some Portra 400 images from last summer, and the colors and overall tonal harmony are simply incredible. I think many people who prefer or are accustomed to a digital aesthetic would think they are pastel and insipid. As for this discussion, a digital file pushed through a filter can look pretty film-like - but it won't look the same as a film image taken at the same time, under the same conditions. Obviously the discussion is moot, as it's best to take film-like images on film, and use the digital aesthetic for its own strengths. I think that is really a good observation - I never really crystalized my thinking around the notion that there is a "digital aesthetic." But that is a good way to think about it. Kind of like old world and new world wine. One person's coveted bottle of '05 Margaux is another person's bottle of dirty diapers 😉 1 hour ago, tri said: With all due respect for your results and contagious smile, Adam: don‘t your film & lab expenses over the years surpass the costs of a satisfied GAS attack every time a new digital-M body comes out? Cheers, Simon PS. Mind you I‘m a film shooter, too. But my lab-people don‘t see me every month and my results haven‘t found anybody to pay Whitewall for them, so nor do I. Sold my M9-P years ago (after it got a free new sensor) and bought a 240 for my older daughter‘s wedding in Venice 2018, the digibody setting me back quite a bit less than what the wedding-photo pro got. Now I use it with an old bellows and it’s slide dup. Hi Simon! 😬 Putting aside my medium and large format film costs (which pay for itself in spades through print sales), I figure that I spend about $1500 per year on my end-to-end 35mm film workflow which is a little over 100 rolls. That is a TON of shooting considering it is film which has an inherently slower workflow. I am blessed to be able to live in a place where film labs still grow on trees and I can throw a bag of film in a dropbox of a lab on my way to work and have the processed results waiting for me at my home at the end of the day. So I take full advantage of it. My keeper rate - judged solely based on my own personal level of satisfaction - is insanely high relative to what I had with digital. Many years ago, I owned the first Monochrom and took over 11,000 exposures in the first year alone and ending up selling it after that one year at a $3000 loss and having only 1 or 2 handfuls of keepers to show for it. 🤦♂️ I don't have a PHD in graphic arts and I guess couldn't get the most out of the camera. So my bottom line is that I am not a penny pincher but I do want results that I am happy with. Otherwise, it is an perpetual rat race of unhappiness and envy of others. Edited January 7, 2020 by A miller 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko.Fe. Posted January 7, 2020 Share #105 Posted January 7, 2020 12 hours ago, A miller said: I love the pastel colors from Portra 160 in bright sunlight... 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! Yea, tastes are really opposite. To me it looks like developing at wrong temperature or close to expired ECN2 film I have. Anywho, it is great how you are supporting film industry. Here is economy M-E family picture: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 7, 2020 Share #106 Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said: Yea, tastes are really opposite. To me it looks like developing at wrong temperature or close to expired ECN2 film I have. Anywho, it is great how you are supporting film industry. Here is economy M-E family picture: 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 colors look in perfect balance to my eye. I tend to prefer the low contrast rendition for family stuff and don’t do much editing. That’s a nice digital aesthetic you have 😉. And a lovely set of kids. Whatever the medium, a beautiful moment captured. Which is 90% of the photo - how you capture the moment, whether candid or not. You did it beautifully here. Would i have preferred it on a Portra? Absolutely!! 😂😂 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 7, 2020 Share #107 Posted January 7, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 8 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said: Yea, tastes are really opposite. To me it looks like developing at wrong temperature or close to expired ECN2 film I have. Anywho, it is great how you are supporting film industry. Here is economy M-E family picture: 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 colors look in perfect balance to my eye. I tend to prefer the low contrast rendition for family stuff and don’t do much editing. That’s a nice digital aesthetic you have 😉. And a lovely set of kids. Whatever the medium, a beautiful moment captured. Which is 90% of the photo - how you capture the moment, whether candid or not. You did it beautifully here. Would i have preferred it on a Portra? Absolutely!! 😂😂 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuyork Posted January 7, 2020 Share #108 Posted January 7, 2020 14 hours ago, A miller said: I love the pastel colors from Portra 160 in bright sunlight... 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! Portra is indeed a treat... It's not my go to for color, but I do really like the colors of Portra withh the right subject, and these are good subjects. I also find it very malleable in post after a scan... this is 160, but I edited to minimize the cyan cast making it less pastel: 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 7, 2020 Share #109 Posted January 7, 2020 12 hours ago, A miller said: and I know that it's not for everyone and some people like the sterile look This is, of course, a matter of opinion. For the sort of photography that I like doing, I couldn't do it to my satisfaction with film. There is too much variability and too much grain, especially in C41. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 7, 2020 Share #110 Posted January 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, gnuyork said: Portra is indeed a treat... It's not my go to for color, but I do really like the colors of Portra withh the right subject, and these are good subjects. I also find it very malleable in post after a scan... this is 160, but I edited to minimize the cyan cast making it less pastel: 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! I agree, totally. The portras are incredibly malleable film stocks. and in terms of rendition I find the pastels of the portra 160 to be most pronounced in very bright sunlight and in low light very close to the portra 400. Lovely photo, btw! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2020 Share #111 Posted January 7, 2020 I don't think that it is impossible to get this kind of look in digital. Leica CL 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! 4 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/304372-film-leica-vs-m10-p/?do=findComment&comment=3886869'>More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 7, 2020 Share #112 Posted January 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, andybarton said: This is, of course, a matter of opinion. Not exactly, Andy, it is my assessment: -digital files straight out of the camera are sterile -film scans/prints are not, but rather are immediately characteristic of the color palette/balance and contrast latitude of the film stock used. Of course, editing in either case can enhance and improve the result. But as a baseline, a digital photographer's end result in terms of rendition depends a lot on his post-processing capabilities. For a film photographer, it largely depends on the film stock used. This forum really needs an all-film Leica photographer moderator. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 7, 2020 Share #113 Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, A miller said: This forum really needs an all-film Leica photographer moderator. Why? Where is the moderation lacking here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuyork Posted January 7, 2020 Share #114 Posted January 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, A miller said: I agree, totally. The portras are incredibly malleable film stocks. and in terms of rendition I find the pastels of the portra 160 to be most pronounced in very bright sunlight and in low light very close to the portra 400. Lovely photo, btw! Thanks, here's a few more from the same scene (location is Puebla Mexico) Porta 160VC/Leica M6/Summicron 50 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! 2 1 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/304372-film-leica-vs-m10-p/?do=findComment&comment=3886879'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2020 Share #115 Posted January 7, 2020 Please take into account that this is NOT an image thread. Only images for the illustration of a point are permitted; that means not flooding the thread, which is about the choice between two camera models, and not an ode to either film or digital. Please post images for display in the designated threads. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 7, 2020 Share #116 Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, jaapv said: I don't think that it is impossible to get this kind of look in digital. Leica CL 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! Lovely, Jaap. A wonderful moment that you just want to keep gazing at. I agree with you. To be clear, I do not believe that one cannot achieve a rendition that - in general - resembles film, with their digital images. There are many photographers that do a good job of this. One that randomly comes to mind is @spicymeatball (Josh) on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/spicy.meatball/ Most of the time I can't tell whether his images are digital. He must have developed his own presets because I am sure that many people envy what he is able to achieve yet they are not able to do it. Having said this, I am not sure that it is so easy to pinpoint a digital rendition to a particular film stock. Not all that relevant for everyone, just a point. The bottom line for me is that if you are going out shooting and are seeking the look that you have shared with your photo, it will be easier and (IMO) more successful to just use a film camera and load it with portra or whatever other film that tickles your fancy! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 7, 2020 Share #117 Posted January 7, 2020 It is also clear that the two sides of the same coin (Leica Film only users vs Leica Digital only users) are never going to be reconciled. If you don't like digital, don't use it. If you don't like film, don't use it. If you swing both ways, then use both. But, please don't perpetuate film vs digital arguments just because you are in one camp or the other. It really is down to personal preference and opinion. Thanks Personally, I couldn't give a monkey's what someone else uses to make their photographs. It isn't any of my business. If I think that digital gives me the results on my wall that I like (and my wife likes), then why would I care what someone else prefers? I don't like decaffeinated coffee. I prefer English Breakfast tea. What does it matter if you're a decaff person? I just don't get why this is still being discussed after all these years, to be honest. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2020 Share #118 Posted January 7, 2020 Not so difficult, it took me about two minutes PS, I can do better when I am not on my Macbook during a lull in my work. I can only agree with you, it is 9 minutes ago, A miller said: Lovely, Jaap. A wonderful moment that you just want to keep gazing at. I agree with you. To be clear, I do not believe that one cannot achieve a rendition that - in general - resembles film, with their digital images. There are many photographers that do a good job of this. One that randomly comes to mind is @spicymeatball (Josh) on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/spicy.meatball/ Most of the time I can't tell whether his images are digital. He must have developed his own presets because I am sure that many people envy what he is able to achieve yet they are not able to do it. Having said this, I am not sure that it is so easy to pinpoint a digital rendition to a particular film stock. Not all that relevant for everyone, just a point. The bottom line for me is that if you are going out shooting and are seeking the look that you have shared with your photo, it will be easier and (IMO) more successful to just use a film camera and load it with portra or whatever other film that tickles your fancy! Thanks, Adam. It was not that hard, it took me about two minutes Photoshop on my Macbook during a lull at work, I'm sure I could improve it on my home editing station My point was, as I feel is yours, that one should master the technique one prefers to achieve the look one prefers, and that materials or tools are basically not of interest - at least to outsiders. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted January 7, 2020 Share #119 Posted January 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, A miller said: Having said this, I am not sure that it is so easy to pinpoint a digital rendition to a particular film stock. Not all that relevant for everyone, just a point Would think this a futile exercise and complete waste of time! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted January 7, 2020 Share #120 Posted January 7, 2020 11 minutes ago, andybarton said: Why? Where is the moderation lacking here? Sometimes I feel that Leica film photography is not proportionately represented and in some cases there is bias towards digital photography amongst the mods. It is often rather subtle, but not lost on me. Not a big deal and not taking away from the great work that all the mods do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now