Jon Warwick Posted March 27, 2020 Share #21 Posted March 27, 2020 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Bottom is analogue Edited March 27, 2020 by Jon Warwick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 27, 2020 Posted March 27, 2020 Hi Jon Warwick, Take a look here which one is analog and which one is film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Graham (G4FUJ) Posted March 27, 2020 Share #22 Posted March 27, 2020 Beginning to sound like the audience at a pantomime! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted March 27, 2020 Share #23 Posted March 27, 2020 Oh no it isn't ! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham (G4FUJ) Posted March 27, 2020 Share #24 Posted March 27, 2020 I wondered who'd be first! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted March 27, 2020 Share #25 Posted March 27, 2020 Oh no you didn't ! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted March 27, 2020 Share #26 Posted March 27, 2020 bottom is film .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediumformula Posted March 27, 2020 Share #27 Posted March 27, 2020 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Top looks like film to me. This feels like one of those experiments where a bunch of experts try to determine which violin is a Strad or a cheap knock off and they all get it wrong. Edited March 27, 2020 by mediumformula 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 27, 2020 Share #28 Posted March 27, 2020 Viewed on my screen, both are necessarily digital renderings. Jeff 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted March 27, 2020 Share #29 Posted March 27, 2020 The blind men trying to describe what an elephant ;looks like. 😅 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted March 27, 2020 Share #30 Posted March 27, 2020 8 hours ago, stray cat said: Ah dammit! Not that I saw that it was posted in the M9 section (I didn't - I don't think I'd ever visited there before just now, following your post) but because I like to eat hats. Is that so strange? No, seriously, the skin gives it away. Game set and match right there. It's an old comparison now, it's a different digital camera, and I'm sure we've all see it, but this still holds true: http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=51356 Some interesting pictures there, Phil 😉 Given that my knowledge of French just about allows me order a cup of coffee and ask where the railway station Gare du Nord is situated, unfortunately I’m not able to do much other than look at the pictures. If there’s a conclusion in the text I’m afraid it’s beyond me. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 27, 2020 Share #31 Posted March 27, 2020 This is a great intellectual debate with winners and LOSERS to come. Some reputations will hang on the result, yet sitting on the fence is also the Leica forum way by waiting to say 'I thought that all along', but it can't trump 'I told you so'. I'm biting my nails. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 27, 2020 Share #32 Posted March 27, 2020 I thought the top one is film. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stray cat Posted March 28, 2020 Share #33 Posted March 28, 2020 11 hours ago, Steve Ricoh said: Some interesting pictures there, Phil 😉 Given that my knowledge of French just about allows me order a cup of coffee and ask where the railway station Gare du Nord is situated, unfortunately I’m not able to do much other than look at the pictures. If there’s a conclusion in the text I’m afraid it’s beyond me. Well, google translate helps a lot here 🤫. His summary is basically that he prefers the rendering of film for this kind of shot as he finds, by comparison, the MM files to be too "harsh" (especially in that last example). But he'd like to have an MM because he liked its immediacy and some other things (though he preferred the feel of the analogue Leica). Looking at his examples, and at the examples posted in the OP, I think you can see that there is a softness to the skin in the analogue pictures that the digital pictures don't quite deliver. The digital pictures are sharper but the transitions, especially with skin, are noticeably harsher. Well, that's to my eyes anyway. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyCheng Posted March 28, 2020 Author Share #34 Posted March 28, 2020 Wow I was actually quite surprised that it was almost half/half. So the answer is: bottom one is from m9 + my beloved summicron 35 iv while the first one was shot with my m2 + 50mm lux asph and kodak gold 6 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 28, 2020 Share #35 Posted March 28, 2020 11 hours ago, 250swb said: This is a great intellectual debate with winners and LOSERS to come. Some reputations will hang on the result, yet sitting on the fence is also the Leica forum way by waiting to say 'I thought that all along', but it can't trump 'I told you so'. I'm biting my nails. I thought it was that one all along. 😀 Actually, I stayed out of it because I assumed it was a trick and the crappy looking one would turn out to be the film photo. Then I thought it might be a double bluff and then I thought do I really care? ... 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.noctilux Posted March 28, 2020 Share #36 Posted March 28, 2020 My interest of photography is far beyond that, so I don't care either. At first, I didn't know what the OP wanted us to see-and-bet between analog/film choice. Seeing those "digital look" on my screen of the two choices make me wonder "why ?". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ricoh Posted March 28, 2020 Share #37 Posted March 28, 2020 4 hours ago, stray cat said: Well, google translate helps a lot here 🤫. His summary is basically that he prefers the rendering of film for this kind of shot as he finds, by comparison, the MM files to be too "harsh" (especially in that last example). But he'd like to have an MM because he liked its immediacy and some other things (though he preferred the feel of the analogue Leica). Looking at his examples, and at the examples posted in the OP, I think you can see that there is a softness to the skin in the analogue pictures that the digital pictures don't quite deliver. The digital pictures are sharper but the transitions, especially with skin, are noticeably harsher. Well, that's to my eyes anyway. Phil, if I had started using Google Translate on the article (as I sometimes do for short phrases) I’d still be at it. 😟 I posted this the other day https://emulsive.org/articles/thoughts/why-shoot-film-its-about-where-things-break-down and as title alludes the choice of film v digital v painting is where things break down and how, and if the operator wishes to exercise control. It’s caused me to rethink my own decision making. However there are two poles in the A v D discussion in my mind: how pleasing the rendition, and the speed, or turnaround, from triggering the exposure to seeing the result. Benefit of digital I guess is it’s a fast learning curve for self improvement, not least for composition; review, modify experiment with no further outlay beyond the capital expenditure, and if you purchase wisely by buying yesterdays technology the cost can be greatly reduced. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 28, 2020 Share #38 Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, wattsy said: I thought it was that one all along. 😀 Actually, I stayed out of it because I assumed it was a trick and the crappy looking one would turn out to be the film photo. Then I thought it might be a double bluff and then I thought do I really care? ... Which crappy looking one? You're far too polite sometimes. Edited March 28, 2020 by Ouroboros 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 28, 2020 Share #39 Posted March 28, 2020 On 3/27/2020 at 11:33 AM, stray cat said: Ah dammit! Not that I saw that it was posted in the M9 section (I didn't - I don't think I'd ever visited there before just now, following your post) but because I like to eat hats. Is that so strange? No, seriously, the skin gives it away. Game set and match right there. It's an old comparison now, it's a different digital camera, and I'm sure we've all see it, but this still holds true: http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=51356 The problem with this comparison is that the film appears to be Tri-X and the tonal rendering of the MM follows Delta... 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko.Fe. Posted March 28, 2020 Share #40 Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) Top has too much noise for digital under this light. Bottom looks like typical M9 sensor under uneven light. And it looks like oof. Edit: I wrote this before reading answer. I have M-E 220 and developed, scanned many films. Edited March 28, 2020 by Ko.Fe. 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