Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
truando

Comparison Shots M6 / M8, Noctilux @ 1.0

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lately I have been thinking of shooting more film again. Just an emotional thing going on.

 

So I decided to do a test.

 

Same subject, same time of the day, shot right after one another, same lens, Noctilux @ 1.0

 

- M6, Kodak E200, scanned with Nikon Coolscan 5000, ISO 200

- M8, RAW, converted in C1, then converted to JPEG in PS, ISO 160

 

#1: M6

#2: M8

#3: M6 100% Crop

#4: M8 100% Crop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comparison, love the noise free M8 images and it would be interesting to up the M8 iso to inject some noise to simulate the film grain. Problem is, if you increase the ISO and keep the aperture wide, you run out of shutter speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian,

I find it difficult to answer, when I look at your motto (which is one of my favourites, by the way)! But, okay, let's remove all doubt.

:

 

To me the film images look like the slightly fuzzy structure of rather rough granite stone, whereas the M8 images look like smoothly polished ivory. I find them vastly superior.

 

Thanks for posting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's totally fair because I don't think the scan is very good. The main reason I embraced digital so readily is that I found scanning a real PITA. It took way more time to do a good scan than I really had. I bet a high quality print from each would be a better comparison. The M8 image is beautiful, by the way.

 

Henry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for your interest.

 

I am aware that this is not an academic test, and I only posted it because I found it interesting. Also, it helped me cool down some of those film emotions I've had lately.

 

Of course, b&w is a whole different ballgame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice comparison. Each is beautiful in its own way. If I had to choose just one, it would certainly be the M8 image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's totally fair because I don't think the scan is very good.

 

Henry

 

It would need to be a dramatically improved scan to get near to the M8 image.

 

I went back to film when my M8 went back to Solms to be calibrated to my Noctilux. I'm glad they are back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I gotta say it . What is that blotchy crap all over the film shot , Oh and the M8 has noise ,

excuse me what the hell is that stuff than. Ghost shots of sand.

 

Just think about this in reverse of what the film guys have been saying about digital. oh boy the other shoe just dropped hard to the ground.

 

Okay flame war !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

i can feel the silver flowing on over to this side of the house.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay it was just a joke you film guys can take it , can't you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrible scan - not sure if this is a very fair comparison. Certainly makes me appreciate my Imacon and glad I didn't go with the Nikon.

 

But beyond that, both are different beasts. But I think a different slide film (E200 not considered the best) and a proper scan would get you a lot closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long time ago I bought a Nikon LS-1000 Coolscan slide scanner (one of their earliest models.) I wasn't happy with it because it really accentuated the grain and the tiny dark spots in slide film (Possibly these were remains of color couplers.) My images with that scanner looked like your sample.

 

I returned the Nikon scanner (thank you B&H) and got a Polaroid SprintScan 35 Plus that was just as sharp but much smoother. It was like the difference between a point light source and a diffused light source. It also had much better shadow detail.

 

Later when I wanted a 120 film scanner I bought the Polaroid SprintScan 120 (Microtek ArtixScan 120tf) for the same reason. I always wondered if the new Nikon scanners still had that harsh look but I haven't tried out any scanners in some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the M8 shots are going to look smoother - the stuff I shoot with a D2X is smoother than my film shots. But to make a more accurate comparison here - you need better scans, and probably a better film. Maybe Portra 160NC or E100GX. The M8 is holding the highlights a lot better as well - the film doesn't stand up to it there. Of course I have no clue if that's the exposure or the scan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Actually i would love to see a Kodachrome 64 frame and drum scanned professional just to see. Than we know all is equal or at least close to reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to get into what is 'better'. You use what you like. Some prefer Tri-X on 35mm some prefer Plus-X on medium format. Leaving art and personal choices aside I'll say this. I own a Scitex scanner which is a notch below a Tango or Aztek drum scanner but quite a bit above a Nikon or Imacon. Before digital I shot exclusively E100G medium format E6 and scanned with the Scitex or occaisionally paid for drum scans (Aztek or Tango) for paying work. Clients who would not accept 35mm film are happy to accept 35mm digital from my M8 (or Canon 1 series) in lieu of medium format transparencies so that has got to tell something about the quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lately I have been thinking of shooting more film again. Just an emotional thing going on.

 

 

Hi There

Last October I set myself a month to shoot film, I also used a Nikon 5000 (on recommendation as I wasn't dropping for an Imacon). I had a lot of fun, but I really do think the Nikon scanner accentuates the grain.

 

Whatever, your shots mirror exactly the conclusion I came to - i.e.

 

disadvantages of film:

grainier

poorer highlights

can't check the shot

pain in the neck scanning

colour more difficult to get right

 

disadvantages of digital

erm?

 

Of course, if you were going to do wet prints, or have a slave to do drum scans, then it MIGHT be different. But I'm not going back to my darkroom, and I don't currently have a slave, so it's digital for me.

But at least I tried!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Seriously no joking around the last time i was in a darkroom was at least 15 years ago or more. That is a long time. I have 5 banker boxes of shot film sitting in my daughters closets for the last 12 years in this house. When Kodacrome went away so did I within a very short time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jono....digital has it's share of problems, and plenty of things I don't like. I can't make a living without it, end of story. I'm not sure I would call these things "disadvantges" - more like annoyances.

 

Leica glass made me enjoy shooting film film again - but when I shoot film, it's for me and my artistic bent. Only on occasion do I have a client specifically request film, although it's always an option I give them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the noctilux on the M7. This was XP2, a very fine grain C41 that scans well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting comparison, love the noise free M8 images and it would be interesting to up the M8 iso to inject some noise to simulate the film grain. Problem is, if you increase the ISO and keep the aperture wide, you run out of shutter speed.

 

This is a perfect example of an image to use with Alien skin exposure , buy just adding a touch of grain, it would create a dithering factor to make the M8 image more analog.

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...