tomasis7 Posted August 17, 2007 Share #21 Posted August 17, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm surprised to see how uninteresting and boring is m8 file. At the opposite, I find the scanned film frame really beautiful, dreamlike. I like the lack of contrast of flowers and colours. Also the fingerprint is revealed a lot more as the real Noctilux when one is able to see the whole image from centrum to corner. the m8 shot looks as a one strange summilux shot at f1.4 with dull colors Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 17, 2007 Posted August 17, 2007 Hi tomasis7, Take a look here Comparison Shots M6 / M8, Noctilux @ 1.0. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
vic vic Posted August 17, 2007 Share #22 Posted August 17, 2007 christian....... tell me.......... u joking, kidding, making fool of yourself or others or what?????? ) man ....... leave "tech-scientific bulshit" test ... yours is not even resonable anti-scintistic ..... hahah ......... it is nice gimmic though ) relax.... dont jump with testings...... do some real photography ........ from time to time...... if u want to check out the quality of film, put it on light table take some good x4 loupe and x10 for close examination and tell us verbally what u see and what u think about your slides ) not scintific test hahahah Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdi Posted August 17, 2007 Share #23 Posted August 17, 2007 So I must be the only one who noticed the significant difference in DOF and Bokeh? In this particular case, it looks like the M8 is not fully delivering the goods with a Noctilux. The background highlights are pretty harsh on the M8 shot compared to the film. Of course I am assuming all things are equal -like the distance from the flower and the lighting being fairly equivalent. And, yes you do have to look past the film noise in the scan to notice it. (And, BTW, I kinda like E200, but mostly shoot MF with it) BTW, here is a shot I took as a test of a newly acquired mini camera (XA-4), on mini film (135 Sensia 200), scanned by a mini film scanner (Coolscan V). I know the shot is crap, but I was trying out the camera in macro mode and then used it as a sample to sell the scanner! It is not that noisy, to me. http://www.tunachaser.com/modules/pnCPG/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/CS-V-Sample2.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted August 17, 2007 Share #24 Posted August 17, 2007 the scan looks terrible to me i have a rubbish scanner (soon upgrading to a 9000) but i still get far better scans than that pointless discussion in any case as any discussion about film/digital must also invovle people actually looking at proper prints rather than very dull snaps, poorly scanned then viewed as 400x300 jpegs on a webpage Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peyton Hoge Posted August 17, 2007 Share #25 Posted August 17, 2007 But I think a different slide film (E200 not considered the best) and a proper scan would get you a lot closer. Totally agree!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted August 17, 2007 Share #26 Posted August 17, 2007 BTW just for reference if you look close enough the camera on the film shot was further to the right side than the M8 shot , basically he moved a couple inches and with a Nocti that could mean the world in DOF. Bottom line just not a very accurate test all around but still interesting Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted August 17, 2007 Share #27 Posted August 17, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) the thread coaxed me into slapping the noctilux onto my M8, thanks! best...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted August 18, 2007 Share #28 Posted August 18, 2007 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 I think there is no doubt that by properly exposing the film, doing the best job possible processing it, and then drum scanning (if you actually know how to properly do such a thing............there are not many commercially who do!) then you might end up with an image which, to your own eyes, is superior to digital. But!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!the amount of work required is such that I think most would get discouraged and take many fewer images as a result. I know that is where I had been for quite a few years before digital and particularly before the DMR and now the M8! I now routinely expect that I can properly expose for the image in question and if I do so the digital files will be pretty much ready for action at that point. Whatever other adjustments you may have made to the analog images you will probably make also for the digital but you are starting with a better file after a lot less work e.g. scanning etc. It is hard to justify why one would be looking at film unless MF or LF is your deal. If you are into that genre then there are many reasons to continue, particulaly with regard to cost. Just MHO Woody Spedden Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truando Posted August 18, 2007 Author Share #29 Posted August 18, 2007 yeah folks just relax i posted that for fun, as i said from the start, and i agree the scan is bad, and it's not scientific, and it was my first scan with my new scanner, whixch i bought the same day, so pease give me a brake. also i really am not trying to make a point here, i just made that test and posted it, that's all. and vic, i might be out there more than you considering the number of posts you have. but if you want i can go and have a professional scan made and repost the whole thing. or maybe i just won't, it's not worth it. cheers christian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted August 18, 2007 Share #30 Posted August 18, 2007 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. :D 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. Nice going, Guy. Vic will have your ass when he reads this. There will be a whole page of "??????????????????????????????" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted August 18, 2007 Share #31 Posted August 18, 2007 Victor has been good to me today , not sure what's going on . Been waiting for him on this Hope he knows i am just busting the film boys chops since there always on us digital boys case. A little pay back does not hurt and we can sprinkle it with a little silver. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 18, 2007 Share #32 Posted August 18, 2007 So I must be the only one who noticed the significant difference in DOF and Bokeh? In this particular case, it looks like the M8 is not fully delivering the goods with a Noctilux. The background highlights are pretty harsh on the M8 shot compared to the film. Of course I am assuming all things are equal -like the distance from the flower and the lighting being fairly equivalent. And, yes you do have to look past the film noise in the scan to notice it. [/url] Well the flowers are the same size so the distance must be different due to the 1.3 crop factor. (Film camera is closer.) That certainly would affect foregrond/background sharpness. Plus there are numerous factors at play - especially the harshness with respect to film noise of the Nikon scanner. Most people wouldn't want their film scans to look like this. But if it is a look you like, then you know how to get it. To me, the film shot looks like something through a soft focus filter, which would ceratinly be a less expensive way to achieve a similar look. (Maybe a partially greased filter leaving some areas a little sharper.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted August 18, 2007 Share #33 Posted August 18, 2007 The boke and all should have been the same if the distance was. Some of the dreamlike look of the film is because of this different distance. Knowing how much work shooting film, developing them and scanning them means, the M8 is definitely a fast and easy way to achieve something very pleasant. That shot above is ready to print. That said, I'm in the "film and digital" club. I never bought the 'digital will replace film' idea, because film is just different and pleasant in many ways. But digital has qualities - and one of them is the fast workflow. One should use film for some stuff and digital for other stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted August 18, 2007 Share #34 Posted August 18, 2007 Christian, Congrats with your new film scanner, and welcome aboard. We have a few projects @ the film forum and some may be too advanced. Of course we only expect you to start from the basics. Then later, come back here again and compare your M6 and M8. -Ron ________________ Caveman's Gallery Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspeltz Posted August 18, 2007 Share #35 Posted August 18, 2007 Shouldn't the photo on the M8 have a smaller FOV than in the film version? 1/3 less more or less? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted August 18, 2007 Share #36 Posted August 18, 2007 Everyone should lighten up. This is a nice casual comparison -- nothing scientific -- just what you'd typically get when working quickly with either medium. You can tweak either film or digital to get technically outstanding results, if that's what you're looking for. Why does there always need to be a winner and a looser? Thanks Christian, your post was fun to look at and I assumed that you intended it to be that way. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted August 18, 2007 Share #37 Posted August 18, 2007 Okay it was just a joke you film guys can take it , can't you. I am a photographer, not a film or digital guy. I shoot both because one does not replace the other, just adds an option. This is why it is a great time to be a photographer, you can do both....:-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted August 18, 2007 Share #38 Posted August 18, 2007 When Kodacrome went away so did I within a very short time. Buy it here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/27956-USA/Kodak_1528306_KR_135_36_Kodachrome_64.html Soup it here: http://dwaynesphoto.com/ Still looks great to me, knock your self out...:-). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted August 18, 2007 Share #39 Posted August 18, 2007 Why does there always need to be a winner and a looser? Because people are too insecure to realize that it is the artist that makes one better than the other, not the other way around. Real photographers shoot what ever they want and do not give a hoot what anyone's test comes up with.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted August 18, 2007 Share #40 Posted August 18, 2007 I am a photographer, not a film or digital guy. I shoot both because one does not replace the other, just adds an option. This is why it is a great time to be a photographer, you can do both....:-) So am I and have been for 31 years. You missed the point of the joke though. But my options don't include film anymore and that is just the way it is. I shot it long enough and those days are over for me and that desire is long gone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.