24meg verses 40meg aesthetic

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also agree with renting (or otherwise demo-ing) cameras/lenses; that’s always been my approach to any significant gear change or addition.  I do this primarily for many reasons not relating to IQ (ergonomics, handling, etc), but also to determine how it fits into my overall shooting and print workflow.  There’s no way to do this other than taking my own pics, processing and making prints. I did just that over an 18 month period, exploring a possible system addition to complement my M system. This included the SL, SL2, S006, Hassy X1D, Nikon Z7, and Fuji GFX, each with native lenses.  Most all were accessed at no cost from dealers.  No such thing as a singular 24MP aesthetic or 40 MP or any other aesthetic. Each of these systems proved fully capable of producing a broad range of superb print renderings. No amount of forum pics or comments could possibly have determined for me the many, many conclusions reached.  
 

Jeff 

Edited November 3, 2020 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Tom1234]

Just now, Jeff S said:

I also agree with renting (or otherwise demo-ing) cameras/lenses; that’s always been my approach to any significant gear change or addition.  I do this for many reasons not relating to IQ (ergonomics, handling, etc), but also to determine how it fits into my overall shooting and print workflow.  There’s no way to do this other than taking my own pics, processing and making prints. I did just that over an 18 month period, exploring a possible system addition to complement my M system. This included the SL, SL2, S006, Hassy X1D, Nikon Z7, and Fuji GFX, each with native lenses.  Most all were accessed at no cost from dealers.  No such thing as a singular 24MP aesthetic or 40 MP or any other aesthetic. Each of these systems proved fully capable of producing a broad range of superb print renderings. No amount of forum pics or comments could possibly have determined for me the many, many conclusions reached.  
 

Jeff 

Actual tests are needed to make the forum comments make sense.  

I still believe that there are aesthetic differences between lower and higher resolution cameras of any numerical values you want to name.  Yet no doubt with so many 24 and 40 meg cameras they all have a slightly different aesthetic. 

[Jeff S]

54 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Actual tests are needed to make the forum comments make sense.  

I still believe that there are aesthetic differences between lower and higher resolution cameras of any numerical values you want to name.  Yet no doubt with so many 24 and 40 meg cameras they all have a slightly different aesthetic. 

I made the actual tests. This is why I don’t rely on forum comments.  Thanks for proving my point.  
 

Jeff

Edited November 3, 2020 by Jeff S

[convexferret]

For those arguing that displaying images on walls is limited by wall space and that making a book is perhaps an undertaking too far, I've found a happy medium in making magazines. I only make a couple of copies at most, but the "informality" of the medium tends to take away the pressure of perfectionism. Blurb and Magcloud among others allow you to make A4 magazines using their software, Word, Pages or various DTP programs for less than €10. I've now got into the habit of doing one for every little project, even if its only 15 photos. I add in some text, maybe a map or other illustration, and I now have something to pull out and flick through.

[Tom1234]

14 hours ago, convexferret said:

For those arguing that displaying images on walls is limited by wall space and that making a book is perhaps an undertaking too far, I've found a happy medium in making magazines. I only make a couple of copies at most, but the "informality" of the medium tends to take away the pressure of perfectionism. Blurb and Magcloud among others allow you to make A4 magazines using their software, Word, Pages or various DTP programs for less than €10. I've now got into the habit of doing one for every little project, even if its only 15 photos. I add in some text, maybe a map or other illustration, and I now have something to pull out and flick through.

Could you put up son links on this?  Best places to make one's magazines?

[Tom1234]

18 hours ago, Steven said:

Something we never discussed but that probably relates at least from to this thread..... did I mention to you I HATE 8K footage? It looks so crisp, sharp and real. Disgusting. 

Too much detail is as bad as not enough.  You have summarized it well. 

Years ago, like in the 1970's, as TV production was going to digital, there was some leftover ultra high resolution video tape equipment from the pinnacle of the old tape technology available for use.  An Atlanta, Georgia, USA TV station recorded a Soap Opra Drama (Television Melodrama) with this equipment, just before making the big switch to lower resolution digital video.  This highest resolution video tape affected me the same way as 8k is affecting you.  

It had way too much detail and looked strange, and looked unrealistic even though it had so much detail, it was like some weird special effect was added to the video.  Add to that, the 30 frames per second TV video frame speed, which is also anti-art, and it made you want to vomit.  

The problem for the audience, was that you could NOT maintain the normal motion-picture-story-telling viewer's state-of-mind, which is to be in a sort of lucid (awake) dream state, also known as "Lucid Dreaming".   The picture and motion looked so weird and super real that it was off putting.  

A fair definition for a basic concept of art is: Art as imagery is a slightly or greatly "changed away from reality" image that stimulates the imagination.  I hope people never get used to this ultra high resolution aesthetic, since it turns motion pictures from an art form giving an imaginative sense of reality, into technical sense of reality that does not stimulate the imagination but instead controls the imagination.   Sick & Boring.  The audience's "co-creation", of the story of the image, is lost to a numbing mind control. 

Maybe I will get used to it, but I doubt it.  I essentially quit photography when it left film and went to digital and only later regained interest.   But if this industry falls to a new "technical only" imagery then I will probably leave again for a number of years.

[Matlock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

45 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Maybe I will get used to it, but I doubt it.  I essentially quit photography when it left film and went to digital and only later regained interest.   But if this industry falls to a new "technical only" imagery then I will probably leave again for a number of years.

Film is still about you know, why would you leave?

[Tom1234]

46 minutes ago, Matlock said:

Film is still about you know, why would you leave?

The local stores quit supporting film.  They had so little business that you could not trust their film processing equipment. Also they quit carrying the better films but only had odd named stuff some from Europe I did not know about - I tried and old Agfa brand and it was ruined by the processing store or bad before that… who can tell.  

The greenie's at the photo store said film was an evil polluter but a guy working for OSHA told me in no uncertain terms that film processes were not significantly polluting and that pouring left over processing chemical on the ground did not hurt anything significantly to so they did not monitor it (I live in the USA).

So a cooperation of idiots, the fall in the economy, and the ease of digital & phone cameras, left me with no place to go locally for film.  That sends me to mail order, which I never got used to, since I did not trust sending a whole days work shooting film through the mail.

Also the up-charges to scan it were too high especially locally.  Shooting a roll of film was $20 USD for two films plus $110 USD for high res scan and 4x6 prints (the smallest print that I could judge a shot from) on a regular basis.  

I love film and hope you have the tenacity to keep using it. Someday if I become independently wealthy I will buy-or-build my own film equipment return to film use.  I want all the equipment at home so I do not half to rely on outsiders and the dubious marketplace in the USA's constantly falling economy. 

[Matlock]

3 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

The local stores quit supporting film.  They had so little business that you could not trust their film processing equipment. Also they quit carrying the better films but only had odd named stuff some from Europe I did not know about - I tried and old Agfa brand and it was ruined by the processing store or bad before that… who can tell.  

The greenie's at the photo store said film was an evil polluter but a guy working for OSHA told me in no uncertain terms that film processes were not significantly polluting and that pouring left over processing chemical on the ground did not hurt anything significantly to so they did not monitor it (I live in the USA).

So a cooperation of idiots, the fall in the economy, and the ease of digital & phone cameras, left me with no place to go locally for film.  That sends me to mail order, which I never got used to, since I did not trust sending a whole days work shooting film through the mail.

Also the up-charges to scan it were too high especially locally.  Shooting a roll of film was $20 USD for two films plus $110 USD for high res scan and 4x6 prints (the smallest print that I could judge a shot from) on a regular basis.  

I love film and hope you have the tenacity to keep using it. Someday if I become independently wealthy I will buy-or-build my own film equipment return to film use.  I want all the equipment at home so I do not half to rely on outsiders and the dubious marketplace in the USA's constantly falling economy. 

Luckily things are very different this side of the pond. True very few local processing houses but plenty of really good ones on line (and a couple not so good). I do about 50/50 film and digital. I usually process my own B/W films and I used to also process colour but I am shortly moving home so that is on hold at the moment). I scan my films (again no darkroom at the moment so can't use my enlarger). I tend to use my M10-D and M10-R for digital plus my M7 and IIId for film but I have others including my Rolleiflex Wide and 3.5F which get a fair amount of use.

[jaapv]

28 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

The local stores quit supporting film.  They had so little business that you could not trust their film processing equipment. Also they quit carrying the better films but only had odd named stuff some from Europe I did not know about - I tried and old Agfa brand and it was ruined by the processing store or bad before that… who can tell.  

The greenie's at the photo store said film was an evil polluter but a guy working for OSHA told me in no uncertain terms that film processes were not significantly polluting and that pouring left over processing chemical on the ground did not hurt anything significantly to so they did not monitor it (I live in the USA).

So a cooperation of idiots, the fall in the economy, and the ease of digital & phone cameras, left me with no place to go locally for film.  That sends me to mail order, which I never got used to, since I did not trust sending a whole days work shooting film through the mail.

Also the up-charges to scan it were too high especially locally.  Shooting a roll of film was $20 USD for two films plus $110 USD for high res scan and 4x6 prints (the smallest print that I could judge a shot from) on a regular basis.  

I love film and hope you have the tenacity to keep using it. Someday if I become independently wealthy I will buy-or-build my own film equipment return to film use.  I want all the equipment at home so I do not half to rely on outsiders and the dubious marketplace in the USA's constantly falling economy. 

Developing and printing film are quite easy processes, at least to get satisfactory results, and ask only for a minimal investment. A Patterson tank, an enlarger, a few trays ad odds and ends some chemicals and papers and a dark bathroom. The investment would be closer to 500$ than 1000$.

[Tom1234]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Developing and printing film are quite easy processes, at least to get satisfactory results, and ask only for a minimal investment. A Patterson tank, an enlarger, a few trays ad odds and ends some chemicals and papers and a dark bathroom. The investment would be closer to 500$ than 1000$.

I have done this and find it slow and frustrating.  I would like to go out and shoot 10 rolls then develop them quickly.  This means expensive equipment.  A dip and dunk machine?  Sorry but I am an extremist here… satisfied with only speed and consistency.  But who knows I may go back to mail order film developing.  There was a store in Florida that used to do cine 5247 film maybe I will get back into that someday.

 

[jaapv]

It IS part of the creative process. Having it done is not half as satisfactory. But then, Rembrandt had his paintings finished by his pupils.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

The local stores quit supporting film.  They had so little business that you could not trust their film processing equipment. Also they quit carrying the better films but only had odd named stuff some from Europe I did not know about - I tried and old Agfa brand and it was ruined by the processing store or bad before that… who can tell.  

The greenie's at the photo store said film was an evil polluter but a guy working for OSHA told me in no uncertain terms that film processes were not significantly polluting and that pouring left over processing chemical on the ground did not hurt anything significantly to so they did not monitor it (I live in the USA).

So a cooperation of idiots, the fall in the economy, and the ease of digital & phone cameras, left me with no place to go locally for film.  That sends me to mail order, which I never got used to, since I did not trust sending a whole days work shooting film through the mail.

Also the up-charges to scan it were too high especially locally.  Shooting a roll of film was $20 USD for two films plus $110 USD for high res scan and 4x6 prints (the smallest print that I could judge a shot from) on a regular basis.  

I love film and hope you have the tenacity to keep using it. Someday if I become independently wealthy I will buy-or-build my own film equipment return to film use.  I want all the equipment at home so I do not half to rely on outsiders and the dubious marketplace in the USA's constantly falling economy. 

Hi Tom, I understand and mostly agree with all you say here, I've started to swing back to using film more these days at least for my personal projects......Using film is a different mindset than the easy immediate acquisition that digital enables and I find that there's times when it is welcome and more fulfilling. I have even gone back to using S16mm film for my personal movie projects even though it's a very much more expensive route I prefer the craft that comes with using film, that's what's missing for me anyway in digital photography and cinematography now, the "craft". It's an inevitable change but not one that I personally like despite it's convenience........But when you are doing the sums I think one has to bear in mind the short "shelf life" of digital cameras and take into consideration the costs of more frequent and expensive upgrades that the digital dance encourages.

I only shoot B&W in film, TriX mostly in 120 and 35mm, and processing at home doesn't take up too much space or time although I wish that I didn't have to use a changing bag rather than having a dark room for loading the films, ( I might have to do something about that and there's a space I'm eyeing that could be re-worked to fill that purpose later ). Home scanning isn't too arduous either, just slow I guess and inkjet printing is a real boom now over wet lab' darkroom work. Like JeffS and others here I take photographs to make prints not to post online or to view onscreen and the process of producing an actual print is immensely satisfying. So sure, shooting film is more expensive than digital and far less convenient to indulge in but that's not the point, what's important for me is the whole process and that's why I'll continue working in film too. 

[Tom1234]

3 minutes ago, petermullett said:

Hi Tom, I understand and mostly agree with all you say here, I've started to swing back to using film more these days at least for my personal projects......Using film is a different mindset than the easy immediate acquisition that digital enables and I find that there's times when it is welcome and more fulfilling. I have even gone back to using S16mm film for my personal movie projects even though it's a very much more expensive route I prefer the craft that comes with using film, that's what's missing for me anyway in digital photography and cinematography now, the "craft". It's an inevitable change but not one that I personally like despite it's convenience........But when you are doing the sums I think one has to bear in mind the short "shelf life" of digital cameras and take into consideration the costs of more frequent and expensive upgrades that the digital dance encourages.

I only shoot B&W in film, TriX mostly in 120 and 35mm, and processing at home doesn't take up too much space or time although I wish that I didn't have to use a changing bag rather than having a dark room for loading the films, ( I might have to do something about that and there's a space I'm eyeing that could be re-worked to fill that purpose later ). Home scanning isn't too arduous either, just slow I guess and inkjet printing is a real boom now over wet lab' darkroom work. Like JeffS and others here I take photographs to make prints not to post online or to view onscreen and the process of producing an actual print is immensely satisfying. So sure, shooting film is more expensive than digital and far less convenient to indulge in but that's not the point, what's important for me is the whole process and that's why I'll continue working in film too. 

You are a man after my own heart.  Film still rules as far as I am concerned though it has been forced into the closet due to cost and convenience of digital.  I shot film s16 in film school myself and consider film a far more beautiful look then any digital I have ever seen. Scanned s16 beats originated digital anyday.  Someday I hope to get back to film. 

[Tom1234]

1 minute ago, Steven said:

I love film too. 
I shot 16 rolls of portra 400 in the past two weeks. Unfortunately, my country being in lockdown, I cannot see my images. I don’t know when I will be able. Sure, there’s something charming about it. But an SD card would have made my life easier. 

Another great thing about digital... you can do it all yourself while film puts a middleman in the game to develop and print first pictures. Still, film rules. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Tom1234 said:

You are a man after my own heart.  Film still rules as far as I am concerned though it has been forced into the closet due to cost and convenience of digital.  I shot film s16 in film school myself and consider film a far more beautiful look then any digital I have ever seen. Scanned s16 beats originated digital anyday.  Someday I hope to get back to film. 

Right......I still have my S16 Aaton Xtera kit with great lens choices that's all maintained in excellent shape and working wonderfully. It's a pain finding labs though as all in France have been closed for more than a few years, but I can process in Zurich at a really decent lab and all my transfers go to my "regular" facility in Seattle that's handled my work for close on a couple of decades. All slow, ( Fedex makes out well ), inconvenient, but worth it to my mind......and according to people I still know in the business S16 film acquisition in the movie world is now on the increase, all good news!

[Tom1234]

1 minute ago, petermullett said:

Right......I still have my S16 Aaton Xtera kit with great lens choices that's all maintained in excellent shape and working wonderfully. It's a pain finding labs though as all in France have been closed for more than a few years, but I can process in Zurich at a really decent lab and all my transfers go to my "regular" facility in Seattle that's handled my work for close on a couple of decades. All slow, ( Fedex makes out well ), inconvenient, but worth it to my mind......and according to people I still know in the business S16 film acquisition in the movie world is now on the increase, all good news!

Love Aaton.  Wish I had one.  

Super 16 transferred to digital is as good as 35mm cine format film for TV use, you can not tell the difference between the two.  Amazing the amount of data in that S16mm film rectangular space. It is like if digital sensors had three levels, the film has three full channels of rgb color, without that damn digital matrix confusion.  Long live film.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Steven said:

I love film too. 
I shot 16 rolls of portra 400 in the past two weeks. Unfortunately, my country being in lockdown, I cannot see my images. I don’t know when I will be able. Sure, there’s something charming about it. But an SD card would have made my life easier. 

 

2 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Another great thing about digital... you can do it all yourself while film puts a middleman in the game to develop and print first pictures. Still, film rules. 

 

Another option that does work ok is to shoot C41 B&W or colour  film, have that processed at a lab and "index" printed, ( small contact sheet ), then go to scanning and printing at home. That works fine, I still do it myself at times even though I do prefer TriX. C41 home process too is much easier nowadays as the chemistry has evolved and simplified considerably.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Matlock]

5 minutes ago, Tom1234 said:

Another great thing about digital... you can do it all yourself while film puts a middleman in the game to develop and print first pictures. Still, film rules. 

If you have the facilities there is absolutely no need to involve a middleman.

[Tom1234]

4 minutes ago, Steven said:

True, the other day I dropped off some old rolls at the local store next to my house. It’s alway where I make photocopies and pictures of the kids for the passport. I was horrified when I received the photos. Sexy shots I took of my wife completely naked a few month ago on a not very sober night. Great photos though, someone must have had some fun. 

I read that at one time Kodak in the USA would not return nudes, for legal liability reasons.  I bet they said they destroyed them but also bet some guy somewhere has a real collection of not-returned nudes.