Leica Monochrome vs Black and White Film

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, Stephen.s1 said:

This seems like the old Photography Is Not Art argument.

 

No, it's the 'new' photography is not art argument 😄

[Advertisement]

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

[pippy]

26 minutes ago, Stephen.s1 said:

Why must a digital image look like film?:  Because it precedes that (rather ancient) system?...

I am rather puzzled by this mindset as well (hence post #9). In order to be aesthetically pleasing does a photographic print have to have a random grain-pattern which is visible to the viewer? When I visited the Amazônia exhibition of photographs by Sebastião Salgado I was amazed to read his own description of the lengths he had gone to try to make his digital photographs resemble traditional 'analogue' prints. Why? He has also been quoted(*) as saying;

"Digital photographs cannot have that treasured sense of embodied memory because a photograph is not something material today; it's inside a computer.......We no longer see photographs as documents but as things that can be manipulated with Photoshop; glamourised on Instagram. Before, we took a picture. It was reality."....

Now, don't get me wrong; I like Salgado's photographs as much as the next person but the sentiments expressed above are complete and utter bollocks.

4 minutes ago, Anthony MD said:

Actually I like the digital images I get from the M-D also, very crisp and detailed…!

Me too! In my case it was probably the fault of seeing, at a fairly young age, an exhibition of photographs by the members of Group f64..............

Philip.

* In his defence I must stress that this passage has been taken from an article published in 'The Grauniad'; make of that what you will......

[Anthony MD]

12 minutes ago, pippy said:

I am rather puzzled by this mindset as well (hence post #9). In order to be aesthetically pleasing does a photographic print have to have a random grain-pattern which is visible to the viewer? When I visited the Amazônia exhibition of photographs by Sebastião Salgado I was amazed to read his own description of the lengths he had gone to try to make his digital photographs resemble traditional 'analogue' prints. Why? He has also been quoted(*) as saying;

"Digital photographs cannot have that treasured sense of embodied memory because a photograph is not something material today; it's inside a computer.......We no longer see photographs as documents but as things that can be manipulated with Photoshop; glamourised on Instagram. Before, we took a picture. It was reality."....

Now, don't get me wrong; I like Salgado's photographs as much as the next person but the sentiments expressed above are complete and utter bollocks.

Me too! In my case it was probably the fault of seeing, at a fairly young age, an exhibition of photographs by the members of Group f64..............

Philip.

* In his defence I must stress that this passage has been taken from an article published in 'The Grauniad'; make of that what you will......

Why would want a digital image to look like film or film to look like digital?
Variety is the spice of photography…!

[Anthony MD]

If my M-D looked like film, I would have wasted a lot of money for nothing…!

[250swb]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

I am rather puzzled by this mindset as well (hence post #9). In order to be aesthetically pleasing does a photographic print have to have a random grain-pattern which is visible to the viewer? When I visited the Amazônia exhibition of photographs by Sebastião Salgado I was amazed to read his own description of the lengths he had gone to try to make his digital photographs resemble traditional 'analogue' prints. Why? He has also been quoted(*) as saying;

"Digital photographs cannot have that treasured sense of embodied memory because a photograph is not something material today; it's inside a computer.......We no longer see photographs as documents but as things that can be manipulated with Photoshop; glamourised on Instagram. Before, we took a picture. It was reality."....

Now, don't get me wrong; I like Salgado's photographs as much as the next person but the sentiments expressed above are complete and utter bollocks.

 

I think there is no doubt he likes the look of film better than digital, but when the practicalities of continuing with film became apparent on expeditions I read that the added grain was to unify bodies of work that started with film but then continued with digital years later, so purely practical and an aesthetic compromise. 

[Jeff S]

Film vs digital debate.  On a predominantly photo gear forum.

Zzzz..

Whatever floats your boat.

Jeff

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/2/2023 at 10:05 PM, Anthony MD said:

Do Leica monochrome digital cameras compare favorably with black and white film...!

This will depend on the subject matter, lighting and what you are trying to achieve, and you will also need to define what exactly you mean by 'compare favourably'.

[Anthony MD]

25 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I think there is no doubt he likes the look of film better than digital, but when the practicalities of continuing with film became apparent on expeditions I read that the added grain was to unify bodies of work that started with film but then continued with digital years later, so purely practical and an aesthetic compromise. 

To like the look of film over digital is same as liking the look of red over green…!

[Anthony MD]

9 minutes ago, pgk said:

This will depend on the subject matter, lighting and what you are trying to achieve, and you will also need to define what exactly you mean by 'compare favourably'.

No problem, I will use my Nikon F2 for B&W photography…!

[Anthony MD]

17 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Film vs digital debate.  On a predominantly photo gear forum.

Zzzz..

Whatever floats your boat.

Jeff

We don’t what this debate to sink the boat…!

[otto.f]

4 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

Well, I decided to use my Nikon F2 for B&W photography and the M-D for color photography.

The biggest hurdle I’m facing, there are so many B&W films to choose from…!

I agree in the sense that film is for B&W and digital is the best for color

[Anthony MD]

3 minutes ago, otto.f said:

I agree in the sense that film is for B&W and digital is the best for color

I’m glad and agree with you which makes it much easier for me to justify the M-D purchase…!

[johnwolf]

3 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

Actually I like the digital images I get from the M-D also, very crisp and detailed…!

Funny, that’s what prompted me to sell two Monochroms: too crisp, too detailed.

John

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Film vs digital debate.  On a predominantly photo gear forum.

Zzzz..

Personally I consider this forum to be one where all aspects of Photography are discussed and weighing-up the respective merits of these two primary methods of capturing and presenting images comes up very high in the Importance Stakes; more so than endless yatter about The Latest Technological 'Advances' of kit - much of which adds so very little to the end result.

As you say; whatever floats your boat.

Philip.

[Anthony MD]

18 minutes ago, johnwolf said:

Funny, that’s what prompted me to sell two Monochroms: too crisp, too detailed.

John

Luckily I have a Nikon F2 for B&W…!

[Anthony MD]

19 minutes ago, pippy said:

Personally I consider this forum to be one where all aspects of Photography are discussed and weighing-up the respective merits of these two primary methods of capturing and presenting images comes up very high in the Importance Stakes; more so than endless yatter about The Latest Technological 'Advances' of kit - much of which adds so very little to the end result.

As you say; whatever floats your boat.

Philip.

Crispy fries ( digital) vs a smoothie (film)…!

Edited October 4, 2023 by Anthony MD

[Jeff S]

7 minutes ago, pippy said:

Personally I consider this forum to be one where all aspects of Photography are discussed and weighing-up the respective merits of these two primary methods of capturing and presenting images comes up very high in the Importance Stakes; more so than endless yatter about The Latest Technological 'Advances' of kit - much of which adds so very little to the end result.

As you say; whatever floats your boat.

Philip.

I’d rather read a best bag thread.

No two people produce the same results, even when using the same film, chemicals and gear. Just as no two people produce the same results using the same digital gear, software, etc. Trying to debate general results from film vs digital just adds to the silliness, let alone on a forum where the  presentation is sub-optimal and of course digital only. I’ve seen crap results, and superb results, in person, from those using each medium.  The medium isn’t the cause.

Jeff

[pippy]

53 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I’d rather read a best bag thread.

No two people produce the same results, even when using the same film, chemicals and gear. Just as no two people produce the same results using the same digital gear, software, etc. Trying to debate general results from film vs digital just adds to the silliness......The medium isn’t the cause.

Jeff

Oddly enough, Jeff, I do sort-of agree with absolutely everything you say (apart from the 'Best Bag' not to mention 'Harry Benz or Arte di Mano Strap?' threads ) but I must say I do still find it interesting to read about other folks' experiences with both Film and Digi and don't, myself, consider them to be silly nor useless.

I think we've both been in the game long enough to understand that the Medium might not be The Cause but it has a lot to do with the final outcome; The Print.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

6 minutes ago, pippy said:

Oddly enough, Jeff, I do sort-of agree with absolutely everything you say (apart from the 'Best Bag' not to mention 'Harry Benz or Arte di Mano Strap?' threads ) but I must say I do still find it interesting to read about other folks' experiences with both Film and Digi and don't, myself, consider them to be silly nor useless.

I think we've both been in the game long enough to understand that the Medium might not be The Cause but it has a lot to do with the final outcome; The Print.

Philip.

Sure, but again, I’ve seen good and bad prints from both. I just don’t see the value, nor do I engage in, picking a side and declaring a best process.  That’s different than a more meaningful discussion about a given pic or print… in person, of course.  

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

I think there is no doubt he likes the look of film better than digital, but when the practicalities of continuing with film became apparent on expeditions I read that the added grain was to unify bodies of work that started with film but then continued with digital years later, so purely practical and an aesthetic compromise. 

I seem to recall that Salgado started his Genesis project while he was still using Tri-X, then switched to a Canon digital.  In processing the images, he and his wife then spent a lot of time converting the digital images to get the Tri-X look.  I can’t say I spend any time trying to work out which is which.