Leica Monochrome vs Black and White Film

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

46 minutes ago, DreiPunkte said:

...I told only my oppinion and what I have seen in recent years. Not more and not less!

Everyone should have their own thoughts on the topic. The experiences of others are actually always helpful.

As you say; everyone is entitled to their own thoughts, opinions and preferences. Whether that preference is for shooting film or digital is, empirically, wholly unimportant and is of no concern to anyone other than the photographer.

What is less acceptable is for opinions to be written as if they are factual.

"Digital black and white photography is like a frightened man wearing a belt and suspenders with his trousers."

That is not only nonsense it is insulting to those photographers who happen to prefer to use a digital camera.

Cameras - both Film and Digital - are merely inanimate recording devices. They will each be able capture an image and the success of that image depends on the skill of the photographer. There is no secret to how a camera captures an image. It comes down to ISO; Shutter-speed; Aperture and Focus. It is the responsibility of the photographer to get these settings correct for the photograph they wish to obtain. If you were bored because of all "the wasted time for choosing the one out of the hundreds unneeded shots" who is the cause of all those hundreds of unneeded photographs? The Camera?

Philip.

[DreiPunkte]

As you see the "trouserthing" is a good headline, it triggers you!

BTW, years ago I asked an art buyer why he didn't buy photographs.
His answer was that photographs are not unique, they are infinite shown on the internet and not physical.
The next day I gave him an 8x10 negative to his hand and he was impressed.
He had never seen anything like it before he answerd.

And now its enough with stories from the past.

[Ko.Fe.]

On 6/3/2024 at 2:25 PM, pippy said:

In what way, exactly, is it "Impossible technically" for a print produced from a Monochrom DNG file to be compared favourably with a print produced from a monochrome negative?

Please explain and do feel free to offer-up as much detail as possible as to why this is the case.

Philip.

They look totally different, while favourably is irrelevant. Some like it digital, some film. 

I have seen plenty of good BW darkroom prints. But I have only one book from the one of the two persons I'm aware of been good with Monochrome files. And this person admits if lot of time to kill and no need to make money while plenty of space it will be back to film/darkroom time. And I could see it in the book why,

Technically it is simple. Digital is just a 0 and 1 with some millions of pixels. Gelatine and silver are moleculas, which are superior not in resolution, but for variations.

I enjoy crispiness of detail on 1:1 view from Monochrom files. No 135 film scans can do.

But I do like darkroom prints for totally different visuality:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

   

 

 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

...I have seen plenty of good BW darkroom prints...

So have I. During the 1990's I worked freelance as a printer for several of London's top pro photographers............

As far as "Digital is just a 0 and a 1" is concerned? Same thing with conventional monochrome emulsions. Silver Halide (AgX) Crystals (as I'm sure you already know) when unexposed to light stay as they are after development but when exposed to light and are developed they turn to metallic Silver. This is also "a 0 and a 1" situation.

True; the manner in which AgX crystals can group together means that, when viewed under a strong magnifying glass, a print from even a fine-grain film negative will not have the same look/structure as the dots which form the mathematically-arranged matrix of pixels of a print from a digital sensor but that doesn't mean that either is, objectively, a 'better' method to create a photographic print.

As has been said many times in various threads; the skills learned in a darkroom by a capable wet-printer are directly transferrable to a digital work-flow. Just as I was able to produce exhibition-quality wet-prints so can I do so when working with digital files. The methods used might differ but the techniques are the same. It is also possible to buy several types of high-quality digital paper-stock which are - to all intents and purposes - indistinguishable from some of the best silver bromide papers ever manufactured.

Just to make things perfectly clear; I have no horse in this race. I love shooting film and loved the experience of making wet-prints(*) which remains one of life's "great little pleasures". At the same time I also enjoy to a very great degree the post-process part of refining a DNG file to allow me to create the finest print possible. I'll be happy to spend a few hours tweaking one single image - in exactly the same way as I enjoyed my time in the darkroom - to obtain just one 'perfect' print.

Different routes, perhaps, but - for me - the end-results are just the same.

As always; YMMV.

Philip.

(*) Unfortunately I no longer have access to a darkroom. Perhaps when I retire I can remedy this oversight?......

Edited June 6, 2024 by pippy

[albert]

LEICA Q2 MONOCHROM. THEN, ADOBE Silver Efex Pro 3. This keeps everyone I hang out with very happy.  

[JimP]

On 6/6/2024 at 7:33 AM, Ko.Fe. said:

They look totally different, while favourably is irrelevant. Some like it digital, some film. 

I have seen plenty of good BW darkroom prints. But I have only one book from the one of the two persons I'm aware of been good with Monochrome files. And this person admits if lot of time to kill and no need to make money while plenty of space it will be back to film/darkroom time. And I could see it in the book why,

Technically it is simple. Digital is just a 0 and 1 with some millions of pixels. Gelatine and silver are moleculas, which are superior not in resolution, but for variations.

I enjoy crispiness of detail on 1:1 view from Monochrom files. No 135 film scans can do.

But I do like darkroom prints for totally different visuality:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

   

 

 

to agree with Pippy, 

Digital is not just 0 or 1. The data that comes off a digital photo site is the numerical representation of the charge stored as a result of the exposure. The number is generated by the op amps in 16bit or other variations, so there are thousands of discrete tones. 
 

The “molecule” of silver is also represents one tone and one tone only… however its analog so its tones are not of a discrete nature, rather a continuum of black to white, at least in the range we are talking. All of the silver grains together form the image, like all of the digital pixels on a sensor. In film the “sensors” are distributed randomly, but digital is uniform. 
 

I believe the human eye can only discern a limited number of shades of gray, <1000, but likely closer to 250 to 500. So both digital and film exceed what the eye can see. The crispness is the sheer number of pixels vs number of silver grains. 
 

I’m no film expert, but I have always thought of digital as a linear representation of light and film having a characteristic S curve that varies by film stocks plus a spectral sensitivity. This is why each have their unique look. However, by manipulating the data of a digital image through b&w color sliders and the curve through levels some folks can get film like looks. Me, I use SilverEfex because I don’t have the patience to do this in Lightroom. 
 

Jim

Edited June 29, 2024 by JimP

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, JimP said:

to agree with Pippy, 

Digital is not just 0 or 1. The data that comes off a digital photo site is the numerical representation of the charge stored as a result of the exposure. The number is generated by the op amps in 16bit or other variations, so there are thousands of discrete tones. 
 

The “molecule” of silver is also represents one tone and one tone only… however its analog so its tones are not of a discrete nature, rather a continuum of black to white, at least in the range we are talking. All of the silver grains together form the image, like all of the digital pixels on a sensor. In film the “sensors” are distributed randomly, but digital is uniform. 
 

I believe the human eye can only discern a limited number of shades of gray, <1000, but likely closer to 250 to 500. So both digital and film exceed what the eye can see. The crispness is the sheer number of pixels vs number of silver grains. 
 

I’m no film expert, but I have always thought of digital as a linear representation of light and film having a characteristic S curve that varies by film stocks plus a spectral sensitivity. This is why each have their unique look. However, by manipulating the data of a digital image through b&w color sliders and the curve through levels some folks can get film like looks. Me, I use SilverEfex because I don’t have the patience to do this in Lightroom. 
 

Jim

Any manipulation of image is data loss.  Not sure about someone else eyes, but to me it is obvious.  

Film digital emulation looks cheap and primitive. Lipstick on the pig. But I don't mind to use it. 😁

 

To me the  joy of monochrom is in higher resolution comparing to same frame size on film. But rendering is way too different to be comparable.. 

At the end it is all on individual. I'm not looking to get back to film. Have to use digital. Despite my preference of film look.

But I don't have Stockholm syndrome on film vs digital, sorry. I see the obvious difference and accept it.

 

 

 

[JimP]

In the strictest sense image manipulation does not lose data, it shifts the values, the number of bits stay the same, but I agree that it can cause problems down stream if not done well. If in manipulation you block up a number of tonal values you will not be able to separate them  later. I think this was your point. But subtle shifts in values can improve the image by raising shadows, changing contrast, etc.

Monochrom files do have more pixels than 35mm film has grains, so images are indeed crisper. 

I think you should think about your statement that silver gelatin is superior in variation  of tones over digital.  A monochrom, or other camera reads out 14 bits of data, that would be 2^14 or 16,384 shades of gray. This is way more than our eyes can discern. You can do an experiment by printing out a 256 or 512 tone step wedge. Your eye will not be able to discern individual patches, it will look like a continuous tone from white to black. 

I agree with you about digital film emulation, it isn’t there for me either. SilverEfx and other programs take a stab at it, but I think more work is needed. I think the main difference between digital and film lies in films unique characteristic s curve and spectral sensitivity. I haven’t yet convinced myself that it’s technically impossible to achieve a film look, though. This is because we can manipulate the spectral sensitivity via the b&w color sliders (alas, color camera needed) and the s curve via the luminance histogram.

Im not sure I understand your Stockholm syndrome statement or why you are apologizing for it. I have no allegiance to digital or film. I use both and appreciate what each brings to the table. 
 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2024 by JimP

[Ko.Fe.]

11 hours ago, JimP said:

In the strictest sense image manipulation does not lose data, it shifts the values, the number of bits stay the same, but I agree that it can cause problems down stream if not done well. If in manipulation you block up a number of tonal values you will not be able to separate them  later. I think this was your point. But subtle shifts in values can improve the image by raising shadows, changing contrast, etc.

Monochrom files do have more pixels than 35mm film has grains, so images are indeed crisper. 

I think you should think about your statement that silver gelatin is superior in variation  of tones over digital.  A monochrom, or other camera reads out 14 bits of data, that would be 2^14 or 16,384 shades of gray. This is way more than our eyes can discern. You can do an experiment by printing out a 256 or 512 tone step wedge. Your eye will not be able to discern individual patches, it will look like a continuous tone from white to black. 

I agree with you about digital film emulation, it isn’t there for me either. SilverEfx and other programs take a stab at it, but I think more work is needed. I think the main difference between digital and film lies in films unique characteristic s curve and spectral sensitivity. I haven’t yet convinced myself that it’s technically impossible to achieve a film look, though. This is because we can manipulate the spectral sensitivity via the b&w color sliders (alas, color camera needed) and the s curve via the luminance histogram.

Im not sure I understand your Stockholm syndrome statement or why you are apologizing for it. I have no allegiance to digital or film. I use both and appreciate what each brings to the table. 
 

 

 

I had this film looking more appealing talk with ex IBM and Silicone Graphics engineer at my first job in télévision. Théories could be turned 180 degrees, but it isn't easy on visual IQ check.

We both agreed film look is more apealing. 

I went to Blue.Ant broadcast, production centre in 2019. They were so proud about HDR, but to me it all looks gross and primitive. But in theory it is great looking

Stockholm syndrome is common among those who have to guit film, but instead of honesty, digital is overglorified by providing theories.

Yet, it is digital presets emulating film. Simply because film look is more appealing for many.

 

[albert]

On 10/4/2023 at 8:02 AM, costa43 said:

I can only answer for myself with this type of question and for me, film has an aesthetic that is more pleasing than any digital camera can produce, whether it be colour or b&w but the original Leica Monochrom renders an image that I find immensely pleasing without the inconveniences of film.

Flickr and the Monochrom image threads on this forum may help you with your decision making. Alternatively, used Leica Monochrom m9's or m246's have pretty much reached their depreciation limit in my opinion, so you can try one and sell it for a similar amount should it not tick your boxes.

For myself, with a Q MONOCHROM, I bring the image into Photoshop, then into Siver Efex Pro 3, then back to Photoshop, then to The Forum. I make it look the way I want it to look and that gives me ownership. Sorry, if you find this unsatisfactory to your beliefs. 

[jaapv]

On 6/30/2024 at 8:24 PM, JimP said:

A monochrom, or other camera reads out 14 bits of data, that would be 2^14 or 16,384 shades of gray.

16-bit greyscale renders offers 65,536 shades, but 8-bits only 256. Some editing programs indeed only support 8-bit grey scale or (PS) allow user error in this respect,  which destroys the superiority of Monochrom files. One should always edit in a higher bit depth than the original file, not to merge shades when shifting.