The Quiet M8 Alternative

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just had another thought: perhaps, for the GX100, to get the look I want I just have to shoot at ISO 400 rather than the ISO 200 that I usually shoot at with the GR-D. The picture below, which I've posted before, is one of my favorites that was shot with the GX100 at ISO 400 at which I had left the camera by mistake. I like it because, for me, it gives the feeling of loneliness and alienation of living in a huge, chaotic city, in the manner of an Edvard Munch painting (but with the quality of a Munch paining, of course):

 

 

Nevertheless, I tend to think I would like the a GRD shot of this better, particularly in that it would show more grain (and texture, line Tri-X developed in Rodinal) in the pavement, for example.

 

—Mitch/Paris

[Guest Walt]

Sorry, Walt, I don't understand: what do you mean by this?

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

Mitch- Licked it smooth, like an ice cream cone.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest malland]

Yes, that's the problem, Walt.

 

—Mitch

[Guest malland]

...This is of course hard to call, but I would say that the II is capable of extremely fine detail and texture--more so, if anything, than the original camera. I had thought you were talking mostly about "noise." ...

Walt:

 

Noise, or grain if you will, is only one aspect: look at it from the point of view of developing Tri-X in Rodinal versus D76 — you get larger grain but more acutance. That is also the difference between the GRD and the GX100, as shown in my two pictures above.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

[Guest malland]

Not at all: we're just trying to figure out how to categorize these cameras in terms of the look that they produce; no different from the discussion photographers have always had about different films and developers. I think that the two GRD and GX100 pictures that I posted above show this characteristic difference of the two cameras quite well.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr

[rob_x2004]

Ah sorry. Threads crossed on the delete. Not sure though. Its more heavy photoshop technique displayed.

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ah sorry. Threads crossed on the delete. Not sure though. Its more heavy photoshop technique displayed.

Don't agree with you, Rob, again. I haven't done anything in post-processing that I wouldn't do in the darkroom: increase in contrast and selective burning and dodging — although I've been using LightZone rather than Photoshop.

 

For people not familiar with darkroom processing of B&W — I don't mean you, Rob — I highly recommend the following book, which I think is the best thing illustrating this subject, and is just as useful for digital post-processing as for darkroom printing:

 

Amazon.com: Black & White: Photographic Printing Workshop: Books: Larry Bartlett,Jon Tarrant

 

And think that every photographer should also read Anselm Adams books, The Negative and The Print, which well illustrate his concept of "visualization" and his metaphor taken from music, that "the negative is the score while the print is the performance".

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest stnami]

And think that every photographer should not read Anselm Adams books the other is worth the read

[Guest malland]

Imants:

 

You think that in reading Adams' books people will be seduced by his technical mastery into his static and empty aesthetic?

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[Guest stnami]

Most would not have a dedication to their craft as he did, the narrow band he worked within allowed for excellence as a craftsperson not as a photographer.

Boredom would set in pretty quick................his time has passed

[mike prevette]

Ok, I've resisted posting here for to long. Since we seem to have drifted off topic a little it seems like the perfect time.

 

SO I've just finished my first couple weeks with the GX100. I had/have a original GRD that had a brutal encounter with concrete. I also had an original GR (the ones with film). So I wasn't new to the G series. Since my M8 is in Solms I figured why not keep going on the G line. Tony from Pop flash had a great deal + his normal great service so I couldn't resist. Plus I got a cheap m8 grip, and a few IR filters.

 

Body: good nothing bad to say other than the added bulk compared to the GR is noticeable, but the operating controls are exeplary for a small shooter. Panasonic should take note. I dislike the extending lens, it seems more fragile than the GRD's

 

Lens: I have mainly stuck to the wide end (24 in 35 terms) I don't feel like i've pushed the lens at all. More in the next row...

 

ISO: So I break the rules a bit, and have been using it at 800 with the JPG set to small and BW which brilliantly lets you shoot RAW and have a BW viewscreen. So I can frame in BW but when I hit the 'puter, it's the full raw. Of course it won't let the fine majestic detail of this little lens show through but I'm very pleased.

 

It has heart and soul, a little bit of grunge. I love it. I just made some A3 prints on my 3800 and they are lovely. Nothing has reminded me of Tri-X more than this. It has a little more tooth than the Delta-400 that I always push to 800, but it's very pleasing in prints.

 

My big complaints are dumb. The files are very muddy out of the camera, so it requires a little magic to make them sing. bigger than the GRD, harder to pocket because of the flash. still slow (faster then the GRD by 2X) to shoot RAW.

 

blah blah, oh ya the Macro is AMAZING!!!

 

Gx100: gallery

 

[Guest stnami]

Mike read from the start it was about the RD-1........... that drifted off ages ago,,,,,so it seems you have continued that drift.

 

So I break the rules a bit,

. What rules?

[Guest malland]

Nice pictures, Mike; and interesting that you are shooting in at ISO 800, which is too fast for me most of the time for the bright light in Bangkok. But if I were printing these I would sharpen them more to get sharper grain, although I don't like over-sharpening. Have you tried that?

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[sean_reid]

And think that every photographer should not read Anselm Adams books the other is worth the read

 

Hi Imants,

 

I don't agree. Even if one is to take his or her work in a direction that's alien to Ansel Adams' approach, the technical books in those series are some of the best resources one could read for understanding how B&W photography, as a optical/chemical (now digital) process works. So many of the technical questions I see on forums would be clarified if the poster had a solid background in traditional silver-process photography. As a technical writer, Adams is clear, concise and deeply knowledgeable. Even if one's approach to pictures is radically different from Adams', the books can be very useful.

 

Kerouac, for example, knew what proceeded him very well and knew exactly what he was abandoning when he went his own way after his first novel.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest stnami]

There are a heap of technical books, information etc around...............he never had a mortgage on what is correct procedure.........along with HCB over rated. popularity is due to media and ignorance of what others have contributed

.

.

.

. ..... but to some perpetuating myths is important

[sean_reid]

I myself, as I think you know, am not completely ignorant about what others have contributed, technically and aesthetically, to photography's history and development. As technical writing about photography, Adams' three books are among the best ever written. Don't hold his popularity against him when judging this. When did you last read those three books thoroughly? Much of the technical books written since owe a debt to that series.

 

For those interested, they are: The Camera, the Negative and the Print. They're excellent even if one takes the knowledge gained and turns the approach on its head. The core ideas there are still quite relevant in the digital age.

[Guest stnami]

Yes it's been a while since I read them , it's been a while since they are relevant in this digital age.......but each to his own