Is the M8 for you?

[ken_tanaka]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

<...>

I am therefore slowly coming to the conclusion that for me the best gear could be traditional analog M6/7 with my current hybrid workflow, and for the times I really want digital for convenience to use my GRD (or another small digital).

 

<...>

 

Andy

 

Unlike others here, I am not at all confident that I know what you feel you're missing. Digital imaging requires different approaches, whether color or b&w is the objective. Being an occasional snapshooter perhaps you've not discovered the groove that works for you. I can assure you, however, that digital photography and digital printing are capable of producing at least the equivalent -- and often far beyond that -- of what chemical photography could ever produce. But, just as with chemical photography and printing, excellent results are not automatic to the tools. It takes practice and skill.

 

Look, Andy, why not just follow your heart? Go back to shooting with film and just use that Ricoh camera for your occasional digital caprices. Film is still around so why wring your hands for the sake of keeping up with fashion?

[plasticman]

IQ-wise, the M8 + digital printing is for me, and the M6/film + wet printing is for me. M6/film + scanning + digital printing is not for me, full digital or full analogue beats the hybrid four ways to Sunday.

 

Hi Jimmy

 

I tend to agree with you, but I think what Andy is talking about isn't measured in terms of 'IQ'. We've had a million discussions about film vs digital on these (and I guess every other photo-forum since time - or at least the internet - began), but sometimes there's a 'feeling' that something is nonetheless missing, regardless of resolution or clarity or other strictly measurable quantities.

As a 'rationalist' my quest to explain what the missing element is, has been answered by mark Antony's blog post. For me, the eye/brain is registering nuances in film that our conscious mind is unaware of - just as it does in a myriad of ways all the time (for example, when we talk to or meet people).

As far as strict 'IQ' goes, I could see that in many ways even my R-D1s is better than my film shots. But 'something' elemental is missing.

[Advertisement]

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

[pete_g]

What sparked me to post is a recent thread I started on the film forum with an example of a shot I took on Neopan and with which I was very pleased.I printed this particular shot out at A4 size and it is really really good.It has a depth and tone range that I just do not get on the M8.It is not grain I am after it is just that certain something that I cannot quite put my finger on.

 

I sympathise and agree that it's REALLY difficult to finger. You film shot has amazing depth, the girl on the tree looks to be in another plane to the background entirely, and it's film's ability to handle this that shows the weakness of digital imaging. However, don't give up, although I haven't yet suceeded I think there must be a solution in the workflow, and it will be a complex mix of many techniques (I currently think dodging and burning in PS may help a lot). FWIW I tried Alien Skin Exposure, and it is good, but not good enough yet for me to pay the high price.

 

Contrary to what one may expect, it would seem that post processing digital B+W is every bit as difficult as colour.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}When I first looked at my digital images I also felt there was some 'drama' missing that I see in my Portra shots - but Alien Skin just didn't do it for me, I'm afraid. They're trying to mimic something 'organic' with mathematical algorithms. Fine if adding grain is all you think you need to make your captures more 'film-like', but there's definitely still something missing - and Mark's brilliant explanation is the key, imo.

 

Great digital BW printing is nothing like just adding grain, but rather:

• exposure
  
• raw development
  
• channel and tone mapping
  
• contrast selection
  
• dodging and burning
  
• noise addition (or subtraction)

These are roughly equivalent in terms of time and effort as analog photography, but of course very different in practicee. It is not at all about merely applying mathematical formula: a fine print takes the time it always has... it's just less messy, IMO.

 

In practice I agree with Ken T.

 

Andy--if you don't want to dig into this, just shoot film; as I said, it's the most direct route there

[andym911]

Some really interesting replies...it seems that most of you are quite happy or pleased with the printed output from the M8 in B&W.I envy you!

 

Others like myself still feel that there is something missing or dissatisfying is maybe a better word.

@Ken

Being as you say an 'occasional snapshooter' does not necessarily mean that I don't invest a lot of time in my hobby...I agree that there is far more skills and knowledge required to get top class prints from a digital workflow.

Maybe you are right, that for me personally, the analog route with an occasional digital 'outing' suits my needs well.

@Mani and Pete, it's nice to see I am not alone and that there are others who share a similar opinon....

@Jimmy....each to their own, although isn't a hybrid workflow exactly the same as a digital workflow, just the recording medium being different?

 

anyway...it's the M6 that gets the most use at the moment and at least for a short while I will try to improve the look and feel of my M8 stuff.

 

cheers

 

andy

[plasticman]

Great digital BW printing is nothing like just adding grain, but rather:

• exposure
  
• raw development
  
• channel and tone mapping
  
• contrast selection
  
• dodging and burning
  
• noise addition (or subtraction)

These are roughly equivalent in terms of time and effort as analog photography, but of course very different in practicee. It is not at all about merely applying mathematical formula: a fine print takes the time it always has... it's just less messy, IMO.

 

Hi Jamie - with the greatest respect to your awesome experience in this field (credits in LFI for your sterling contributions to color management of M8 files is just one such public recognition), I've been working with Photoshop for the last thirteen years - my preference for film stems at least in part from the fact that I sit in the digital world for most of my day (although, thank goodness, retouching is done by others these days).

 

I was naturally simplifying in my statement, but most specifically I was discussing Alien Skin - not all the processes that can be done by 'hand' to a file in post-processing.

 

imo - and now we're in danger of getting into the usual positions of film vs digital - the elements that are 'lacking' - or that people like Andy and me 'feel' are lacking - are not possible to restore to an image, irrespective of how much post-processing is applied, and regardless of the skill of the retouching artist.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

{snipped}imo - and now we're in danger of getting into the usual positions of film vs digital - the elements that are 'lacking' - or that people like Andy and me 'feel' are lacking - are not possible to restore to an image, irrespective of how much post-processing is applied, and regardless of the skill of the retouching artist.

 

Mani--thanks sincerely for your kind words and I respect your position as well (if I didn't I wouldn't keep shooting film, which I still love )

[ken_tanaka]

Andy: My remark regarding the (self-proclaimed) occasional nature of your photographic interests was a point but not a barb. My point was that you seem to have limited time to devote to photography. So why not spend that time pursuing it in a manner that's apparently more pleasing to you?

[ndjambrose]

I very much agree with the proposition that digital files don't look 'right' out of camera. I think I'm now pretty good at processing DNG files to make b+w prints. I've done a lot of them, and have learned how to make printed digital images that are convincing comparisons to my earlier analogue baryta prints. But, while I think it's possible to get there in the end, there's no doubt that it takes a lot of time. And without putting in the time, images straight from camera have a unreal plasticity to them that I don't like.

 

There is a certain characteristic to a film image that doesn't come across when the same image is made digitally.There's no doubt in my mind that a digital image has greater IQ in terms of pure sharpness and detail, but the same image scores poorly when measured on the charm scale.

[andym911]

Andy: My remark regarding the (self-proclaimed) occasional nature of your photographic interests was a point but not a barb. My point was that you seem to have limited time to devote to photography. So why not spend that time pursuing it in a manner that's apparently more pleasing to you?

 

Ken

 

It wasn't taken the wrong way at all....no worries.THat's probably my current frustration, I spend a lot of time on getting something that is proving evasive...and then I take the M6 and am satisfied...

I appreciate very much your comments and as you noted I think I agree with your summary.

 

regards

 

andy

[andym911]

I very much agree with the proposition that digital files don't look 'right' out of camera. I think I'm now pretty good at processing DNG files to make b+w prints. I've done a lot of them, and have learned how to make printed digital images that are convincing comparisons to my earlier analogue baryta prints. But, while I think it's possible to get there in the end, there's no doubt that it takes a lot of time. And without putting in the time, images straight from camera have a unreal plasticity to them that I don't like.

 

There is a certain characteristic to a film image that doesn't come across when the same image is made digitally.There's no doubt in my mind that a digital image has greater IQ in terms of pure sharpness and detail, but the same image scores poorly when measured on the charm scale.

 

Neil

I agree with all you said..it is not the IQ, it is how you so eloquently say , the 'charm scale'.

[charlesphoto99]

Shoot film. I still do though its slowly being eroded by digital alas. Check out my website and the "filson" gallery. The b&w was converted with Alien Skin vs 1 with the Tri-X default and a little extra tone curves and dodging/burning using a brush in a soft light layer mask. I find one has to shoot at 320 and above and get down and dirty with the file - straight across conversions always look flat and obviously digital (and not MF as many lead themselves to believe due to extra sharpness and resolution).

 

Nothing wrong with film though - its the reason I invested in an Imacon when everybody else was rushing out buying Canon 1ds's.

[Guest WPalank]

• exposure
  
• raw development
  
• channel and tone mapping
  
• contrast selection
  
• dodging and burning
  
• noise addition (or subtraction)

These are roughly equivalent in terms of time and effort as analog photography, but of course very different in practicee.

 

Jamie,

 

First let me say that I know nothing about wet darkroom procedure but know my way around Photoshop and other imaging applications.

Let me describe two procedures in the "digital darkroom". 1) Sharpening just the eyelashes of a portrait and dodging just the iris of the eye. 2) Burning the hollow of the cheek while dodging just above the cheekbone.

Would these two procedures take the same amount of time in digital vs. wet darkroom?

 

What I love about digital is the absolute control, pixel by pixel. You can sharpen one edge while blurring (or softening adjacent areas) or dodge and burn a specific leaf on a tree in seconds. That being said, I work with a Wacom tablet.

 

But to the OP, there's a ton of information out there that will mean taking on a significant learning curve. Fortunately for myself, it's a journey I enjoy and will continue to enjoy.

 

As I continue my path for the perfect manual B&W conversion, here's something I learned lately by Katrin Eismann. She goes into the individual channels of an image and adds differing amounts of grain in each followed by just a snippet of Gausian Blurr to get the amount and control she wants. Unfortunately that may add some color noise. The fix, easy! Switch the blending mode to luminosity. To much time you say, create an action.

 

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

-Lao Tzu

[Guest jimmy pro]

There is a certain characteristic to a film image that doesn't come across when the same image is made digitally.There's no doubt in my mind that a digital image has greater IQ in terms of pure sharpness and detail, but the same image scores poorly when measured on the charm scale.

 

As a subjective opinion that's fine, but stated as a factual argument it's totally bogus. It supposes that the "look" of film is what we should aspire to forever. What if I happen to dislike the grain of film and like the so-called plastic look of digital better? That's my opinion but I'm not saying the digital look is better. What if to me Picasso's paintings score poorly"when measured on the charm scale" compared to Rembrandt? WTF does that mean, that Picasso should've tried to paint like Rembrandt? Of course not, nobody would be that much of an idiot to assert that in public, yet that's exactly what a lot of people are trying to assert wrt film and digital. This notion that the goal of digital is to look like film is fine if that's what your artistic feeling is, but it shouldn't be something people force down everyone's throats as if it were the status quo.

[Guest stnami]

Factory presets give factory results

Alien Skin has to be used the same as one burns and dodges tones and then effects will be of some use. Make your own presets and to get it all going in the right direction be prepared for a heap of PP work. Some stuff can be done with actions mixing a variety of tools etc most images must be rebuilt from scratch for the best results ...........on that film can be quicker and with much better results depending on the image

[Guest stnami]

Rembrant and Picasso worked from completely different conceptual frameworks and they were pretty much immersed within their cultural and social eras and those issues are central to their work......not the material appearance.

[Albert4321]

if you want to see some gorgeous BWs from the M8 (aside from the photo gallery), look here:

 

Jeff Ascough’s Blog Personal Pictures\

 

 

yeah, Jeff's B&W are breath taking. In his blog he also mentioned any lab color BW conversion will distroy the look for M8 file. He suggested to start with his "lazy BW" action. and also mentioned he uses C1 to process all his M8 files for best result ...

 

I have pretty much all the B&W actions money can buy, generally they work pretty well. so there is no need for me to try Alien Skin. Though I never want to emulate the film look from my digital file. I just start playing with Jeff's actions, but generally, Kubota's actions work very well for various look.

[andym911]

Factory presets give factory results

Alien Skin has to be used the same as one burns and dodges tones and then effects will be of some use. Make your own presets and to get it all going in the right direction be prepared for a heap of PP work. Some stuff can be done with actions mixing a variety of tools etc most images must be rebuilt from scratch for the best results ...........on that film can be quicker and with much better results depending on the image

 

thanks for the comment...some of your stuff is very impressive.

 

 

So lets see where it takes me:D

 

andy

[stunsworth]

I've been using Alien Skin for quite a while. It really gives you the flexibility and the repeatability that the other techniques and plug-ins that I've tried don't. There's a fully functional 30 day trial on their website, so it's easy for anyone to make up their own mind. This was from a few days ago, processed using the standard Fuji Acros setting...

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[andym911]

Steve

 

I just downloaded it earlier today..will give it a 'whirl' in the coming days and see what it can possibly do for me.....

thanks

andy