Apple to Apples - Oranges to Oranges

[Nogoodnik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a question - not to start a posting squabble, but because of my lack of in-depth Leica knowledge - I need some help.

I have a new M8 with a new 28 mm Elmarit. I have all the bells a whistles computer and software-wise for working with digital images (long time digital Nikon user).

I miss shooting 35. I left negatives when the darkroom became a chore. Went to Nikon and did the whole digital thing up through the D300.

I'm not interested in generating the tired old discussion of film vs. digital - but I am wondering about a couple of things:

If I shot 35 color negs - (available to convert to B&W) then scanned them in a higher end - say Coolscan - scanner - and brought them into PS3 or some other software - and here I go - get more of that "Leica" look with my images. Please, I can't define it. Soft, creamy, beautiful. I don't know.

I guess my question is - apples to apples, oranges to oranges - If I don't mind the extra work, will I get - not a "better" but a more "Leica" image through film and scan? Or can I get the "Leica" look with my M8?

Finally - better to shoot B&W negs and scan for the "Leica" B&W image - or just use M8 and convert? Sorry, I used the word "better." I hope you know what I mean.

Thank you

- Pete

PS - going to post same question on RFF

[andybarton]

You will get a more film-like image using film than you will if you use a digital camera. Software that emulates film (and there are lots of alternatives) can only ever do that - emulate.

 

That's not to say that digital is worse or better. Just different. The sooner that people really understand this the better, IMHO.

 

The best comparison I have heard is it's the difference between watercolour and oil painting.

 

I shoot both, and like both.

 

BTW - if you want a b&w image from film, shoot with b&w film. Otherwise, you are just emulating b&w via a different medium.

[earleygallery]

A few thoughts........

 

I agree with most of what Andy says. Maybe the comparison should be Acrylics and Oils though as Watercolour is VERY different to Oil painting.

 

The 'Leica' look you refer to is probably referenced by the famous Leica images of the past and of course they are all film shots. So yes, if you want that look you really need to shoot film (although I get good results from converting C41 colour negs in PS so I think that can still be a way to go, I do still prefer 'real' B&W film).

 

In time the 'Leica' look will apply to digital images just as much, as it is the lens as much as the medium which matters.

 

I don't really see the point in striving to emulate a particular type of film look with a digital image. If you want, say, a Kodachrome or Neopan image use Kodachrome or Neopan. Likewise you can get pretty close to the Oil painting look with Acrylics, you can still tell the difference IMO.

 

So, advice? Buy yourself a film M body to pair with your M8 and enjoy the best of all worlds.

[Robert Ridyard]

Check out Steve Unsworth's website (Leica Photographs. His "Picture a week 2007" section showcases several pictures taken with the M8. His photos are a great illustration of the "leica look".

[thomasw_]

.......So, advice? Buy yourself a film M body to pair with your M8 and enjoy the best of all worlds.

 

Indeed, this is sound advice!