Why looks M8 pics less digital than competitors?

[PeterP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

By the way , very nice images Bebert !!

[Nitnaros]

With film, it's the grain that's supposed to look tack sharp (use a Focomat!), while the print supposedly continues to look 'creamy.' With digital it's always & only the edges that are sharpened.

 

Kirk,

While I understand that too much of digital edge sharpening looks undesirable (halos etc.), I don't get it how film grain made film-based negatives "tack sharp"...?

Also in the film world, you could increase sharpness via unsharp "masking" and contrast enhancing printing.

 

As mentioned above M8 files exhibit good texture (some grain, starting with ISO 320), very good sharpness for 35mm (like you mentioned partly due to the lack of AA filter).

 

The other overall "digital effect" might be color; specific films have a specific color palettes, which we got used too, while digital color can be - depending on white balance - all over the place. That might help contribute to a "digital look" as well.

 

Peter

[Advertisement]

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

[thompsonkirk]

Hi, Peter -

 

I didn't say that very clearly, did I? I didn't mean that grain sharpness could improve lens resolution - I meant that if the grain pattern is sharp, we gain an illusion of sharpness above & beyond lens resolution in lines-per-millimeter.

 

My line of thought was that resolution/edge sharpness is often poor in vintage 35mm BW photos or in contemporary ones with vintage lenses. My own examples would be photographs with an early 28mm Elmarit (the 8-element version), or with an early Mandler 35mm Summicron (the original version without half-click aperture openings). Neither resolves very well by current standards, & the Elmarit might now be judged 'poor' in resolution; but the images look good partly because a clear grain pattern - such as you can get with the Focomat negative carrier & a Focotar lens - contributes to a sense of image sharpness.

 

Recently I remember noticing the same effect in large Salgado prints displayed at my neighborhood art museum.

 

I don't mean to be dogmatic about this. Is it a trick only of my own perception, or have you noticed anything like it?

 

But anyhow I'll stick to the idea that M8 files potentially need less sharpening & tend to look 'less digital' in this respect.

 

And yes indeed, the color palettes of film & digital - as much as one might manipulate the latter - certainly differ, we well as the ways of handling shadow & highlight detail.

 

Kirk

[bhomatude]

Light, optics, sensor... But most important, the photographer's intent.

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!

[BerndReini]

Grain increases the appearance of sharpness as well as tonality. It adds texture to a film image.

[jaapv]

I guess I could have done this with a Canon or Nikon file as well, but the M8 file makes it fast and easy.

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!

[Amoment]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dead sharp image Jaap.

 

 

Stuart

[RSL]

Fine shot, Jaap. I wish I could see it as a print. Are you using Silver EFEX Pro? I'm getting better grain effects with that than I've ever been able to get with anything else. The software actually analyzes the image and inserts grain appropriately instead of simply dumping on an overall grain effect.

[Guest malland]

This is one of the more unelightening discussions here because it's obviously the skill of the photographer in making the picture and in post-processing that makes much more difference than the what camera you use. As far as the camera you use, what is important is what you lilke to use — and one can easily argue that a photographer will often make better pictures, on the average, with a camera that he or she likes to use. If you like the pictures, what difference what digital or film camera the were made with? In any case, "it don't mean a thing...if it ain't got that swing..."

 

 

Vienna

 

 

 

Vienna

 

 

...and a couple in quite a different style:

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

Bangkok

 

 

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[Guest malland]

Speaking of unenlightening, it's not at all clear what point in your statement the photographs you posted are supposed to be supporting. Maybe you can enlighten us?

Absolutely, Brent: I think that a statement like that made by the original poster is meaningless unless it is accompanied by example pictures. Here's what he said:

if I compare pics taken with an M8 and other cameras with comparable capacities (such as D3, D200), I must admit (even on the scree...), that each time, pics from the M8 look "less digital" than with other high end digital cameras: a portrait with the M8 seems each time less flat (I would say more natural with less treatment).

If these alleged differences can be seen "even on the screen", they should be shown. The other point that I was making by posting the pictures was that photography is, at least for many people, about the pictures. There are other points the pictures I posted make but, as this environment seems so hostile, I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

 

PS: That's funny, the posting by Brent to which I responded here seems to have disappeared by the time I finished typing. Was it deleted by the moderator?

[Guest stnami]

Mitch, Brent would have deleted the post himself, yea most here just make statements, back it with some second hand pseudo scientific nonsense.

Images nah most don't use them to express their point. this is fair enough as they are gear orientated and the image is of great importance. Armed with this attitude they make statements about images...hmmmm interesting stuff.

 

Most stuff on the net looks a bit daggy especially as the monitor quality differs so greatly from person to person. When convenient guys like Brent change their tune and say it cannot be seen on the screen, threads are full of that statement ................. a pity because they end up belittling the camera's capabilities .

 

Maybe the parrot fell off the base plate

[jaapv]

Fine shot, Jaap. I wish I could see it as a print. Are you using Silver EFEX Pro? I'm getting better grain effects with that than I've ever been able to get with anything else. The software actually analyzes the image and inserts grain appropriately instead of simply dumping on an overall grain effect.

 

It was Alien Skin, Russ, with a bit of curves twisting and sharpening after. Thanks for the kind words:)

[fotografr]

Absolutely, Brent: I think that a statement like that made by the original poster is meaningless unless it is accompanied by example pictures. Here's what he said:[/i]If these alleged differences can be seen "even on the screen", they should be shown. The other point that I was making by posting the pictures was that photography is, at least for many people, about the pictures. There are other points the pictures I posted make but, as this environment seems so hostile, I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

 

PS: That's funny, the posting by Brent to which I responded here seems to have disappeared by the time I finished typing. Was it deleted by the moderator?

 

Imants is right on one count--I deleted the post. I figured it would just take the thread farther from the original point than it already seems to have gone. Basically, I didn't, and still don't, see any connection between the specific images you posted and the point you were trying to make.

 

It's interesting that you mention the hostile environment here. You begin your own post by saying, "This is one of the more unelightening discussions here...", which insults the OP and everyone else who has participated in the discussion.

[fotografr]

When convenient guys like Brent change their tune and say it cannot be seen on the screen, threads are full of that statement ................. a pity because they end up belittling the camera's capabilities .

 

 

I said that??? You really should stop making things up. Incidentally, I don't think anyone has ever called me a "convenient guy" before. Is that a compliment or an insult?

[Guest malland]

Most stuff on the net looks a bit daggy especially as the monitor quality differs so greatly from person to person...

Imants, it's an interesting point as to what can be seen on the monitor and what can be seen in the print — and in the latter it depends also on the size of the print, in that things such as lens and file quality may become compelling in a large print that just don't matter for a small print.

 

Although I'm not that interested in whether a digital print looks like it was done with film, like most people new to digital, originally I was shooting the Ricoh GRD in the 3:2 aspect ratio rather than in its native 4:3 because I didn't want the pictures to look "digital"; now I'm just interested in what the picture looks like on its own.

 

While my final judgment of my photographs is based on the print rather than on the image on my monitor, I must say that, with experience, I find that I can judge very well from my monitor how the print will be which leads me to think that the quality of the print can indeed be judged from what is seen on a good calibrated monitor which shows good detail and fine differences in gradation.

 

Looking at some of the pictures posted in this thread, I like bhomatude's picture above but agree with his statement that the most important thing is the photographer's intent (and his or her skill and talent). Taking Jaap's picture above, which I like for it's contrast, I would not say that it shows the "dead sharp image", as stated by Stuart, of the M8. Here is a shot taken with the Ricoh GX100 that takes this contrast effect somewhat further, but I would not say that this shot show the sharp image produced by this camera:

 

 

 

 

On the other hand I do think that Jaap has got it right by saying that he "could have have done this with a Canon or Nikon file as well, but the M8 file makes it fast and easy". That is how he feels about M8 files, while I feel that about the Nikon D300 files. Here are two more pictures, portraits, the first taken with the D300 and the second with the Ricoh GRD2 — and I think that my point is obvious enough that I don't need to explain why I've posted these pictures in the context of this discussion:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream

[lct]

...Here are two more pictures, portraits, the first taken with the D300 and the second with the Ricoh GRD2 — and I think that my point is obvious enough that I don't need to explain why I've posted these pictures in the context of this discussion...

Sorry i don't understand Mitch. Do you mean that the D300 looks more digital than the Ricoh? If so what is your point about the M8? Would you say that the M8 is closer to the D300 than the Ricoh, or the contrary? Confused sorry.

[Kent10D]

Quite simple, lct.

The thread has curved slightly and fallen into a cosmic wormhole from which it reemerged in the photo forum!

 

Elementary string theory, you see.

[Neil J]

Hi Bebert,

I remember working for a local paper called The News here in Adelaide Aust (Rupert Murdochs first newspaper). My job was to process and print the photographers B&W films and prints for publication. At that time they used Nikon F's and Nikkormats which produced great results. My supervisor a German man called Rolf was a real Leica man and bought his M3 and a couple of lenses in for me to play with. Initially I thought how can any one use these cameras as the operation and in particularly loading the film seemed really strange. When I processed and printed the films I took I was quite surprised at the difference in "feel" of the B&W prints. To say this is something to do with advertising I find amusing because I wouldn't have even considered purchasing this camera on my measly wage. I had no pre conceived expectations of the M3. I was the proud owner of a F Nikon though and argued its virtues.

The quality and sharpness of the Leica lenses seems to me to be in increased tone range and sharpness sparation in the tones. I am not a technician either but maybe the lenses have a similar feel with the M8 digital and that is the difference. I think that looking at pictures on comp screens are pointless. Best to compare actual large prints.

Now boys light up and start flaming!!

[ChrisC]

The file (or negative) that comes out of the camera is just a starting point. Martin Paar's work is what I'd call "plasticy,"...

 

Russell - This thread has concerned itself with notions of 'plasticity' in digital images, so I'm not sure whether or not you know that Martin Parr's work has predominantly been on medium format negative film. The 'plasticity' in Parr's work comes from his use of flash to freeze and pump colours, more recently; ring flash. Whether or not Parr is now shooting digitally, I don't know.

 

................. Chris

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Quite simple, lct. The thread has curved slightly and fallen into a cosmic wormhole from which it reemerged in the photo forum...

I suspected something like that, except the wormhole though.