charlesphoto99 Posted October 3, 2008 Share #21 Posted October 3, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Wilfredo, As nice as your shots are, they are not Tri-X with M7. First off they are too sharp and too grainless! Second the proof is in the highlights - the M8 tends to blow out a lot more than film and create strange artifacts. As far as the use of Software in my second shot it actually doesn't change the image that much (depending on which settings used of course). I use Alien Skin for my M8 conversions as well. It's a matter of applying the correct tone changes as much as adding grain etc. It's not a special effect - it's just an automated and smarter way of converting. I think you will find your conversions, with or without the M8, to be much improved vs just choosing grayscale over rgb (which is what I did in the first shot and therefore tonality not as good). Yes, a separate forum thread for comparing other systems might be nice. I recently found out about the most recent news on the Fuji 67 folder in Barnacks Bar. Honestly I really shouldn't even be visiting this forum (time and work wise) let alone going to a half dozen others. Nice to discuss a few other cameras within reason and context of the M8 here. Anyway, shut the thread down if you like. Who really gives a f%^k anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2008 Posted October 3, 2008 Hi charlesphoto99, Take a look here Leica Canon Nikon B&W. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wilfredo Posted October 3, 2008 Author Share #22 Posted October 3, 2008 Hi Wilfredo, As nice as your shots are, they are not Tri-X with M7. First off they are too sharp and too grainless! Second the proof is in the highlights - the M8 tends to blow out a lot more than film and create strange artifacts. As far as the use of Software in my second shot it actually doesn't change the image that much (depending on which settings used of course). I use Alien Skin for my M8 conversions as well. It's a matter of applying the correct tone changes as much as adding grain etc. It's not a special effect - it's just an automated and smarter way of converting. I think you will find your conversions, with or without the M8, to be much improved vs just choosing grayscale over rgb (which is what I did in the first shot and therefore tonality not as good). Yes, a separate forum thread for comparing other systems might be nice. I recently found out about the most recent news on the Fuji 67 folder in Barnacks Bar. Honestly I really shouldn't even be visiting this forum (time and work wise) let alone going to a half dozen others. Nice to discuss a few other cameras within reason and context of the M8 here. Anyway, shut the thread down if you like. Who really gives a f%^k anyway? Well, I appreciate your time and effort. Just to clarify I didn't write Tri-X, I wrote T-Max which has a finer grain. Nevertheless, it's all good. Thanks again for your efforts, it is appreciated. Cheers, Wilfredo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted October 3, 2008 Share #23 Posted October 3, 2008 Wow!! I for one have been interested in this thread. I've been trying a lot of different techniques for getting B&W results out of my Digilux 3 that will keep the Contax III owner in me happy. But my feeling is that now that I've mentioned the word CONTAX that I should just shut the f**k up and go away...is that right Andy? Jeeesh...what a ridiculous attitude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest volkerm Posted October 3, 2008 Share #24 Posted October 3, 2008 What does this have to do with Leica? It's about photography and how the M8 B/W compares to others, I guess? Valid and interesting topic. BTW, what do these political campaigns in Barnack's Bar have to do with this forum? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 3, 2008 Share #25 Posted October 3, 2008 In defence of what I posted, the original question was along the lines of how do Nikon raw files compare with Canon ones But I'm relaxed about it I would resist any move to water down the raison d'être of this forum though. Surely we don't want any dilution of what it's about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted October 3, 2008 Share #26 Posted October 3, 2008 Well, I appreciate your time and effort. Just to clarify I didn't write Tri-X, I wrote T-Max which has a finer grain. Nevertheless, it's all good. Thanks again for your efforts, it is appreciated. Cheers, Wilfredo Aaah, T-Max. Yeah, big difference. I was always a Tr-X sort of guy so immediately thought of that (though for the last ten years or so switched to Neopan 400 which I think is more robust than T-Max yet with the fine grain). Man my M7 is lonely these days... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted October 3, 2008 Share #27 Posted October 3, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) In defence of what I posted, the original question was along the lines of how do Nikon raw files compare with Canon ones But I'm relaxed about it I would resist any move to water down the raison d'être of this forum though. Surely we don't want any dilution of what it's about? I guess that's true. I read it as is there a Nikon or Canon camera that has the same footprint as the M8 in b&w. To me the D3/D700 does, esp with Zeiss glass. Will leave it at that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted October 3, 2008 Share #28 Posted October 3, 2008 Here are some examples of what I mean. If I said I shot these with T-Max 400 and say a Leica M7, I don't think anyone would question it. Cheers, Wilfredo Benitez-Rivera Photography I (maybe wrongly) believe that D-lux3 at 800ISO looks more filmic than the above examples. They are too...clean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipkeston Posted October 4, 2008 Share #29 Posted October 4, 2008 I did this in photoshop for the tri-x look, some messing around and making actions here and there. thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingerprinz Posted October 4, 2008 Share #30 Posted October 4, 2008 Impressive images Charles. But don't wast your time on this forum. This is not a place to start a photography discussion. Here they prefer to discuss hardware, like wish lists, rumors and the likes. And as you experienced, they are not very open-minded too. Pity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 4, 2008 Share #31 Posted October 4, 2008 Here they prefer to discuss hardware, like wish lists, rumors and the likes The English language photo forum has over 150,000 posts, the German language one over 100,000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 4, 2008 Share #32 Posted October 4, 2008 Exactly - why not share some of yours Markus? I note that you mostly prefer to discuss equipment... And, who says we are not open minded? I'd say that we are mostly very liberal. Unless of course, you'd like to see this forum become a general photo forum, where anything goes and people attack each other and criticise their personal choices of equipment? No thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingerprinz Posted October 4, 2008 Share #33 Posted October 4, 2008 Andy, thank you for not shutting this thread down. You must admit, it has become an interesting one (except mine and your posts). It's a pitty Charles left the discussion, because he didn't like your hospitality. Don't know if you realize who Charles is. Know of some forums that would pay to get his valuable insights. But then again, if your main interest is hardware, that's what you get. Again, thanks for keeping this thread alive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 4, 2008 Share #34 Posted October 4, 2008 My main interest is photography and the photos posted on this site. Not the endless discussions about hardware. And I still maintain that the question was valid. I put an awful lot of time into this forum, as do the other mods. I would not do so if it were to become just another photography forum. And yes, I do know who Charles is - his work with Nirvana is outstanding, as is the rest of his portfolio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted October 4, 2008 Share #35 Posted October 4, 2008 Neopan and a IIf gives good RAW files;) 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/64393-leica-canon-nikon-bw/?do=findComment&comment=675416'>More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share #36 Posted October 5, 2008 Neopan and a IIf gives good RAW files;) That Neopan is really nice. I have never used it but want to try it out on my "new" old M2. Wilfredo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted October 5, 2008 Author Share #37 Posted October 5, 2008 My original intent on this thread was to find out if Nikon was closer to the Leica M8 in quality of files in comparison to Canon, but I guess that question can be extended to any camera. Bottom line is that I don't think anything really compares for B&W photography. I would have liked to have seen more examples of B&W digital comparisons but it doesn't look like that is going to happen. I think this thread has run its course... Wilfredo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wls.shanghai Posted October 5, 2008 Share #38 Posted October 5, 2008 Impressive images Charles. But don't wast your time on this forum. This is not a place to start a photography discussion. Here they prefer to discuss hardware, like wish lists, rumors and the likes. And as you experienced, they are not very open-minded too. Pity. you can find here in the LEICA FORUM appr. 250 000 photos!!!! ......where are your photos ????????! regards wls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted October 5, 2008 Share #39 Posted October 5, 2008 quite frankly im confused, we have discussed freely most brands v/s Leica for some time, apparently now thats off the table, or not, or whatever. There are so many mixed signals here I cant help but wonder which of you has their wires crossed. Statement I would be interested in the comparisons between brands, if thats not a consideration here Im happy to travel and take my views with me. While ymmv, frankly i dont care Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 5, 2008 Share #40 Posted October 5, 2008 It's my error for misunderstanding the premise of the original post. I posted a question on the Fred Miranda Forum I guess I could also post here asking how Nikon Raw files compare to Canon Raw files when converted to Black and White. I took this to mean that Wilfredo wished to discuss only Nikon vs Canon, which is really against the spirit of the whole forum. However... I don't think there is a camera out there that can beat the M8 but I'm wondering if Nikon comes closer than Canon? Normal service has been resumed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.