The Siren Call of Digital is a Scream

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I cannot emphasize enough the level of control and quality that can be obtained in the digital darkroom as opposed to the chemical one.

 

Not to mention the fact that you can walk from bright sunlight to subdued artificial light and not have to worry about either film speed or colour temperature.

 

Both film and digital have own strengths and weaknesses. Much as I love film, and am always intending to shoot some, I haven't shot any for nearly two years.

[Eoin]

The thing that strikes me about the OP's comments is the slightly biased (naturally)view taken.

Using film many years ago, I also invested in the equipment (darkroom) to process and print my own film. I became "familiar" with the development and printing process and while I had plenty of fine images I was never fully in complete control due to a lack of experience or true skill with the medium.

 

Fast forward to digital, yes I have invested in a Mac to optimise my workflow with Aperture, yet this equipment is not for the single use of image processing, internet, email, media viewing and general computer tasks are uses this equipment is also used for.

 

With regard to the brightness of the OP's comments regarding the brightness of the image, one using digital must also bare in mind the the following,

Most raw processors tend to boost the image from native exposure recorded by the sensor in their initial decode to something more pleasant on screen, Typically a raw processor with all these initial settings switched off will present the user with a very dull and flat image which needs to be enhanced or developed, to what extent the image submitted has been manipulated by either the raw processor or the OP I don't know, but it does look over exposed taking into consideration the setting.

 

Secondly, while it's many many years since I've used film or shot with a film Leica, I found the digital learning curve to be quite steep in the early days and often contradicting depending on the camera used, with Canon's I used to expose for the shadow detail and recover the highlights, however with the M8, the secret seems to be to preserve the highlight detail in the exposure and recover the shadow detail in post processing.

 

The third factor and I don't know how this would relate to M8 v's film Ms, but the M8's center weighted meter is very very center weighted and almost horizontal in it's field. It took me a long time to become accustomed to it's traits and resulting exposure suggestions, that now I tend to use it as a spot meter with better results.

 

It's no skin off my nose, what anyone chooses to shoot, but in the interest of fairness, it's not just a matter of one camera doesn't expose like the other, they are different requiring a different skill set, familiarity and understanding that can't be picked up over a weekend.

[jaapv]

The remark about the metering is very much to the point. With the M6 etc. there is the semi-spot meter, so one could wander over the subject and determine highs and lows.

Whilst the M8 has the same effect in a vertical sense, the spot is much wider, resulting in less accurate measuring when there are different values in the middle 1/3rd horizontal of the image. That can result in misexposure by the unwary.

[Photoskeptic]

I haven't sold my M8 as I alluded to in the earlier post. Believe it or not my wife won't let me!! I certainly did not intend to put down digital photography with my statement. I've made good money with my M8 and produced some stunning images. At the moment I'm merely enjoying the difference of film as opposed to digital. I suppose the one important item which puts me off digital is the constant updating needed (witness the M8). It would be nice to buy a digital camera today similar in scope to the M3 of yesterday and still have it as relevant to shooting fifty some odd years later. Yeah, yeah, I know, I know, pipe dreams and all that

[Agent M10]

With regard to the brightness of the OP's comments regarding the brightness of the image, one using digital must also bare in mind the the following,

Most raw processors tend to boost the image from native exposure recorded by the sensor in their initial decode to something more pleasant on screen, Typically a raw processor with all these initial settings switched off will present the user with a very dull and flat image which needs to be enhanced or developed, to what extent the image submitted has been manipulated by either the raw processor or the OP I don't know, but it does look over exposed taking into consideration the setting.

 

they are different requiring a different skill set, familiarity and understanding that can't be picked up over a weekend.

 

Eoin - I think you picked up the point of my thread. As a regular film shooter, I did not like the raw processor boosting the image from native exposure recorded by the sensor in its initial decode to something more pleasant on the screen (a mouthful, but understandable). This boosting requires the photographer to go back in post-processing and recreate his initial interpretation of the scene (manually or by some kind of software preset). Personally, I found that I wasn't interested in that methodology of process and, consequently, turned the M8 back in.

 

(Required qualifier: "That's not to say that the process is bad or flawed, but it is materially different. It wasn't for me, even if I had the M8 for a few weeks and a Kelby class to go with it.")

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that no one commented on Mike Johnston's D3 shot in the dark and the resulting image. It's a good illustration of my experience with the test drive and Eoin's comments.

 

The reason that I even started the thread goes to your second statement. Going from a film M to an M8 is not just exchanging one type of lightbox for another. The M8 is an different animal and therefore requires a different skill set, familiarity, and understanding (and all the post-processing equipment, software, and methodology to go with it). As you say, the learning curve is steep. The purpose of the thread was to give those angling for an M8 (or other pro digital) and who haven't had the hands-on experience something to think about before they make the big move to digital capture.

 

JAAPV - Yes, there is a lot of control in the digital lightroom, but that really wasn't the point of the thread. Let me say, though, that Kodak, at least, has spent several decades on color and, speaking just for me (another qualifier), their color pallet is usually much nicer than most Photoshop experts'. Creativity often has more success working within limitations than it does without, but that is another thread (or book).

 

fingerprinz - Thanks so much for the comments about my portfolio. The Haiti portfolio was a great project for me. It's been a good discussion.

[jaapv]

Eoin - I think you picked up the point of my thread. As a regular film shooter, I did not like the raw processor boosting the image from native exposure recorded by the sensor in its initial decode to something more pleasant on the screen (a mouthful, but understandable). This boosting requires the photographer to go back in post-processing and recreate his initial interpretation of the scene (manually or by some kind of software preset). I wasn't interested in that methodology of process and, consequently, turned the M8 back in.

As a regular digital shooter, I do not like transforming the original negative to something more pleasant on paper by processing it through a carefully chosen developer for gradation and a contrast enhancing paper, hard or soft, and dodging and burning.

 

I feel your argument is spurious, as you will process film correctly, whilst denying a correct technical process to a digital image.

There is no out-of -the box performance in high quality photograpy digital nor film, yet you seem to expect a magical trick from the digital process.(or rather non-process;))

[mindlessdocumentation]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm looking forward to the day (however long it may be until then) that both parties completely realize that film and digital are just tools in a toolbox, and not absolutes.

[usefeet]

You can still get reasonable film-like shots with digital, this one was experimental with Summilux-R 50, at f1.4.

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!

[jaapv]

I'm looking forward to the day (however long it may be until then) that both parties completely realize that film and digital are just tools in a toolbox, and not absolutes.

AMEN!

[Agent M10]

mindlessdocumentation - Here's a recent quote from Erwin Puts:

 

The ultimate as a low profile high quality anti-obsoletism product is of course the film-loading Leica MP/M7. This one will last and service you for half a century with the best performance imagery you can imagine when loaded with current state of the art emulsions.

 

Unfortunately, if you say that you like the film tool better than the digital tool (which is what I did), you end up with threads like this.

[Guest noah_addis]

... Unfortunately, if you say that you like the film tool better than the digital tool (which is what I did), you end up with threads like this.

 

I know I said I wouldn't comment anymore, but so did you .

 

No one is arguing with you. You like film better. So do I. But you keep saying that they capture light in some fundamentally different way which is misleading at best. Everyone here likes or apprecates film, you seem to be the one with an axe to grind with digital. If you don't like it, don't use it.

 

I don't really feel like anyone is out there forcing people to shoot digital. Most people choose to for convenience or professional necessity. In fact I usually advise non-pros to stick to film. I'd shoot film if I were doing this just as a hobby. Sure, there is a lot more noise and discussion about digital out there, but that's because it's new and there are more things to talk about. If you're happy with film, just ignore the digital discussions and you'll be fine.

 

There is a learning curve with digital, and it does require some accessories like a computer and software, though the excellent C1 software comes with the camera (though not with the test drive, which is a problem I faced when I tested the camera).

 

Mike Johnston's D3 shot you mention isn't proof of anything. The darker example he showed to represent what the scene actually looked like is just a darkened version of the D3 example. I could darken the lighter D3 file to look like the darker file in about ten seconds in PS. I don't wish to post examples here since I wish to respect his copyright, but anyone who has ever used PS should know how easy it is. In any event, both files were made with the same camera, same exposure, at exactly the same capture time. Check the metadata. So if anything, all it proves is that you can get different looking photographs from one digital file.

 

By the way, I like my MP bodies much better than my M8, but the latter allows me to put food on the table.

[Agent M10]

Noah,

 

Common sense tells you that there is a difference of light capture between film and digital sensor. Light affects film emulsions physically on the atomic level while digital sensors must compute the light into 0's and 1's. You can read Kodak's articles about that (here and here - "instead of latent images there is a numeric representation of picture data captured by a rigid array of pixels"). My comments are not misleading in the least.

 

As Eoin points out, digital sensors are adjusted to boost the image from the native exposure and I personally didn't care for that and thought others considering a digital purchase might not either. Whether one can go to Photoshop and PP in ten seconds is beside the point (one can do the same thing with scanned film).

 

As I stated earlier, I was eager to test out the M8.2 because of the expected convenience. I said that it was a slick machine, but I didn't like the boost.

 

It's a shame that one cannot substantively discuss the differences of processes and methodologies between film and digital without being cast as an unlearned and biased dimwit if he, after doing a digital test drive, finds that he prefers the latent image over the boosted representation of picture data.

[Jager]

Somewhere down the road a photographer who has spent years perfecting his craft using digital (because that's what he started with and all he has known) will get a bug to try out film, that old standby from his father's time. He'll borrow a camera and a few rolls of film, cobble together a handful of chemicals, and head out for a few hours of experimentation.

 

The next day, having dismissed the murky prints from his first darkroom session, he'll pronounce the format unnecessarily compromised compared to the digital results he usually gets. He's happy to have gotten the opportunity to "test drive" that old film format, but is really rather relieved to have seen that it can't produce the results his digital efforts can.

 

With all due respect, that's pretty much what you've done, Peter.

 

Film and digital both have their strengths and weaknesses - but neither is "learnable", in any kind of meaningful way, without a significant amount of time and effort.

 

They're both good.

[gutguido]

Thank you to all for a wonderful discussion.

 

I've always wanted to perform the following experiment but do not have the equipment (nor the skill) to do it properly:

 

I really want to know how closely one can imitate a film M with the digital M. It would be very interesting if could shoot the same scene with both cameras using the same lens, and then proceed to develop / post-process the respective images with a view of getting the tonal range, contrast, grain, sharpness etc. as close to each other as one can.

 

Perhaps the results could be posted without mentioning which one is which, and then we users here can have some fun identifying film vs. digital, state our reasons as to why we think so, and then be proven right (or wrong).

 

If the steps in film development / digital post-processing are well documented, it would also be informative for noobs like me to understand what processing techniques lead to what image effect.

 

Just a thought ...

[Agent M10]

Below are two of the zoo photographs, one taken with the M8 and 35 cron and the other taken with the M7, 50 lux, and Kodachrome. The two shots were taken from the same spot at about the same time (give or take 10 seconds). No PP was done to the M8 photograph. It was downloaded into Lightroom. The Kodachrome was scanned straight without any PP.

 

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!

 

[jpattison]

50mm FOV on top, must be the M7, 35, M8 below.

 

You need to PP scanned images as well as DNGs!

These are now both digital images.

Cheers,

John