Scanned bw negs vs digitally generated (M8)

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A well-split hair, Imants....

[Guest stnami]

A well-split hair

Not really as it is has been a contentious point in the art world since the advent of photography, mind you printmakers are seen as lesser mortals than painters:rolleyes: Edited March 30, 2009 by stnami

[Advertisement]

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

[tgray]

I never bought the whole thing of if you scan your film, you might as well be shooting digital. Scanned negs and digital cameras. While they can look similar with enough post processing on the digital, they usually look different. A Nikon scanner gives you pretty high resolution files, and if you keep your processing clean, spotting can be kept at a minimum. Even if you never wet print, you can always send off a get negative to a good printer for some professional prints.

 

While its fine if people want to shoot digital, shooting film with a scanning workflow or not does have its reasons to do so. Especially when talking about the M8.

[imported_reinierv]

moving to digital saved me a lot of time and/or money. I used to have my film scanned in a lab, costing 15euro per film or did it myself costing upto an hour just to tweak the scanner for an optimal scan of a film and repair dust etc

 

Now I shoot digital I have more options to just try. When I'm out for a few hours I come home with 2-300 shots, it gives me the possibility to try to see how things work out and drop the images without a thought when they do not catch as expected. Certainly with my streetshots about 90% fails due to bad angle or bad exposure or not catchy enough. That would be say 8 films costing about 25euro each (all-in, film, develop, scan) totals 200euro. My lab is unhappy that I went almost fully digital I had an average spend of about 100euro a week...

 

The only reason I can come up with to shoot film is the extended dynamic range compared to digital.

The only film I use every now and then is MF and LF in my Yashica Mat and pinhole, which I have just for fun. And I do admit on a holliday a few weeks ago I shot a few 35mm 400NC roles in an old (but as new looking) FT-2 that used to be my fathers, just for nostalgic reasons.

 

If you like BW look of pictures just use nik silver plug-in for photoshop

Edited March 30, 2009 by imported_reinierv

[Shootist]

While its fine if people want to shoot digital, shooting film with a scanning workflow or not does have its reasons to do so. Especially when talking about the M8.

 

Sorry but I don't understand you last sentence.

Why does shooting film have it's reasons IF you have a M8 or especially if you have a M8???

 

Maybe it's my scanner or my M film cameras but I get better results with the M8.

Yeah I like shooting the old M's and I like the processing part but after those negatives are scanned and I look at them compared to a similar image shot with the M8 I always go for the M8 image.

Now IF I was shooting MF or LF it might be different but not in 35mm, for ME.

[tgray]

Sorry but I don't understand you last sentence.

Why does shooting film have it's reasons IF you have a M8 or especially if you have a M8???

 

Maybe it's my scanner or my M film cameras but I get better results with the M8.

Yeah I like shooting the old M's and I like the processing part but after those negatives are scanned and I look at them compared to a similar image shot with the M8 I always go for the M8 image.

Now IF I was shooting MF or LF it might be different but not in 35mm, for ME.

 

Well if the M8 didn't have the UV/IR filter issue, which can be a pain, and was full frame, then I wouldn't have made that comment. But if you want for example to use your 12mm on an RF, and actually have a 12mm, film is the only game in town right now. When there is a full frame digital M, or a wide angles made specifically for the crop, then the playing field will be more even. Look at the DSLR market - once Canon and Nikon had full frame, it became really hard to deny digital in terms of a drop in replacement. Until that time, there were still compromises you had to accept.

 

But the fact that the M8 has a crop factor DOES affect lens choice, and the IR issue does make using certain lenses more of a pain in the butt. I can slap my CV 15 on my M6 and not worry at all about whether or not I have color or B&W in there, and not have to deal with custom made hoods that still sometimes vignette just so I don't have to deal with cyan corners, etc.

 

I do agree M8 images are sharper and probably blow up better in terms of grain. Though personally, I've seen very few B&W images from the M8 or other digital cameras that I prefer to film. But then again, I'm not one who usually goes for the Tech Pan/MF grainless look. If that is the style of B&W that you go for, then I do think the M8 is probably better suited for you than a film M. Certainly high quality color is more straightforward on the M8.

Edited March 30, 2009 by tgray

[Laowai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Until last Saturday, the day when I picked up my new M8 , I used Velvia and Portra VC with my Bessa and scanned everything with Nikon Coolscan V.

 

Guess I will continue shooting Velvia with the Bessa and all the rest with the M8, unless someone tells me how to get the Velvia colours with the M8.

 

Wow, my first post here...

 

Cheers, Jens

[Barron]

Guess I will continue shooting Velvia with the Bessa and all the rest with the M8, unless someone tells me how to get the Velvia colours with the M8.

 

Nik Software's Color Efex Pro 3.0 has settings for Velvia and Portra VC: Nik Software Inc.

So does DxO FilmPack: DxO Labs - Home

 

-Barron

[jaapv]

The same with Alien Skin - there is a Velvia setting. Quite convincing too i might add.

[positivibes]

I feel quite strongly about this. There are, imo, two distinct processes. There is the chemical process, which has its own unique artistic value. that means film, wet darkroom, print, or film and projected slide. Nothing can copy the effect of that. And then there is the digital process, sensor, digital darkroom, print. Again, an unique process that renders prints that are unique.There have been fights all over the internet about which process is " superior" Neither, imo. Digital may give cleaner prints, with more resolution, but film renders differently and equally pleasing.

And then there is the hybrid process. Film, scan, and treat like digital file. I do not care very much for that, as it introduces the disadvantages of film into the disadvantages of digital capture. It is convenient, yes, as it cuts out the chemical darkroom and it enables film images to be shown on the Internet, and as such it has its place. But I do not see it as a viable artistic medium. So imo you have two choices: either go chemical all the way and produce great fine-art prints or go digital all the way and make great digital prints.

 

that's a very interesting point of view! but mine is just the other way around. at the point where i capture the picture, i love to work with film. it let's me focuse on the picture without any disturbing looks on displays, settings etc. and i dont have to carry around cables, cards, batteries, laptops. just a couple of film rolls. just great!

then when i get home, i scann my films and get all the advantages of the digital process. during that process i really get to know the pictures. i select them on the lightbox, then i look at them on the scansoftware and when i do some basic adjustments in photoshop. after that i print them out and hang 'em on the wall for a while.

 

but don't get me wrong. this is what i do when i go travelling or for a walk in the city. for payed work such as ad-campagne or portraits i choose digital and my M8. thanks to leica i can do both kind of work without switching the camera system.

[ndjambrose]

If you are "keeping" the M7 in the hope of getting better DIGITAL results in B&W I say forget about it. If what you want is a digital B&W file use the M8.

 

There's obviously no right answer here. It's down to individual tastes and perception and there's no such thing as 'better' - only what one person prefers.

 

I've tried both types of hybrid - silver prints from the M8 using a lightjet, and digital prints from film scanned on a 9000ED, and conversion of digital files using Nik, Alien Skin, Aperture and Lightroom.

 

After a lot of experimentation, I've found that the results that have most consistently pleased me have been from b+w film. I find the tonality, texture and lustre of print from a good scan preferable to anything I can produce from the M8, even when printed on the same paper.

[Jeff S]

There's obviously no right answer here. It's down to individual tastes and perception and there's no such thing as 'better' - only what one person prefers.

 

I've tried both types of hybrid - silver prints from the M8 using a lightjet, and digital prints from film scanned on a 9000ED, and conversion of digital files using Nik, Alien Skin, Aperture and Lightroom.

 

After a lot of experimentation, I've found that the results that have most consistently pleased me have been from b+w film. I find the tonality, texture and lustre of print from a good scan preferable to anything I can produce from the M8, even when printed on the same paper.

 

Thanks, Neil. You do some fine work based on my quick review of your site links. Most of that comes from a good eye...plus a lot of other skills...but now I'm intrigued about some of the key equipment/process techniques you employ to get the results you like, especially regarding your street photography, which is my favorite genre.

 

I'd really appreciate it if you could go into a bit more detail on the tech side, particularly for your bw street photography....camera/favorite lenses, scanner (still the 9000 ED?), software aids, papers, or other key factors. I recognize that results depend on the photographer more than the equipment, and tastes regarding print esthetics vary, but this would give me some good insight into your work...which I like.

Thanks,

Jeff

[adan]

.... i love to work with film. it let's me focuse on the picture without any disturbing looks on displays, settings etc. and i dont have to carry around cables, cards, batteries, laptops. just a couple of film rolls. just great!

 

I don't understand this? When I go out with my M8, there are no cables or laptops. If I am shooting the equivalent of a couple of rolls of film, there are no batteries or cards except what is already in the camera.

 

Nothing but the M8 and a Summicron or two - switching to digital M photography, my camera bag got 50% SMALLER.

 

If I carry spare cards and a battery, they still take up less space than "a couple of rolls of film" - and allow me to shoot the equivalent of a dozen rolls. 5 gigabytes = 475 dng shots = 13 36-exp film rolls.

 

Unless I choose to chimp (almost never), there are no displays involved. If I choose to shoot in AE mode, there are LESS settings involved, and if I shoot manual, there are no more than with a film M - aperture, shutter speed, focus.

 

But that's a little off the original topic:

 

"....is there any significant improvement/difference in the final print (assuming 8x10 or 11x14 equivalent) if the film is scanned and printed digitally vs a print that comes from an M8 file?"

 

Yes, there is a difference - I will put my M8 prints of any size up against anyone's 35mm, scanned-film prints at equivalent ISOs***. I will now put them up against MOST silver-darkroom prints from 35mm film ---- although that only became true for B&W with the recent introduction of baryta papers and OEM-3-gray inks.

 

I'm with Sean Reid et al on this - why shoot digital photographs of your film when you can shoot digital photographs of your subject?

_______________________

 

*** one caveat - at high ISOs, digital is most grainy (noisy) in the shadows, while silver B&W film and slides are most grainy in the highlights (or at least equally grainy across all the tones). I'm used to how film grain looks, so I find it more comfortable to look at than digital grain. But mostly I just shoot low ISOs and light the subject (whether M8 today or film yesterday). During the 10 years or so I used the hybrid workflow, the only films I could stand to scan were Velvia and Ilford Pan F, both ISO 50.

Edited March 31, 2009 by adan

[Jeff S]

I just want to thank everyone for responding here. I'm new to the forum and appreciate the collective wisdom, and diversity of opinion, of the group. This diversity hasn't made my decision any easier, but it's good to know that each person has his/her own method that works, or doesn't work, for them.

 

I guess the message is to just try some things...much as the rest of you already have...and as I did when film was new to me...and go with what satisfies.

 

Jeff

[andybarton]

I'm with Sean Reid et al on this - why shoot digital photographs of your film when you can shoot digital photographs of your subject?

 

Why not just accept that people can shoot what they want? If it pleases them, why propose that they change?

 

I too like the look of scanned film over digital images. So what?

[Printmaker]

I feel quite strongly about this. There are, imo, two distinct processes. There is the chemical process, which has its own unique artistic value. that means film, wet darkroom, print, or film and projected slide. Nothing can copy the effect of that. And then there is the digital process, sensor, digital darkroom, print. Again, an unique process that renders prints that are unique.There have been fights all over the internet about which process is " superior" Neither, imo. Digital may give cleaner prints, with more resolution, but film renders differently and equally pleasing.

And then there is the hybrid process. Film, scan, and treat like digital file. I do not care very much for that, as it introduces the disadvantages of film into the disadvantages of digital capture. It is convenient, yes, as it cuts out the chemical darkroom and it enables film images to be shown on the Internet, and as such it has its place. But I do not see it as a viable artistic medium. So imo you have two choices: either go chemical all the way and produce great fine-art prints or go digital all the way and make great digital prints.

 

I agree 100%.

 

I've never been all that happy with scanned negs. The look is neither fish nor foul. Give me darkroom prints or digital prints from digital captures. Both look good in their own ways.

 

Tom

[ChrisC]

....... why shoot digital photographs of your film when you can shoot digital photographs of your subject?.....

 

For the extensive image mastering palette that Photoshop, and other post-production softwares give.

 

And because the darkroom enlarging process is a poor way to extract the detail a negative can store.

 

By the way; I hate scanning nearly as much as I hate the darkroom environment.

 

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

[ndjambrose]

...

 

I'd really appreciate it if you could go into a bit more detail on the tech side, particularly for your bw street photography....camera/favorite lenses, scanner (still the 9000 ED?), software aids, papers, or other key factors. I recognize that results depend on the photographer more than the equipment, and tastes regarding print esthetics vary, but this would give me some good insight into your work...which I like...

 

Hi Jeff - more than happy to give you all the details. But it might be better suited to an off-line conversation. If you send me an email I'll reply with whatever you want to know.

[Jeff S]

Hi Jeff - more than happy to give you all the details. But it might be better suited to an off-line conversation. If you send me an email I'll reply with whatever you want to know.

 

Thanks so much, Neil. I sent you an email at your uk site contact address. I really appreciate it!

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ssimoncini]

hi. I have an m4 and the m8. I print on my epson 4000 and i recently acquired an imacon 848 for scanning. in my experience you can print up to 240dpi with no noticeable differences in image quality even when you look at the print from a very short distance, that is more or less a 13" print. Scanning a 35mm with a very good scanner you can get a 500mb 16bit file (11400x7600 pixels at 8000 dpi scan) which you can obviously print up to a much larger size(37"x25" at 300dpi or 47x31 at 240 dpi). depending on your needs in terms of print size.. you may want to keep one of your m7s.. regards.

 

just as a note: while drum scanners are far better than any ccd scanner, i chose imacon because it's much more user-friendly and still very good in terms of scan quality.

 

I should stop reading so many posts...gives me more questions:)

 

My thought has been to sell my 2 M7s and move to an M8.2. And, since I already sold all of my darkroom equipment, to just go fully digital. However, on another recent thread, some suggested this would be unwise...that I'd regret the sale and that I should at least keep a foot in the film world.

 

Ok, so here's my question. For those who shoot bw in both film M's and digital M's, is there any significant improvement/difference in the final print (assuming 8x10 or 11x14 equivalent) if the film is scanned and printed digitally vs a print that comes from an M8 file? Or, are folks who retain their film cameras so inclined because they ultimately print on traditional silver papers? (Or, maybe just because they like the feel of their old Ms?)

 

If the former is the case, I might be inclined to keep shooting film along with digital. If the latter, I might not go there since I'd have to trust a lab to generate my prints (no room for another darkroom). I wouldn't mind scanning my own negs, but trusting a lab for interpreting prints seems problematic.

 

Jeff