M8 street photography at ISO-2500 with the M8

[dpattinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

for contrast, this is a 2500iso shot with no silver efex, just conversion in PS. In my experience, I get nasty clumpy 'grain' if I underexpose at 2500 and try to bump the exposure in post. Unless the OP image is a crop, I think the grain is mostly post-proc and not intrinsic to 2500iso on the M8.

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!

[Guest malland]

Thanks for all the comments. First, please keep in mind that this post is about an experiment and is not a recommendation to use ISO 2500 on the M8 in broad daylight, and that I could have used ISO 1250 or 640 for these shots and still been able to use the small aperture that I wanted for deep depth of field.

 

In terms of the results, to me, they look more like film at ISO 400 than film at ISO 3200, although there are some obvious issues about using ISO 2500 on the M8.

 

Steve, presumaby your Tri-X picture of the CRS was shot at ISO 400, but this "smooth" look is not what I'm after, as I am seeking a somewhat harsher and less "exquisite" look. Here is an Tri-X picture taken at ISO 200:

 

 

 

Leica M6 | Tri-X at ISO 200 | DR Summicron | Bangkok

 

 

 

 

But here is a picture using a fast film at ISO 3200: scanned on an Imacon, this negative was so riddled with rather large white and gray "speckles" in the dark areas that it took over half an hour to spot and was a lot more difficult to work with than an M8 shot at ISO 2500 in dark light.

 

 

Leica M6 | Delta 3200 @ ISO 1600 | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | Bangkok

 

 

 

In comparison, the following ISO 2500 M8 picture was very easy to process:

 

Leica M8.2 | ISO 2500 | Zeiss 18mm Distagon | Potomac, MD

 

 

 

My general conclusion is that I would rather use the M8 at ISO 2500 than any fast film that I've used (Delta 3200, Neopan 1600 or Tri-X) pushed to the equivalent ISO 3200 speed.

 

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Noir©: Book Project - a set on Flickr

[Guest malland]

Could you clarify a bit?

 

Did you use one of the preset "films" in Silver Efex, or did you dial up settings of your own?

 

My "trouble" with Silver Efex is deciding on a film preset...I'm constantly flipping back and forth between them.

Generally, I tend to use one of the film presets: for these pictures I used Tri-X and Plus X, but keep in mind that these film names are really only labels for different tonalities and looks rather than an attempt to emulate a particular film, which in any case would look different depending on the developer and developing method used.

 

To me the "flipping back and forth" between various film presets is part of the process, like making test strips and test prints in the dark room: the various film presets have different tonalities and tonal relationships because they are based on different colour sensitivities and also different grain looks. It is useful to try them to see what is suitable for what you want for a particular picture. I also use the Control Points for extensive burning and dodging, as I would in the darkroom.

 

Sometimes, I start with the Underexposed EV-1 preset and apply control points to dodge (lighten) parts of the photo and then apply one of the film presets.

 

For the four ISO 2500 pictures that are the subject of this post I also experiemnted with using the noise of the ISO 2500 image without a film preset, by using the Neutral setting and applying a tone curve, but that "grain" was not as good as that of the Tri-X and Plus-X presets that I ended up using.

 

Finally, I should also mention that I often increase the Structure slider quite a bit from the setting of any of the film presets because I tend to like somewhat more contrast in the mid-tones and more texture than provided by the film presets, but that's just a personal preference for a less "exquisite" and somewhat harsher look that many people will not want.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Wiang Pa Pao - a set on Flickr

[stunsworth]

Steve, presumaby your Tri-X picture of the CRS was shot at ISO 400, but this "smooth" look is not what I'm after, as I am seeking a somewhat harsher and less "exquisite" look.

 

Yes, it was shot at 400, I was just responding to the idea that the M8 at 2500 looks like Tri-X. You may like how the M8 looks at this speed, I don't I'm afraid - probably for the same reasons you do <grin>.

[Guest malland]

Steve, there are, of course, a lot of different Tri-X looks, depending on the developer and method of devellopment: my Tri-X at ISO 200 above looks rougher and different th yours at ISO 400.

 

—Mitch/Paris

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72654

[Guest wls.shanghai]

...very strange & funny for me

 

the image #1 looks nothing like any TriX I've ever shot!!!

 

the image = overprocessing - no shadow & texture - tonal graduations etc...

 

wls

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mitch from what I see here the problems/effects are as much to do with your lens selections as anything else. Your 50Summilux doesnt handle underexposure well (tell me any that do) and you are mixing it with with the lenses trademark lost highlights. Buckleys of saving that image in post.

 

Im happy to see the first image in Paris, I keep hearing how good teh 28Summicron is but again all I ever seen is how much trouble people get themselves in with it. Again I think you are going to have to get it very right out of camera and I dont think it will leave you much room to push around in post. See Imants comments.

 

Anyway, interesting stuff.

 

Rgds.

[Guest stnami]

Putting what Rob is saying another way Mitch M8 files at high iso need just a tweak as do all high iso files from other digital cameras. A classic s curve with the Curves tool in photoshop or whatever to increase contrast is usually enough,,,,,,,, dodge and burn a bit if needed, a bit not a lot!

[wattsy]

My general conclusion is that I would rather use the M8 at ISO 2500 than any fast film that I've used (Delta 3200, Neopan 1600 or Tri-X) pushed to the equivalent ISO 3200 speed.

 

You say that but the coat hangers shot (film) looks an awful lot more interesting to me than the shot of the motorbike (M8) and I think it is so for reasons that are not just to do with the subject matter. I think you should consider using your M6 more often.

[wattsy]

Here is the result - kind of a tribute to my younger days and more innocent times.

 

I'm obviously missing something Alan but WTF is all the rainbow stuff going on in the background all about?

[Mauribix]

Maybe I'm starting to be bored by this kind of thread, but my curiosity still pushes me to read and then post; anyway the kind of grain generated by the M8 @ 2500iso may simply be good or not for someone depending most on the personal taste IMHO.

Mitch, try to shoot at 2500iso with colours, I simply don't know how you could be that happy then without PP a lot... obviously that's probably me, but I can't second what you're sayin', even with a proper exposure.

I'd try anyway to post these pictures in the Photo section, there are few technical discussion concerning the M8 here IMHO.

[AlanG]

I'm obviously missing something Alan but WTF is all the rainbow stuff going on in the background all about?

 

That's the counterbalance. White, black, and grey backgrounds didn't cut it for me. I posted that picture here specifically as a visual challenge to the "HCB way" mindset. (Considering it originated from that mindset.) It is "safe" and easy to put up a nice typical b/w street shot and know that a lot of people will think that it is a decent shot.

 

I'm trying many different approaches to my work. Some folks will like some things, some others, some none. I took my work to a gallery last week and they liked that image a lot. I have another piece that one friend loves and another friend hates - they both expressed their opinions to me very strongly.

 

For me, it's about embarking on a creative journey and see where it takes me. I'm not saying I've arrived anywhere yet. It is a challenging process of learning and discovery. I just can't see the point to restrict myself to any traditional narrow aspects of photography. After all, it is pretty easy to just go out and shoot regular pictures, isn't it? And "street" photography has been covered pretty well by countless others. So while that's fun to do, I don't see where I could make any kind of statement with it.

 

I used to experiment a lot more when I was in college. Then I did a mostly straight commercial work that is very repetitious. Now I want to experiment again and look at a variety of visual possibilities. If I targeted my personal work to what I think would appeal to a lot of people, I'd be back to doing commercial work, wouldn't I? I simply try to liberate my mind and see where it takes me.

 

Sometimes I'm happy with the end result and sometimes I'm not. I'm working to develop the confidence to trust my own judgment. Photography is just as much an inward exploration as it is an outer one.

[Guest malland]

...In daylight, with lots of blue photons around, digital, and daylight color film for that matter, will do better at a given ISO than under dim household tungsten light, which is far yellower than even "3200K" tungsten photofloods, and turns 1/3 of any picture (the blue channel or the blue film layer) into roadkill.

Good point.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Wiang Pa Pao - a set on Flickr

[Guest malland]

Mitch from what I see here the problems/effects are as much to do with your lens selections as anything else. Your 50Summilux doesnt handle underexposure well (tell me any that do) and you are mixing it with with the lenses trademark lost highlights. Buckleys of saving that image in post.

 

Im happy to see the first image in Paris, I keep hearing how good teh 28Summicron is but again all I ever seen is how much trouble people get themselves in with it. Again I think you are going to have to get it very right out of camera and I dont think it will leave you much room to push around in post. See Imants comments.

 

Anyway, interesting stuff.

 

Rgds.

Rob, I didn't shoot any Summilux-50 pictures in this series and, indeed, my Summilux-50 pre-ASPH is in Bangkok; so I'm puzzled by what you write. Similarly, I think what you're saying about the Summicron-28 reflects the nature of the ISO 2500 files from the M8, as Imants states, rather than any property of the lens itself.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Wiang Pa Pao - a set on Flickr

[andybarton]

Is there a Summilux 28 too, now? Interesting. I'm surprised that we haven't heard more of it.

 

I have to say that digital noise doesn't look anything like film grain to my eye. It looks like digital noise. The digital noise texture on the darker skinned woman's face in the first shot in this thread is horrible, IMHO, and looks nothing like film grain.

 

Why do you want to emulate film grain? This is what I just don't understand at all. When I had my DMR, I didn't go round trying to make the images look like something they weren't. They were crisp, and clean and noise free (at the ISOs I used to shoot at). I didn't try to make them look like film images (unless I was bored and playing around with them).

[rob_x2004]

Sorry Mitch I confused this description of yours "Leica M6 | Delta 3200 @ ISO 1600 | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | Bangkok" with a Summilux. My comment was that you were trying to get something from a predominantly underexposed negative, and that the summiluxs arent generally happy campers with this. Ive seen similar with digital (M8) efforts.

My comment on the 28 based on what I have seen around the traps, is that like the summiluxs I dont htink you have much room to push files round in post processing. I dont have a 28 lens. Im interested, so I tend to have a look about and see what gets done with it.

[wstotler]

In my experience, the M8 at 2500 looks more like T-max 3200 pushed to 6400.

 

Agreed. I've had a devil of a time with my M8 and 2500--even with dead-on exposure. (Hand metered.) So noisy it nukes all depth. I've been continually surprised at how OK many of the shots I've seen here have been. We'll see how it fares when it's back from NJ with a new sensor. . . . Maybe (hopefully) it was that.

[robertwright]

Agreed. I've had a devil of a time with my M8 and 2500--even with dead-on exposure. (Hand metered.) So noisy it nukes all depth. I've been continually surprised at how OK many of the shots I've seen here have been. We'll see how it fares when it's back from NJ with a new sensor. . . . Maybe (hopefully) it was that.

 

fwiw, the new sensor in my upgraded M8 (replaced due to deadpixel/blue line according to the paperwork) does 2500 better than the old, which would band like crazy.

 

whatever anyone says, not all these sensors behave the same way. or they can be adjusted differently. the old one also had a highlight blooming issue that is not present (or fixed) in the current one I have. don't know what to attribute that to.

 

dfine does a great job, better than c1 on the M8 at high ISO. I wish they bundled it with silverefx pro.

[caparobertsan]

Great! effort! But Little too noisy to me..... I wonder If run the noise removal software then convert it to B&W.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest malland]

...I have to say that digital noise doesn't look anything like film grain to my eye. It looks like digital noise. The digital noise texture on the darker skinned woman's face in the first shot in this thread is horrible, IMHO, and looks nothing like film grain.

 

Why do you want to emulate film grain? This is what I just don't understand at all. When I had my DMR, I didn't go round trying to make the images look like something they weren't. They were crisp, and clean and noise free (at the ISOs I used to shoot at). I didn't try to make them look like film images (unless I was bored and playing around with them).

Firstly, I'm not trying to emulate film grain as such: I'm going for a look that I like. I've just looked at your pictures, which are good, but that is not the aesthetic that I'm after for the work I'm doing now — and that is also why I don't want the "clean" DMR look that you refer to.

 

Indeed, I don't like "designing" and adding grain to digital pictures because I don't want to try to become an "expert" on film grain simulation — there's already enough to do with digital processing in controlling gradation and dodging and burning. Before I started using Silver Efex I didn't add grain but, with my Ricoh GRD2 files, shot at ISO 400 and then used the contrast that I wanted, which also created a "grain look" that I liked. On the other hand, when I started using Silver Efex I found that some of the "film presets" had a grain that I iked, without my having to try to simulate or add anything. On the first picture, by the way, the beautiful woman in it did not have a good complexion, which was not the case with the woman in the second picture, which is not an issue of noise or grain.

 

While I agree with what Imants says about the fragility of some ISO 2500 files, or some areas of such files, it seems to me that these sort of threads always bring out a lot of digital vs analog responses, which reminds me of the days when printing B&W digitally was virtually impossible without having a colour cast: people were so conditioned to looking for and seeing colur casts in B&W digital prints that when I started using the Cone Piezography system (black and gray inks only) and then started printing with ImagePrint (which had no colour cast) people were still "seeing" colour casts in the prints. Similarly, now that Silver Efex and other software produce very film-like grain some peple still see only digital noise. There's also the fact that, with digital, people pixel-peep so much that they tend to forget what grainy film looked like on a print, and are obsessed with seeing 100% views, which in any case don't represent well how a file prints and what a final print looks like.

 

Now, some people have asked why I don't just continue to do street photography with the Ricoh GRD2 and forget about the M8 for this purpose, which is a fair question. The GRD transformed my photography in that it helped to "loosen up" and make more fluid the photography I had been doing with the M6: this came mainly from the huge depth of field and from framing with the LCD display rather than with a viewfinder because I used the LCD only to establish roughly the edges of the frame but looked directly at the subject when pressing the shutter — this also made me less "invasive" or less "visible" to the subjects. But I've been wanting to try the M8 for this type of street photography because I'm looking for more robust files that I can push around more in post-processing than small-sensor files in order to go for a substantially higher contrast look that I have not been able to do with the GRD2.

 

Shooting the M8 at ISO 2500 was the first step of this experiement; and shooting at ISO 1250, which I did yesterday, was the second; and the third will be to shoot with Auto-ISO with a minumum ahutter speed of 1/125, which is the fastest minumum speed that you can use for Auto-ISO on the M8.

 

Finally, below are two links to photographers whose work I like, both of whom shoot mainly film with the Ricoh GR1, whose work I think is relevant to what I've written here. (The second link is for a flickr slide show of the photographer's 2008 journal):

 

www.yamasakiko-ji.com

 

 

—Mitch/Paris

Flickr: Mitch Alland's Photostream