Puts on M8 vs film

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And for these enlargements they never would use 35x24mm format. Thats the range for 6x6

Or 6x9, or more. 135 film has never been made for big enlargements. So how could a cropped 10MP camera do much better? Those who compare the M8 to MF will compare the M9 to a Linhof i guess.

[georg]

As always, Mr. Puts made some strange decisions (chemical b&w-print scanned with a consumer flatbed vs. M8?) but well-processed film is much better from a technical point of view than the digital-world wants to admit.

A well-processed/scanned (oversampled high resolution, filtered and sharpened) 100ASA-Velvia/Ektar contains definitely more information than the M8.

B/W-film is in another league, much sharper and less grainy than even the best color-film.

 

But the M8 is a convenient way to high-quality-images, that's why I use both: MP and M8, no reason to believe the hype.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jamie Roberts]

I think my tongue-in-cheek tone should have been evident to all.

 

{snipped}

 

I deal with digital MF images every day in my work. The M8 output is extremely good but I personally do not accept that it matches what is possible with MF backs. Evidently your experience is different.

 

Unfortunately I don't use film at the moment. As I've said elsewhere, I sold my film Ms because they were sitting unused in a drawer. I seriously regret this now, but I'm not really sure when I'll be getting back to it - film is a luxury item, to be honest.

 

Hey Mani--fair enough on the tone I guess, but it wasn't at all evident to me that you were speaking tongue-in-cheek, and I'm a pretty careful reader.

 

Speaking of which, I never ever said the M8 (or the DMR) or anything with a small sensor would match a medium format digital back! Neither did David A... he was speaking of printing large from film sources, not digital.

 

Having said that, for a long time the DMR and M8 were the only high-bit depth small sensor cameras. So in that sense (colour and DR) they had more in common with MF backs than with many of the Canon or Nikon offerings. Of course, now the recent Canon and Nikons are 14bit capable, so that's one more change over time.

 

And yeah, it is too bad you don't have your film Ms anymore--they're still great to use. But honestly, they don't see as much action as the M8 these days.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[BerndReini]

I also shoot both film and digital. During the day, I mostly use the new Ektar color negative. While it is very inconvenient dealing with film, the detail out of this negative is phenomenal. The biggest difference however is in latitude. The M8, despite being among the top end of digital cameras as far as dynamic range is concerned, cannot get close to achieving the same latitude as color negative film. And yes, I do shoot raw, and pull the most out of my files.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} The M8, despite being among the top end of digital cameras as far as dynamic range is concerned, cannot get close to achieving the same latitude as color negative film. And yes, I do shoot raw, and pull the most out of my files.

 

We definitely agree to disagree on that, though it does depend on the film and exposure. BW film?--yes I would agree, but colour not so much. The M8, however, isn't as good as the DMR (or any modern MF back) in this regard--it's showing its age (of course except at higher ISOs on older MF backs, where DR tanks quickly).

Edited July 24, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[plasticman]

We definitely agree to disagree on that, though it does depend on the film and exposure. BW film?--yes I would agree, but colour not so much. The M8, however, isn't as good as the DMR (or any modern MF back) in this regard--it's showing its age (of course except at higher ISOs on older MF backs, where DR tanks quickly).

 

To take an earlier post first - tongue-in-cheek? - well maybe I wasn't entirely light-hearted. But to see the output of an M7 characterized as no better than a cell phone actually made my blood boil. I don't regret calling total BS on that.

 

Long time since I've seen MF film, so I can't say with total confidence, but as I have my own 35mm scans to compare, I doubt that the M8 betters medium format anything - just my opinion.

 

The M8 has pretty amazing dynamic range for a digital camera - but the way it handles highlights cannot touch film, even if the exposure is spot on (and mine sometimes is, believe it or not).

[mat_mcdermott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To take an earlier post first - tongue-in-cheek? - well maybe I wasn't entirely light-hearted. But to see the output of an M7 characterized as no better than a cell phone actually made my blood boil. I don't regret calling total BS on that. ...

 

I didn't read any tongue in cheek into it either.

 

FWIW I think my M8 files beat scanned film, but was more than happy with scanned files (either desktop or drum) from film and my M6. I made the switch because I just got tired of swimming upstream against the digital tide.

 

Yes, the M7=cell phone comment was overstatement, but at the same time I can remember seeing scans from minilabs that were worse than the first one I ever did operating my own scanner over a decade ago.

[plasticman]

I didn't read any tongue in cheek into it either.

 

Well I apologize for getting you guys all upset for suggesting that Lars was smoking crack when he said that an M7 is no better than a cellphone. I've seen him a few times at Lpfoto auctions, though we've never spoken (I recognized him from seeing him take a shot which he later posted on this forum), and I can definitely say that he seems to be a perfect gentleman, and has in no way ever been near crack.

[el.nino]

how large you can go with 35mm-film: http://www.ryanmcginley.com/admin/summer/TEAM_SUMMER_GOES_INSTALLATION_6.jpg

he uses a leica r8 by the way...

[georg]

Higher DR with color negative film is a well known fact, especially in cinematography. Of course negative film has to be exposed for the shadows, but the highlight handling is unreached with any digital solution.

 

I wonder if there will be more advanced filtering solution for photographers in the future:

http://www.arri.de/fileadmin/media/arri.com/digital-intermediate-systems/arri-relativity/showreels/mov/Face_-_Split_Screen_Version__8232_.mov

[markowich]

jamie,

both you and i know that m8 files (and any other 10mpx file) cannot hold up to 39 or 50mpx files in 30x40 prints, except for very low information content images. the comparism is utter nonsense, at least for most subjects i can think of, except maybe abstracts.

peter

 

Mani--since you're always asking this of others--maybe you could tone down the rhetoric a little eh?

 

You're not the only one who still shoots and uses film alongside an M8. And maybe--just maybe--you should process the M8 files a little more before you decide on the overall quality of the file It generally takes me a year of intense processing and shooting to get the best out of a digital camera, but maybe I'm just slow.

 

But there are / were professional master printers here who have expressed genuine amazement at how well the m8 files hold up under enlargement.

 

It was David Adamson who compared the M8 files *in 30 by 40 inch prints* to medium format film and I assure you he isn't smoking crack, and likely knows more about exhibition printing than most of the forum members put together.

 

Adamson Editions Atelier - Adamson Gallery

 

For my own part, while I still use an M3 and M6 professionally (and yes--with drum scans on occasion!), the M8 has been able to exceed my expectations with proper processing.

 

To my eyes the final results are more different than better or worse, but the M8 certainly holds its own in large prints and has characteristics, properly processed, I find hard to match with 35mm film.

[SJP]

jamie,

both you and i know that m8 files (and any other 10mpx file) cannot hold up to 39 or 50mpx files in 30x40 prints, except for very low information content images. the comparism is utter nonsense, at least for most subjects i can think of, except maybe abstracts.

peter

How about reading before you post? See post #23 by Jamie.

Executive summary of that is MF digital > M8 > MF film.

 

Whether this is true or not is not any major concern to me but it would be useful to stick to the argument.

 

As far as I know the statement was that M8 files might be comparable to MF film your reaction does not make sense in that context.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

As far as I know the statement was that M8 files might be comparable to MF film your reaction does not make sense in that context.

 

Thanks Stephen--and FWIW it wasn't even my comment but David Adamson's!

[StS]

(...)

So for common people, that is what a M7 is today: A bigger and heavier cell phone with interchangeable lenses (and no ring signals ...) The M8 on the other hand produces better results than any 35mm film camera did, and most MF cameras too

(...)

That already is a reason to like the M7

 

Seriously, the image quality of the M8 is beyond what I need. The image quality of the M6 loaded with a decent film is is beyond what I need as well. I use both, depending on what I think works best. Frankly, the M8 takes 90% of my images...

 

Please excuse snipping your text and bold emphasizing

 

Stefan

[lct]

....Executive summary of that is... M8 > MF film....

Are you serious?

[scaryink]

I have been off on vacation for about a week shooting both the M7 and M8. These are two different paintbrushes that I choose based on what I want as the end product.

 

The best part of the M series is the seamless transition between using film and digital. One may shoot in the exact same fashion. Except of course for dynamc range which is greater on negative film. OTH digital is great for mixing asa's. I rarely chimp so the screen is off except for menu adjustments. With the screen off, the batteries last a decent enough time.

 

Lets face it, the M cameras are the best travel kits around (except for high speed shooting or safari work where a 400 is a must). Nobody pays you any attention and the kit really is pretty light. It is the minimalist form of shooting in film and digital.

[Gentleman Villain]

Film is difficult to master. A thorough understanding of the Zone system is often necessary for having complete control over B&W films...and working with transparency film really requires some form of consistent home processing system (like a jobo or photo therm) to obtain consistent color and reliable processing times. Once a photographer has a thorough understanding of his film-stock and processing workflow....Then he can achieve amazing print quality and enlargements with small format as long as he gets accurate exposures and sharpness during the capture process.

 

For me, it always used to take awhile to get to know certain film stocks before I was able to pull out great prints....And some films just never seemed to work well with my personal style of shooting and workflow. For example, I always had excellent luck with Kodak Tmax 100 and tech pan films, but not as much luck with Ilford. I love ilford prints from other people but could never vibe with it myself...That's just me and it took awhile to discover this.....Once I was able to commit to a handful of film stocks and know them well then my prints got much better. I've been shooting digital for 10 years now...and have still never made a print that can compare to my old Tech Pan prints

 

Anyway, I just wanted to post this for digital shooters that might be thinking of experimenting with film. Film takes a long time to master....and many of the film scans and images that we see floating around the internet are poor representations of what can really be achieved with film once a photographer has complete control over the capture and development process. It also takes quite a bit of experimenting before finding a film stock that vibes well with a photographer.

 

Film can be absolutely unforgiving for people that like to try a-little-bit of this and a-little bit of that. The shooters that just kinda pop any roll of film in their camera without doing much testing really have hit-and-miss results....generally miss results LOL

 

 

 

The best part of the M series is the seamless transition between using film and digital. One may shoot in the exact same fashion. Except of course for dynamc range which is greater on negative film. OTH digital is great for mixing asa's. I rarely chimp so the screen is off except for menu adjustments. With the screen off, the batteries last a decent enough time.

 

 

That is exactly right...When leica finally comes up with a full frame digital M then it could easily be used as a pseudo-polaroid camera in conjunction with a film M. Photographers could shoot an image on the digital M and get a quick review on the LCD, then confidently rely on the film M body for taking the final image. This wouldn't necessarily be a good match for everybody's workflow...but it could be a great match for a lot of people that want a little bit of both worlds. If a photographer is able to capture an image well on a digital file (no clipped highlights etc)....then that same image will most likely be better when captured on film (because of higher DR and tonal range) using the same settings.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}If a photographer is able to capture an image well on a digital file (no clipped highlights etc)....then that same image will most likely be better when captured on film (because of higher DR and tonal range) using the same settings.

 

I don't object to most of what you wrote, but really now... this is the silliest proposed workflow ever.

 

Look, I've spent almost as long as Lars in darkrooms; I've done my share of Tech Pan printing and developing... along with many other film stocks, and they're great. But give me a break: I'll bet you won't be able to print more tonal gradations from tech pan (let alone a more reasonably faster film) than you will from an M9

 

And if you can make your photo with the M8, then if you know how to print it you will get print results indistinguishable from film, if that's what you want. It probably isn't though.

 

But though I love film, and shoot it all the time, I would never use an M9 (or any modern digital) as an ersatz polaroid for the one true medium.

 

Ok Mani--we're even. I'm calling you-know-what on this one

[Jamie Roberts]

Are you serious?

 

No, but this guy is:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Gentleman Villain]

Wow, that is a really rude post

 

I've got plenty to say in response....but am just tired of arguing with rude people on the net (especially when much of your post is just a misunderstanding of what I originally wrote)

 

It's pointless to talk to such rude and condescending people