Oranges to Oranges

[Nogoodnik]

I have a question - not to start a posting squabble, but because of my lack of in-depth Leica knowledge - I need some help.
I have a new M8 with a new 28 mm Elmarit. I have all the bells a whistles computer and software-wise for working with digital images (long time digital Nikon user).
I miss shooting 35. I left negatives when the darkroom became a chore. Went to Nikon and did the whole digital thing up through the D300.
I'm not interested in generating the tired old discussion of film vs. digital - but I am wondering about a couple of things:
If I shot 35 color negs - (available to convert to B&W) then scanned them in a higher end - say Coolscan - scanner - and brought them into PS3 or some other software - and here I go - get more of that "Leica" look with my images. Please, I can't define it. Soft, creamy, beautiful. I don't know.
I guess my question is - apples to apples, oranges to oranges - If I don't mind the extra work, will I get - not a "better" but a more "Leica" image through film and scan? Or can I get the "Leica" look with my M8?
Finally - better to shoot B&W negs and scan for the "Leica" B&W image - or just use M8 and convert? Sorry, I used the word "better." I hope you know what I mean.
Thank you
- Pete
PS - going to post same question M8 portion - my apologies if this is not in accordance with procedure rules.

[Nogoodnik]

I have a question - not to start a posting squabble, but because of my lack of in-depth Leica knowledge - I need some help.
I have a new M8 with a new 28 mm Elmarit. I have all the bells a whistles computer and software-wise for working with digital images (long time digital Nikon user).
I miss shooting 35. I left negatives when the darkroom became a chore. Went to Nikon and did the whole digital thing up through the D300.
I'm not interested in generating the tired old discussion of film vs. digital - but I am wondering about a couple of things:
If I shot 35 color negs - (available to convert to B&W) then scanned them in a higher end - say Coolscan - scanner - and brought them into PS3 or some other software - and here I go - get more of that "Leica" look with my images. Please, I can't define it. Soft, creamy, beautiful. I don't know.
I guess my question is - apples to apples, oranges to oranges - If I don't mind the extra work, will I get - not a "better" but a more "Leica" image through film and scan? Or can I get the "Leica" look with my M8?
Finally - better to shoot B&W negs and scan for the "Leica" B&W image - or just use M8 and convert? Sorry, I used the word "better." I hope you know what I mean.
Thank you
- Pete
PS - going to post same question M8 portion - my apologies if this is not in accordance with procedure rules.

[photomoof]

There are many choices available to fake a film look from digital, Alien Skin software comes to mind as my first choice.

But the M8 produces beautiful images. You can fault the camera in a zillion ways, but the images are quite good and should be able to live on their own.

IMHO it is better to exploit the M8 images, rather than attempt to make them look like film. They are not film.

Learn to use the materials you are using, as the materials they are, it is usually the best path.

[Nogoodnik]

Please understand it is not, not my intention to cast aspersions on the M8 (I bought one) or generate any kind of argument regarding digital vs film - or the M8 vs any camera or format. I am sincere in my question.
PK

[photomoof]

Please understand it is not, not my intention to cast aspersions on the M8 (I bought one) or generate any kind of argument regarding digital vs film - or the M8 vs any camera or format. I am sincere in my question.
PK

I do understand your fear that this could become a flame war, but from my limited use of the M8, I found the color and the look of the digital images produced to be quite distinctive.

They are clearly beautiful on their own, which is my point. If there is such a thing as a Leica look, then the M8 images do have an M8 look.

There may be other digital cameras that have a similar look, but there is nothing inferior about the M8 images.

[RuedigerMerz]

Pete,

IMHO there is no Leica look. It is just a myth. There is your look, or the Bresson/Clark/Gibson/whowever look. The Leica is just another camera to create your photographs. As is the Nikon/Canon/Voigtlaender/whatever camera. What kind of photos are you looking for?

Rudy

[Nogoodnik]

Thank you friends - I am already getting dialed in toward an answer toward my own questions -
I suppose it all leads me toward another kind wondering - if scanning is problematic in so far as learning curve, etc. I guess I'm trying to get as much back to analog as I can - without, of course, giving up the advantages of digital :)
It just keeps running through my mind - am I missing something, or loosing anything in image "quality" (I know - it's all subjective) by going back to film and scanning or just stick with my M8? You see, I just like the feel of an MP in my hands more than the M8. Maybe crazy - I don't know -

Ok - this may help - I just want to make some nice 8X10's and 11X14's in B&W - nothing fancy or fine art - friends, family, street photos - basic stuff.

[S.H.]

I do shoot film (slides and a little B/W) and scan it afterwards. Mainly because I don't really have time to learn to develop and print (and don't have enough room at home), and a M8... costs a hefty price :rolleyes:. So, M3 + scanner for me at the moment (and some nikon stuff). Not a bad setup really.

But i do NOT try to emulate a 'pure anolog' or a 'pure digital' workflow. I just aim at a satisfying result, while having fun, with the tools I can buy, without breaking the bank.

'Leica look'? Well, I would prefer a 'photographer's look' to a 'XX brand look' ... :)

[pfoto]

I have seen shots taken with an M8 that I thought were film. They were all color shots. My somewhat limited sense is that film is still a better medium for B&W than digital though. It is very time consuming to first develop film and then scan it but to my eye at least it is worth it. I know what you mean when you say you prefer handling the MP to the M8 too...

[ferider]

Just get an M2 and pre-asph Summicron and try. M2 and MP are very close in use.

Like you said, it's very subjective.

Roland.

[furcafe]

I agree w/Fred, here. I think it is possible to convert digital to get it to look very much like film, assuming you have the software & "lightroom" skills. However, it's still a different capture medium & if you associate the "Leica look" w/your old film shots & don't have the requisite software/lightroom skills, then I'm of the opinion that shooting film, even when scanned & digitized, will still be the best way to achieve that look.

I do understand your fear that this could become a flame war, but from my limited use of the M8, I found the color and the look of the digital images produced to be quite distinctive.

They are clearly beautiful on their own, which is my point. If there is such a thing as a Leica look, then the M8 images do have an M8 look.

There may be other digital cameras that have a similar look, but there is nothing inferior about the M8 images.

[Roger Hicks]

You can make anything look more or less like anything -- but seldom (if ever) identical.

To me, scanned colour neg doesn't look like scanned slide (I prefer the latter), and converted to B+W, it doesn't look like any film I like or (more to the point) like a silver halide print.

I am quite happy to accept the look of the M8 in colour, but in mono, I shoot film and wet print it (I have both an M8 and film Leicas).

So ultimately, my reply is that you're still comparing apples to oranges.

Cheers,

R.

[photogdave]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if there is no definitive "Leica look" then I believe there is a "rangefinder look".
When my photographer friends look at my images they often comment about how great those Leica photos look, how they wish they had a Leica etc. More than half of the photos would have been shot with Voigtlander or even Canon LTM lenses, but I believe my RF images definitely stand out from my SLR images. And this comes from the guy who used to cringe when Canon and Nikon users would try and tell me how the other brands' lenses always render colors too warm or too cool!
Last summer I took my Nikon F100 and lenses on holiday and shot mostly with that and I can tell you honestly that I thought the slides were lacking something. Sometimes we need to step back to remember the difference because maybe most of us are too used to the "Leica" or "rangefinder look" to remember how special our images looked when we first started using these cameras. That's my view anyway.
As far as the original question - it's all down to those lenses. Film or digital body, you should be able to get the look you're going for from the glass. I've used the M8 and enjoyed it and if I had a boatload of money I would buy one, but even then it wouldn't totally replace a film M for me. I'm very happy with my workflow of shooting film, lab develops it, I scan it and store it. I can have a traditional slide show, print and email the digital versions, and save the B&W stuff for traditional enlargement if I like. Everything I've shot is already archival and when selecting the images I want to work with I only have to look at a few negs or slides at a time on the light table rather than hundreds of thumbnails on a monitor.
That's what works for me.

[Roger Hicks]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if there is no definitive "Leica look" then I believe there is a "rangefinder look".

I've used the M8 and enjoyed it and if I had a boatload of money I would buy one, but even then it wouldn't totally replace a film M for me.

For the first para, I heartily agree.

For the second, I have both, and the M8 certainly doesn't replace film for me.

I'd hate to give up either but for shooting for pleasure the M8 (and colour) would go before the MP (and black and white).

For publication in colour -- illustration, rather than 'Fine Art' -- the M8 has it all.

Cheers,

R.

[Bill Harrison]

Someone said "FILM, good tasting" "DIGITAL, less filling" If you scan the film, IMHO, you kill the spirit of film and its organic quality. I also prefer to listen to vinyl, rather than CDs for the same reason. 31 years as a classical guitar and lute maker,photography since 1950...Things DO change as time goes by...the milk tasted better when it came to the front door,cream on top..and chickens didn't come WITH salmonella. The artists assistant ground the pigment that still, with great beauty, covers the pantings of Rembrandt and other Ren. Masters . Lenses? I prefer Leitz over Nikon but use both, Gold Dagor over APO Sironar S and LOVE what they are both capable of......If photography was about the $ for me I would shoot digital without doubt. It's not, and I don't....it's "less fulfilling" personally and organically for me. Not better/worse, different. Look inside, would be my suggestion.....Be Well, Bill

[Nogoodnik]

Well no, this is not in accordance with the rules.:rolleyes:

Please make yourself familiar with the rules HERE. (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item2)

BTW, welcome to RFF.:)


Thank you for the welcome. And I did read the rules and apologize for the spamming. Nice to be here!

[Nogoodnik]

Thank you, thank you, friends. I truly appreciate the thoughtful responses. I simply have a decision to make. Now, can anyone recommend a printer for B&W? :) Either 35 negs or my beautiful M8, that's where I'm heading.
All the best!
Pete

[Kevin]

Hi Pete,

I've competely given up making contact sheets and proof prints. With my Coolscan 5000 ED and SA-30 rollfilm adapter I found a better, faster and cheaper way to view my 135mm negs. Although b&w film scanning is not easy, I am sure that you will be able to handle all analog, hybrid and pure digital workflows with a good film scanner and knowledge of how to use it.

Best of luck!
Kevin

[Gabriel M.A.]

The "Leica look" is often the result of using poorly corrected early Leica lenses.

And without fail, the bashing begins.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I have seen shots taken with an M8 that I thought were film. They were all color shots. My somewhat limited sense is that film is still a better medium for B&W than digital though. It is very time consuming to first develop film and then scan it but to my eye at least it is worth it. I know what you mean when you say you prefer handling the MP to the M8 too...

Yeah, I myself am surprised at how "film-like" the images can come out if you're careful with the DNG conversion.

Like Roger said, it's not a substitute for film. But it makes shooting digital a lot more fun and rewarding.

Here's a rather mediocre shot, but it illustrates the M8's potential:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2715579326_ecc8fc33a7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/2715579326/)
M8 + 35mm f/2 Summicron (poorly corrected version)

[Andrew Sowerby]

If you scan the film, IMHO, you kill the spirit of film and its organic quality.

Do you feel the same about scanning prints?

[Roger Hicks]

The "Leica look" is often the result of using poorly corrected early Leica lenses.

'Poorly corrected' for what? And which lenses had you in mind?

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Do you feel the same about scanning prints?

Dunno about Bill, but I do. It's a different medium.

Cheers,

R.

[kevin m]

'Poorly corrected' for what? And which lenses had you in mind?

I think leicasniper was having a bit of fun, but his point isn't without some merit. Much of what we lovingly refer to as "glow," "three-dimensionality" and the like is a product of design compromises that have been corrected out of modern glass. Personally, I'd take the look of a pre-Asph. Summilux 50 or a pre-Asph. Summicron 90 over their modern counterparts. That Mandler guy knew his stuff. :D

[Chris101]

... Now, can anyone recommend a printer for B&W? :) ...Hey Pete,

I have gotten very satisfying results by printing negatives scanned by a coolscan 5000 on an Epson R2400, as well as an Epson 7800. The 2400 is under a thousand bucks, while the 7800 is over 3 when you factor in the inks. If I were to buy a printer, it would either be the 2400 or whatever it's replacement will be.

[Roger Hicks]

Much of what we lovingly refer to as "glow," "three-dimensionality" and the like is a product of design compromises that have been corrected out of modern glass. Personally, I'd take the look of a pre-Asph. Summilux 50 or a pre-Asph. Summicron 90 over their modern counterparts. That Mandler guy knew his stuff. :D
That, and lousy exposure in the days before meters. Overexposure helps create a 'glow'.

Cheers,

R.

[willie_901]

I think you should experiment with both methods (film--->digital--->desired look, digital--->desired look) and see which you find to be most aesthetically pleasing.

The important thing is the end result. You need to be able to reproducibly produce the image characteristics you feel best express your work.

Good luck.

[tmfabian]

Hey Pete,

I have gotten very satisfying results by printing negatives scanned by a coolscan 5000 on an Epson R2400, as well as an Epson 7800. The 2400 is under a thousand bucks, while the 7800 is over 3 when you factor in the inks. If I were to buy a printer, it would either be the 2400 or whatever it's replacement will be.

I'll second that recommendation on the 2400 and 7800. They produce some pretty remarkable prints when combined with the right paper. My only problem with them is that the ink cartridges are itty bitty and cost quite a bit.

[maddoc]

The "Leica look" is often the result of using poorly corrected early Leica lenses.

... at that time they were as well designed as possible and photographer knew how to use them. ;)

[Ben Z]

I have a 4000dpi film scanner and VueScan and I've done a lot of reading and picking the brains of people who know much more than I do, but I've never been able to get the same "look" from scanned film (any kind) as from wet printing. I have much better luck with film-simulation software on files from digital cameras. I sometimes look longingly at my M4 and Nikon F and Rolleiflex and get the urge to load in a roll of Tri-X and do it the old way, but when I think about mixing the chemicals and cleaning it all up afterward, the urge goes away. Sad to admit, but true.