Otiose Leica M6?

[malland]

Gothcha scrambling to the dictionary? Couldn't resist it. Reading Mike Johnston's post in which he's wondering whether to use an M5 exclusively for a year made me think about my remaining M6 — I sold the other one — which I haven't used for four years, since I started to shoot digital. Originally I kept the M6 with the "excuse" that I might someday go for a two-week trek in New Guinea and needed a camera that could stand up to the wet climate; but, in reality, that is not going to happen.

Now, I could see going back to the M6 and Tri-X or Neopan 1600 film if I were going to print in a darkroom; but that is also not going to happen. And I hate scanning film — my old high-quality scanner takes 12-15min per 4,000 ppi scan — and don't really believe in it, in terms rephotographing what I've already photographed on film. Meanwhile the M6 is just lying in the "anti-fungus" cabinet.

Not sure where I'm heading with this, which is could turn into another much-reviled "film vs digital" thread, although some of these discussion can be interesting to the degree that people don't just parade their prejudices in either direction. But with the latter thought as a proviso, it would be interesting to see what others say and pictures that they might want to post. As for me, the following are two of my favorite photos shot with film, followed by two recent digital shots, which have been processed with Aperture and Silver Efex.



Bangkok | Leica M6 | Summilux-50 pre-ASPH | Tri-X ISO 1000 (?) | f/1.4





Bangkok | Leica M6 | Elmarit-21 ASPH | Tri-X ISO 200 | f/5.6





Bangkok | Ricoh GRD3 | 28mm EFOV | ISO 400 | f/3.2 | 1/1000 sec





Bangkok | Ricoh GRD3 | 28mm EFOV | ISO 200 | f/4.0 | 1/800 sec



—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria Book Project

[Keith]

Mitch ... there's a certain glow to the film pics that the digital images lack for me!

Though all are good IMO.

[randomm]

I love the first one, well shot!

Personally I have migrated back from dSLR to film RF & SLR use, to the mystification of my wife. I simply enjoy it more. With the same token if someone would come up with a digital FF RF camera that I could afford, I would probably get one in an instant!

[malland]

Originally Posted by Keith

Mitch ... there's a certain glow to the film pics that the digital images lack for me!...

I agree with you, Keith. When selecting the GRD3 pictures, I just took two recent ones in which I liked the tones, but they were shot on an overcast day. I would say that the compositon of the film, as well, as much I hate to say it, "the glow", are both better. Perhaps I should have posted other digital pictures like the ones below. The following three, taken with the GRD3 and the GXR/A12, perhaps have better composiiton and (some) glow. Do you agree?



Bangkok | Ricoh GRD3 | 28mm EFOV | ISO 100 | f/5.0 | 1/2000 sec





Bangkok | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50mm EFOV | ISO 400 | f/2.5 | 1/125 sec





Pak Nam Pran | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50mm EFOV | ISO 200 | f/8.0 | 1/320 sec



—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Shophouse Demolition

[malland]

Originally Posted by randomm

I love the first one, well shot!

Personally I have migrated back from dSLR to film RF & SLR use, to the mystification of my wife. I simply enjoy it more. With the same token if someone would come up with a digital FF RF camera that I could afford, I would probably get one in an instant!

Thanks, randomm.

My view on full frame digital is that it is the only way I would go to use my Leica-M lenses. I never took to the crop-factor and the need for filters on the M8 and sold it; but with a camera like the GXR/A12 the 1.5 crop factor doesn't bother me because I'm using a Ricoh lens made for that sensor.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Portraits

[Keith]

They are better but still lack that luminescence of the first two pics that attracts me.

It's no detraction to digital IMO because it's a difference that's inherant and nothing can change that. I like digital and use it readily but it's always the film images that make me go ... wow!

I can see myself setting up a wet darkroom at some stage in the future because I don't think this difference between the two mediums will change ... and that quality that attracts me to black and white film images does not survive the transition to ink jet printing IMO!

[menos]

Mitch, great shots! I always enjoy watching your photographs from Bangkok!

[malland]

Originally Posted by Keith

They are better but still lack that luminescence of the first two pics that attracts me.

It's no detraction to digital IMO because it's a difference that's inherant and nothing can change that. I like digital and use it readily but it's always the film images that make me go ... wow!

I can see myself setting up a wet darkroom at some stage in the future because I don't think this difference between the two mediums will change ... and that quality that attracts me to black and white film images does not survive the transition to ink jet printing IMO!

Keith, I find this interesting because, strangely enough, I've never seen a visual comparison of the differences: I've only read posts that state that digital and film black and white are simply different and shouldn't be compared and that digital is looks more "plasticky".

Comparing the differences above, however, it seems to me that the "wow factor" of film that you refer to comes from what I would call the "imperfections" that create the glow and that cannot easily be imitated with digital. Of the digital pictures above, it seems to me it's the last one, of the fisherman painting his boat, that comes the closest; but that one is pushed quite far in terms of processing in order to show the nature of the bright tropical light.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria Book Project

[malland]

menos, thanks for the kind words.

—Mitch

[Keith]

The thing that amazes me is though it can clearly be seen on a monitor it seems to lose that glow when transfered to an inkjet print. The wet print process seems to carry that look to the paper without compromising those qualities that make it unique.

Perhaps I just can't print for crap!

[malland]

Originally Posted by Keith

The thing that amazes me is though it can clearly be seen on a monitor it seems to lose that glow when transfered to an inkjet print. The wet print process seems to carry that look to the paper without compromising those qualities that make it unique.

Perhaps I just can't print for crap!

Keith, I agree with you again. Not only am I never going back to darkroom printing, but I was never as good at it as printing on an Epson high-end inkjet printer — okay, I was not good at it at all.

To push the comparison further: from the above it's clear that to get a good digital print from a digital camera file it's not enough to simulate the toe and shoulder of a film characteristic curve, that is, to compress the tones in these sections of the curve, nor to introduce grain — it's the imperfections (for want of a better word) that create the glow or the wow factor. Maybe someone can provide a more arictculate statement of this.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Bangkok Hysteria Book Project

[jerdjets]

Hey mitch, I checked out your Bangkok set on Flickr, some nice street shot there. I live here in bangkok too, and damn.. M6 is perfect for photographing the city.

[malland]

Keith, I've been thinking some more that the two digital pictures that I selected for the original post were simply the wrong ones because, as i subsequently mentioned, they were shot on a overcast day with relatively flat, although strong, light. Perhaps film shots in that light would have been similar, although I agree with your general point that its easier to get the glow that you're talking about with film.

I'd be interested in seeing some digital shots from you or others that have some of that "film glow". In the meantime, here are few additonal digital shots with some glow that I've posted elsewhere previously. In other words, I don't think that digital needs to be a dead loss in terms of glow in B&W!




Manila | Ricoh GRD3 | 28mm EFOV | ISO 400 | f/1.9 | 1/55 sec






Potomac, MD | Leica M8.2 | Summicron-28 | ISO 1250 | 1/90 sec






Bangkok | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50mm EFOV | ISO 800 | f/8.0 | 1/1000 sec



—Mitch/Bangkok
Shophouse Demolition

[Keith]

Mitch,

I think my digital processing skills are OK with colour but I struggle to get anything that excites me when I use black and white.

I like your last posted shots ... they definitely have more life to them!

I like some of the black and whites I've seen from the Sigma DP2 ... they seem a little different to my eye.

[Peter R]

Others may say what they like, but personally, I just don't see the difference between film and digital any more when it gets to photos like the 'Potomac' one above. The photographer and Silver FX did a sterling job in my opinion.

Addendum: agree that 'attractive imperfections' are the reason to use 35mm film these days. It seems easier to reproduce a technically 'perfect' BW film photo using a digi sensor these days than to mimic an old-school snapshot taken in the 1950s or 60s with, um, some 'issues' due to non-pro photography skills.

[malland]

I was hoping that people would chime in with pictures that could help to narrow in on what "imperfections" of film create the luminescence or film glow that Keith refers to. To summarize the above discussion:

—While film characteristic curves and grain can be simulated by digital, it is "imperfections" (for want of a better or more precise word) in film images that create "film glow" and the "wow factor" of the best film photographs.

—Much is dependent on the nature and quality of ambient light: in flat light film and digital images often will look similar.

—Some digital photographs can be indistinguishable from film.

—Wet (darkroom) prints can sometimes keep the luminescence that disappears in digital prints. This implies that there can be a major difference in the quality of prints from a hybrid process, film that is scanned and printed on an inkjet print, and film that is printed in the darkroom. The implication of this is that scanned film printed digitally may be closer in terms of to printing digital camera files. than to wet darkroom prints.


It would be interesting to get more inputs on these issues as well as illustration from photographs. Above, we've been discussing only black and while. For color, there generally seems to less contention in digtial versus film discussions. Here are three digital color shots in which I like the colors. Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to get a "film look" but process each file individually to get a look that I like for that image. However, that look can often end up looking like film because most of us tend to like the film look, which is not surprising giving how long film has been fine-tuned for different looks by film manufacturers.





Bangkok | Ricoh GRD3 | 28 mm EFOV | ISO 100 | f/3.2 | 1/125 sec







Bangkok | Ricoh GRD3 | 28 mm EFOV | ISO 100 | f/3.5 | 1/1000 sec







Bangkok | Ricoh GXR/A12 | 50 mm EFOV | ISO 1600 | f/2.5 | 1/320




—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Surface

[Frank Petronio]

I don't think film/digital or wet/scanned matters at all, a good picture is still a good picture and everyone is splitting hairs when it comes to judging prints or screen images.

Besides light plays so much more of a role than the capture medium ;-) yet people attempt to explain specular highlights in such a way as to make you think that you can shoot straight into the noon sun with film and it will retain all this great detail and range while digital will posterize the same scene into four shades of grey.

What I do think matters is physical camera itself and, especially with street and people photography, the way the subjects respond to it. I think you get an entirely different response between using the tiny GRD versus the M-series versus say, a 4x5 Technika. You obviously have had a run with the GRD (Mitch) so it must agree with you - no need to defend it any longer.

Ditch the M6 or keep it as a souvenir. I wouldn't switch gears while things are going well and you are building an impressive series from the GRD... wait for some crispy burnout, then go shoot something different to get new nerve synapses forming... whether it's an M6 or an 8x10.

[malland]

Frank, I hear what you say and thank you for it; but I wasn't really trying to defend the GRD3 here. Rather, I was hoping that we could indentify, through pictures that people would post, some of the characteristic differences, beyond the obvious ones, between film and digital, even if we recognized that that the nature of the light is the most important factor distingushing the luminosity. Unfortunately, no one has posted any pictures!

—Mitch/Bangkok
Scratching the Surface

[semilog]

I have to admit, I sometimes really like the B&W results that I obtain with digital... but right now I'm scanning some ACROS souped in Rodinal...



Olympus E-620, Zuiko 12-60 SWD

[Richard G]

Meanwhile the M5. Great camera to use at some stage in your film career. In form and function the most advanced M. Interesting to see Mike looking at using one exclusively.

[malland]

Originally Posted by Richard G

Meanwhile the M5. Great camera to use at some stage in your film career. In form and function the most advanced M. Interesting to see Mike looking at using one exclusively.

OT, but that hasn't stopped him from calling a plain-jane black M6 the "best Leica", with which I agree.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Barrier

[malland]

Originally Posted by semilog

I have to admit, I sometimes really like the B&W results that I obtain with digital... but right now I'm scanning some ACROS souped in Rodinal...

Good tones, but here is a digital counterpoint in a somewhat different style:


Chiang Mai: The River Ping at Mae Rim | Ricoh GRD2 | 40mm-e tele-converter | ISO 80 | f/4.0 | 1/1070 sec


—Mitch/Bangkok
Northern Thailand

[muser53]

Perhaps it is otiose to attempt to make an ink jet look as if it is a wet print!
I like both they just have a different quality. Love the first and the last image (landscape) you have posted. Nicely seen and rendered.

Paul

By the way Malland are you a fan of Jim Harrison? It is only in his works that i have seen the word otiose in print!

[malland]

Originally Posted by muser53

Perhaps it is otiose to attempt to make an ink jet look as if it is a wet print!
I like both they just have a different quality. Love the first and the last image (landscape) you have posted. Nicely seen and rendered.

Paul

By the way Malland are you a fan of Jim Harrison? It is only in his works that i have seen the word otiose in print!

Paul, thanlks for the kind words. However, as I wrote in post #16 above, I'm not trying to make digital look specifically like film: "Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to get a "film look" but process each file individually to get a look that I like for that image. However, that look can often end up looking like film because most of us tend to like the film look, which is not surprising giving how long film has been fine-tuned for different looks by film manufacturers." And, generally, I tend to high contrast.

No, I don't know Jim Harrison. I just made up a silly title for the thread.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Tokyo Tsukiji

[semilog]

Absolutely outstanding.

Originally Posted by malland

Chiang Mai: The River Ping at Mae Rim