Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M9 / ME

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 11-03-2006   #41
bronekkozka
Registered User
 
bronekkozka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Gilman
If you know what you're doing, you can "process" a RAW to an infinite number of looks. What gets lost in all this debate about the film vs digital "look" is that there is no homogeneous digital look. I've processed and seen Canon files that do look too smooth for my tastes and, yet, on the other hand, I've had Canon files that don't have that look at all (as well as many that people can't tell if it's digital or film). It all comes down to your chops. The only thing that gets revealed when someone says they hate the "Canon plasticky" look is that person's lack of skill and understanding with what you can do with a digital file. The only way you get there is by throwing yourself in the water and doing the necessary tinkering to see where you can go.

Thank-you Allen, this is the point I was trying to make....also there is no homogeneous film look either... if there was there would be no need for dif film , devs etc. As you say it comes down to the skill of the person processing their digi files....

as I said

Quote:
One thing I will say is that with film, if you don't have the knowledge or facilities...you send your film off to be processed...BUT with digital you grab that raw file and have a hack...maybe these are the results that look "digital"... maybe what is being pick up as "digital" is just poor control...
__________________
Bronek Kozka Photography
www.kozka.com
[email protected]
The Bakehouse Studio
Unit 2/133-135 Johnston St
Collingwood, Victoria 3066
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2006   #42
Allen Gilman
Registered User
 
Allen Gilman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 232
sorry bronekkozka - looks like I just repeated what you were saying actually...happens when you post just after you've woken from a nap :P
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=679'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2006   #43
Nachkebia
Registered User
 
Nachkebia's Avatar
 
Nachkebia is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 36
Posts: 1,992
One thing I hate with M8 is, nerds! now digital nerds! computer IT geeks! going to start comming and comming! asking more stupid questions, like which lens is the best for M8 ofcourse that is what Leica wanted, and also it might be good for forum, but for me its not
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nachkebia/

Zeiss Ikon, Leica M7, 21,25,35 biogon ZM, 28 elmarit ASPH, 50 planar ZM, 50 summilux asph
(hardcore nikonian)
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2006   #44
adep
Registered User
 
adep's Avatar
 
adep is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
Posts: 118
I enjoy the process of using an old camera to shoot photos on film, and somehow I like the way photos look on film better. That said, I do like the convenience of digital for certain things.

Forgive me if this link has already been posted somewhere around here, I can't remember where I found it:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844

It's an article about Magnum photographer Alex Majoli, who won the 2004 Magazine Photographer of the Year with photos he shot with digital point & shoot cameras. I guess I'm going a bit off topic, but I was amazed with the images he was getting with those consumer cameras.

btw, before digital he was a Leica shooter
__________________
-Alan

RFF

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2006   #45
Allen Gilman
Registered User
 
Allen Gilman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 232
"One thing I hate with M8 is, nerds! now digital nerds! computer IT geeks! going to start comming and comming! asking more stupid questions, like which lens is the best for M8 "

From where I'm sitting, seems more like you luuuuv em Ahhh, ambivalent affairs...can't live w/ em, can't live w/out em
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=679'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2006   #46
bronekkozka
Registered User
 
bronekkozka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by adep
I enjoy the process of using an old camera to shoot photos on film, and somehow I like the way photos look on film better. That said, I do like the convenience of digital for certain things.
That is something that has not and does not get discussed in all this "pixel peeking" debate.... How does shooting film or digital change the look f the image...and what I mean is how is the shooting approached, the approach to the subject....how does instant feedback change things....

I shot a project in western Kenya a few years back, it was a series of portraits , all shot on meduim format (Fuji rangefiner) and 35mm (leica+Nikon)....it all worked well.... it was shot just before I was getting into digi capture. Since then I have done a lot of enviro portraits generally now on digital....being able to show and share the image with the sitter is something that has changed the interaction (for me for the better)....in many ways I wis I could go back to western Kenya again (I will) and shoot with a digital, be able to show and share....and make it more of a collaboration... I realize that showing the image will not work for all photographers all the time...BUT....if you want to talk about how digital is changing things maybe this line is a little more interesting than pixels....

Quote:
One thing I hate with M8 is, nerds! now digital nerds! computer IT geeks!
....maybe this will keep them at bay
__________________
Bronek Kozka Photography
www.kozka.com
[email protected]
The Bakehouse Studio
Unit 2/133-135 Johnston St
Collingwood, Victoria 3066
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-03-2006   #47
bronekkozka
Registered User
 
bronekkozka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Gilman
sorry bronekkozka - looks like I just repeated what you were saying actually...happens when you post just after you've woken from a nap :P

I think you said it more sussinctly anyway

Take care


Bronek
__________________
Bronek Kozka Photography
www.kozka.com
[email protected]
The Bakehouse Studio
Unit 2/133-135 Johnston St
Collingwood, Victoria 3066
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #48
Magnus
Registered User
 
Magnus is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Munich Germany
Age: 54
Posts: 315
... I shoot digital quite alot lately. Much more than I ever intended too. There clearly is a difference, not better not worse, all a matter of personal taste. I am allways a bit dissapointed by the sharpness, not the overall sharpness because you can alter that, but the levels of sharpness in a digital picture..... there is none..
Well there is obviously but film shots have a much more natural feeling to them.

You get DOF with 5D for instance, but it's definately not the smooth DOF you can achieve with film.

Also the saturation can get really out of hand if you don't monitor this carefully.

But then again it's a totally different form of photography to which even photographers are getting use to, apart from that with the right stuff digital is so easy and fast to do (good or bad ? .. who knows)

I do see a bleak and expensive future for film because digital cameras are getting better and better, so are the tools for post processing. It will not be long before you can electronically convert a "cheap zoom" image to a Summicron 50mm type of image, you can allready convert digital images to any kind of film, you can create grain etc. etc. The end result of all these tools is certainly not as good as the original, but noones will ever notice without taking their 10x schneider louped along to exhibitions
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #49
Magnus
Registered User
 
Magnus is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Munich Germany
Age: 54
Posts: 315
But then originally this thread is not a film vs digital thread, but the sudden change of heart by some people since the introducton of the M8 and over all their arguments for all of a sudden "liking" digital images, it's like the M8 has brought digital photograhy up to a point of acceptance for some people.

Let me stress again I have the M8 with the new 28mm, it's a leica it's relatively compact and it's a total dis-investment, I new that before I bought it, but I just wanted the camera and the lens. I have don quite some testing and although the difference between my fuji f30 and the M8 can be seen it is definately not worth the 30x or so more investment. compared to the 5d, which we also have is non-existent, the value of leica lenses in digital photography.... none. and I know there will be people trying to justify the value of there leica stuff by bringing up lots and lots arguments about lpm, this that and the other.... it is just not true!
This is my point all these pseudo arguments about the M8 being better, producing beter results ... bull****. I'v said it before there is no visible gain between an M8, D5, D80 or even D70 or any other semi pro digital camera with adequate lenses. I even doubt if anyone can see the difference between a 649$ Sony R-1 and an M8 with 28mm 2.8

Perhaps only if you are into hanging 1200% sized images on your wall will you spot any difference, but wants 1200% inages on their walls anyway

Last edited by Magnus : 11-04-2006 at 00:46.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #50
Toby
On the alert
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Toby is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Wittering, West Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 777
It's interesting that you feel that leica lenses have no value in digital photography. I've found the lens to be twice as important as with film. When I got a 50/1.4 for my canon 20d it transformed my opinion about the camera and digital in general. My experience is the opposite of yours digital made me a bit of a lens freak!
__________________
My Website
Mon Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #51
Magnus
Registered User
 
Magnus is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Munich Germany
Age: 54
Posts: 315
Toby I'm not saying that the choice of lenses with digital is totally unimportant, but justifying the purchase of a tri-elmar, or 35mm asph, will become difficult much more so with digital as with film. I agree that using a good lens is important in any type of photography, only less in digital than with film.

I don't know if you are refering to the Canon 50mm 1.4, but look at the price difference between it and a Leica 50 1.4. This is exactly what I mean ....

Last edited by Magnus : 11-04-2006 at 01:07.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #52
richard_l
Registered User
 
richard_l's Avatar
 
richard_l is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 1,518
Digital photography is a lot like digital sound recording. For some reason, in spite of their deficiencies, the old analog recordings sound more 'natural' than modern digital recordings. That's not to say that one is better than the other. There is at least one big advantage to digital, and that is the signal-to-noise ratio. For example, digital recordings have no tape hiss, which is the curse of analog recording (unless it is filtered out, which then adversely affects frequency response), and digital images have much less grain than film. However, as with sound recordings, non-digital (film) images seem more natural, less clinical somehow. Logically, I think digital should be better in every way, but for some reason my brain/eye don't agree.

Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #53
Toby
On the alert
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Toby is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Wittering, West Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus
Toby I'm not saying that the choice of lenses with digital is totally unimportant, but justifying the purchase of a tri-elmar, or 35mm asph, will become difficult much more so with digital as with film. I agree that using a good lens is important in any type of photography, only less in digital than with film.

I don't know if you are refering to the Canon 50mm 1.4, but look at the price difference between it and a Leica 50 1.4. This is exactly what I mean ....

Look at the MTF tests on www.photodo.com and you'll see that the Canon scores higher than the Leica overall. I'm not saying that MTF tests are by any means the last word in judging a lens but I don't think that just because the leica lens is six times the price of the canon, that means much either. Leica charges a premium because it's leica. You are paying for the name and hand made craftsmanship, but that's not to say others can to the same at lower prices with a different philosophy.
__________________
My Website
Mon Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #54
richard_l
Registered User
 
richard_l's Avatar
 
richard_l is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
...I don't think that just because the leica lens is six times the price of the canon, that means much either...
What...???? Obviously it means that the Leica is six times better than the Canon. Everybody knows that. Get a grip on reality, Toby.

Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #55
jaap
Jaap
 
jaap's Avatar
 
jaap is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 306
there's nothing wrong with the digital look i just love all those rainbow colors with high contrast subjects and those sharp backgrounds beautifull really beautifull beatifull faaaar better then ANY FILM
__________________
2 Contax G2 with 21;28;35;45;90
Contax RX with 35mm f1.4 ASPH. FL. EL; 50mm f1.4 ; 85mm f1.4; 85mm f2.8; 35mm f2.8
Canon EOS 400 with 18-50mm f2.8 sigma

Traditional darkroom printer
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #56
richard_l
Registered User
 
richard_l's Avatar
 
richard_l is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 1,518
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Girl with Kaleidoscope eyes, I love the Beatles.

Richard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaap
there's nothing wrong with the digital look i just love all those rainbow colors with high contrast subjects and those sharp backgrounds beautifull really beautifull beatifull faaaar better then ANY FILM
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #57
sgy1962
Registered User
 
sgy1962 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 238
Sometimes I think digital, like Leica's current asperical lenses in harsh lighting, results in a very clinical look and I find that abrasive to the eyes. Certainly, good photographs can be taken with any medium, which parenthetically cuts both ways, but if I had my druthers I prefer the look of film, especially B&W film over B&W digital. I've never been too impressed with B&W digital images, but I've never sat down and analyzed why.
__________________
Leica MP; 35mm Summicron ASPH; 50mm Summilux ASPH; 90mm Elmarit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #58
bronekkozka
Registered User
 
bronekkozka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
It's interesting that you feel that leica lenses have no value in digital photography. I've found the lens to be twice as important as with film. When I got a 50/1.4 for my canon 20d it transformed my opinion about the camera and digital in general. My experience is the opposite of yours digital made me a bit of a lens freak!


I agree totally lens choice is very important, some of the crap they are putting out there and selling with digi slr is shocking....put one of those canon 18-55 pastic mount zooms on any camera...and guess what it will still be rubish , be it film or digital.
__________________
Bronek Kozka Photography
www.kozka.com
[email protected]
The Bakehouse Studio
Unit 2/133-135 Johnston St
Collingwood, Victoria 3066
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #59
bronekkozka
Registered User
 
bronekkozka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus
Toby I'm not saying that the choice of lenses with digital is totally unimportant, but justifying the purchase of a tri-elmar, or 35mm asph, will become difficult much more so with digital as with film. I agree that using a good lens is important in any type of photography, only less in digital than with film.

Hi Magnus...I can't agree with you here, I have tried to use lenses that were fine for film....just don't cut it for digital.... even just in the canon world...using non L glass on a 1dsMk2...just does not cut it....even some L glass isn't there.... I know guys that with older blad kits that are struggling when the whack a 22 or 39mp back on there cameras.... Lens quality becomes more important with digital

bronek
__________________
Bronek Kozka Photography
www.kozka.com
[email protected]
The Bakehouse Studio
Unit 2/133-135 Johnston St
Collingwood, Victoria 3066
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #60
kevin m
Registered User
 
kevin m is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
...is it still a "film look" when a neg is scanned...
Yes! Scanning film, slow and annoying as it may be, is also the best of both worlds, asthetically speaking. You keep the look of film, but you also get the tremendous advantages of the digital darkroom, too.

Digital capture has two clear advantages over film that I can see. Resolving power, and lack of high iso noise. Film has two big advantages over digital. Natural skin tones right out of the camera and dynamic range. Film has one final, arguable, advantage over digital that seals the deal for me: A digital file can't be made to look like film, particularly in B&W. Film has a sense of depth, fullness and tonality that digital just can't match. Disagree if you must, but I can tell the difference 9 times out of 10, even on the web.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #61
wpb
Registered User
 
wpb is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 208
I think the obsessing over lenses has more to do with the fact we rarely, if ever, looked at our chromes with a microscope and that what we are effectively doing with our digital files at 100-400% view in Photoshop.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #62
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 54
Posts: 4,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin m
<snip> A digital file can't be made to look like film, particularly in B&W. Film has a sense of depth, fullness and tonality that digital just can't match. Disagree if you must, but I can tell the difference 9 times out of 10, even on the web.</snip>

Digital capture B&W conversion tools get close; but not quite "there" yet ya know?

What I'm waiting for is the "Leica Glow" that people used to (still do) talk about but in a digital file rather than film.

Here's a challenge to you folk out there who get the M8 and have the available equipment. Without using Photoshop (or any other program) for anything other than going from RAW to jpg; take your M8 and your lens (whatever lens you want), put a Zeiss softar I on the lens. Take a portrait shot. Post your "straight from the camera" results. I'll tell you why I'm asking for this after I see your shots

Everything I've seen so far shot by the M8 could just as well have been shot with a Canon or Nikon low end (D80/Rebel XTi) DSLR and prime lens. It's hard for me to even tell what I've seen from stuff shot from a digital P&S.

Why should there be a difference? Well.. I guess it does come back to costs. I can run down to my local shop and snag a Fuji F30 for under $400 CDN after taxes. I could also order the M8 and wait and pay $6500-7000 CDN after taxes. If I'm paying that much, I want some "advantage" over the $400 option. One advantage would be that I get to use my fast RF lenses. One disadvantage is that I now have to consider a 1.3x crop factor. There are other pros/cons to it as well but for $6500-7000; there had better be one hell of a lot of pros over the cons and something in the image quality that will convince me that the body is just that special (beyond being Leica's first digital RF).

Myself, I'm happy using my film cams (all Leica currently) and that's likely all I'll ever use for my own enjoyment. My digital gear (and I've got a truckload of it) I only use to make me money... I can live with that; and so can most, if not all, the clientelle I book. The only people who I ever hear complaining about "film" vs "digital" are folks like us who are so beyond "camera geek" that we are a subculture unto ourselves

Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #63
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
Here's another take on it (mine): the exclamation "that looks digital" is a product you have when somebody that doesn't know how to "properly" (i.e. color management, contrast, highlight handling, etc.) work with digital images produces an image that is seen by somebody that doesn't have the eloquence to say what's wrong with it, and can only exclaim "that looks digital".

This combination comes by the dozen of dozen (of dozen).

It's all good. Film and digital. Watercolor and oil. Paper and plastic. Yin and Yang. Not Pepsi and Coke
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #64
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 54
Posts: 4,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabrielma
Not Pepsi and Coke
No Coke!! PEPSI !!
No fries!! Chips!!

Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah...

Belushi-izing,
Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #65
Bromo33333
Registered User
 
Bromo33333's Avatar
 
Bromo33333 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv
From time to time there are posts exclaiming : "That looks digital", meaning "not good". [...]
I just want to say : so what!
Great images are being made on film, great images are being made on digital. Let's use the different renderings creatively and let's get digital photography into its own as a seperate medium and not a stupid imitation of "film" (which film???)
The characteristics of digital if negative would be - blown out highlights, lack of shadow detail, no subtelty of shading, and a high degree of pixellation and noise visible. If someone says it looks digital, one or more of the above will probably be referenced. Well produced digital pictures have these characteristics minimized or not noticeable.

Positive aspects will be a lack of grain allowing large magnifications without grain.

But the photogrpaher HAS to be mindful of these issues when producing their work in order to avoid it. But film photographers have to be mindful of reciprocity failure, film sensitivity and grain - and the criticism is "that looks grainy" in "bad" analog unless it is an effect sought after.
__________________
===============================
B&D
Rochester, NY
===============================
Film: Kodak TMAX & Tri-X
RF: Zeiss Ikon + 35mm/f2 ZM; Kiev 4A + Jupiter-8
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #66
wpb
Registered User
 
wpb is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsang
No Coke!! PEPSI !!
No fries!! Chips!!

Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah...

Belushi-izing,
Dave

Thanks Dave, now I'll have to walk down to the Billygoat for lunch.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #67
grantray
Registered User
 
grantray is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Greenpoint, Brooklyn
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhogg
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Walt Whitman
Nice usage of Leaves of Grass to describe the ever evolving fickleness of the human soul that changes its mind concerning the nature of the justification to the adult equivalent of toy shopping.

-grant
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #68
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by bronekkozka
Thank-you Allen, this is the point I was trying to make....also there is no homogeneous film look either... if there was there would be no need for dif film , devs etc. As you say it comes down to the skill of the person processing their digi files....

as I said
I still contend there is "a film look" vs. "a digital look", regardless of film type vs. sensor type/post processing. It's a "family" look, if you will.

It all boils down to preference, the vision of the final image the photographer wants, etc. In the end, you are "stuck" with the original image, whether it is a neg/chrome on filmstock or a file from a particular sensor, and I'm sort of assuming a raw file of the highest quality you can capture.

So, choices are made at the exposure end that will dictate some of what the final image can be. Film or sensor? If film, which film? If sensor, which sensor?

And THAT piece (which sensor?), is the digital divide. Until someone makes a camera with interchangeable sensors, that is. Even then ...

Film: ~ $4-15
Sensor: ~$???
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #69
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis, Netherlands
Posts: 8,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus
But then originally this thread is not a film vs digital thread, but the sudden change of heart by some people since the introducton of the M8 and over all their arguments for all of a sudden "liking" digital images, it's like the M8 has brought digital photograhy up to a point of acceptance for some people.
This is a wondrous world - some hecklers convict me for changing my mind about film vs digital which I didn't, others criticize me for preferring Nikon and Leica digital over Canon witout a word about film , others PM'd me some time ago that I had too many digital shots in my gallery, still others paraphrase my posts and present that as a hidden agenda on my part .....
I guess some like to interpret without reading...
__________________
Jaap

jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #70
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Not with a microscope, but with a very good loup!
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #71
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
 
Pherdinand's Avatar
 
Pherdinand is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: by the river called the Gender
Age: 42
Posts: 7,824
Nothing. It's just a bit different.
I'd say the people who complain about it, 50% is a matter of taste and 50% is just snobbish whining.
__________________
Happy New Year, Happy New Continent!
eye contact eye
My RFF Foolery
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #72
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
 
Pherdinand's Avatar
 
Pherdinand is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: by the river called the Gender
Age: 42
Posts: 7,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpb
I think the obsessing over lenses has more to do with the fact we rarely, if ever, looked at our chromes with a microscope and that what we are effectively doing with our digital files at 100-400% view in Photoshop.
Well,not a "chrome" but a Neopan 1600 black and white.
But yes, there's a microscope involved.
And a digicam shooting through the microscope optics

[approx 42 x and 400 x]
Attached Images
File Type: jpg A400_42x.jpg (165.5 KB, 35 views)
File Type: jpg A400x_k.jpg (268.3 KB, 33 views)
__________________
Happy New Year, Happy New Continent!
eye contact eye
My RFF Foolery
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #73
wpb
Registered User
 
wpb is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 208
Not my 8X loupe, I don't think that is near the enlargement of a 8-12MP file at 100%... maybe a microsite grain focusing scope at 25X.

P.S. I've got to shoot more Neopan 1600!
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #74
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,682
There is nothing wrong with it for me except that it takes more tweaking to get the image to look my Provia or Kodachromes. I still like the look of film right out of the camera better, just my preference.

Film still rules, digital has a way to go yet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #75
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,533
Digital can have a look that is poor. I have seen it. Seeing the digi stuff from my p&s Canon and scanned color from any Leica, I am convinced the bad pics are from those who can`t properly process the digi files. Perhaps my years in the dark has given me the ability to properly do simple Photoshop.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #76
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 54
Posts: 4,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpb
Thanks Dave, now I'll have to walk down to the Billygoat for lunch.

I hope you went to the original one... under the bridge

I haven't been to Chicago since 93 so I don't even know if the original one is still around

Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #77
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
 
ffttklackdedeng's Avatar
 
ffttklackdedeng is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pherdinand
Well,not a "chrome" but a Neopan 1600 black and white.
But yes, there's a microscope involved.
And a digicam shooting through the microscope optics

[approx 42 x and 400 x]
That is interesting, Pherdinand! I was always curious about how the grain really looks like. Do you need some special equipment to be able to make a picture of it or will any cheap microscope from that auction site do?
__________________
Robert
--
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #78
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
 
Pherdinand's Avatar
 
Pherdinand is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: by the river called the Gender
Age: 42
Posts: 7,824
Dunno, Robert.
We have a few quite good Olympuses(Olympussy?) at work. They are definitely not cheap, i would not buy one for myself. This one was a long working distance one.
I guess for a 400X magnification you need reasonable optics. Usually the occular is about 10x, but the objectives are the tricky ones, and, of course the tiney digicam sensor helps as well. A short working distance version might get there much cheaper (for these, objectives above 20x are common)
__________________
Happy New Year, Happy New Continent!
eye contact eye
My RFF Foolery
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #79
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
 
ffttklackdedeng's Avatar
 
ffttklackdedeng is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 237
Thanks, Pherdinand!

I've seen - and wondered - that on my own 4000dpi scans the image seems to be built from dark spots. However, from a b&w negative I'd expected white spots.. Always thought that the silver particles that get exposed to light somehow stay on the neg while the ones without 'light contact' get washed away by the fix bath.. Never mind, I'll try to get some simple microscope from my nephew or so and see myself
__________________
Robert
--
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-04-2006   #80
Bob Ross
Registered User
 
Bob Ross's Avatar
 
Bob Ross is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by ffttklackdedeng
Thanks, Pherdinand!

I've seen - and wondered - that on my own 4000dpi scans the image seems to be built from dark spots. However, from a b&w negative I'd expected white spots.. Always thought that the silver particles that get exposed to light somehow stay on the neg while the ones without 'light contact' get washed away by the fix bath.. Never mind, I'll try to get some simple microscope from my nephew or so and see myself
The Black of the famous Black & White pair is, indeed, nothing other than Silver Tarnish
Grain and Noise is one of the "different" aspects of film/digital mediums. In a B&W print from film the blacks will be pure and grainless and grain will appear more toward the highlights, where it will fade again as the grain clumps in the film get densist. In a B&W print from a digital camera the noise begins in the blacks & shadows and fades evenly going to the highlights. Depending on how you convert to B&W from the color digital image, you might get white fleck noise, from the RGB noise, which looks really strange. One of the tip offs to a digital B&W image (or a badly processed one) is the gritty blacks and darker shadows. A grainless B&W may also be a tip off, too....
Bob
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What went wrong with this film?? micromoogman Leica Screw Mount / LTM Cameras 27 08-16-2006 19:23
What's Wrong With this 50mm Elmar? dcsang Leica Screw Mount / LTM Cameras 19 05-12-2006 10:30
Nazi's in America .... nwcanonman Off Topic 105 04-13-2006 20:34
What went wrong - TMax 3200 problem thmk Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film 11 11-29-2005 18:31



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:49.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.