jippiejee
Well-known
Actually I never understood it myself either. But it just seems to work like that for me unfortunately.
srtiwari
Daktari
Need a list? How about a show and tell? Again, if you happen through Atlanta, give me a shout and we can go over a list of the reasons why I chose film images for my documentary work over digital. :angel:
In the meantime, if you tire of the M9, let me know and I can take it out for daily exercise to keep it in tune for you over the winter.
I am looking forward to that, Dave, but I'd like a list too. Seems to me that since the 'look' is so well known and accepted, it should be easy to describe, even in relative terms. Am I asking for too much ?
I'd hate to lend you my M9 only to find that all your documentary work then becomes Digital.
Seriously, though. I must say that using an M9 did alter many of my preconceived notions about the limitations of Digital. How else would I have ended up with all this film related c**p just in the last few years ? 
JonR
Well-known
If you switch to a X100 you will like it.... it is a great camera! /JonR
back alley
IMAGES
Steve M.
Veteran
If you aren't going to print anything, digital B&W is fine. If you DO want to print, and DO want a B&W wet print, than you have no choice but to shoot film. Why settle for less?
To me, the difference between an inkjet printed digital B&W shot, and a good darkroom print (or a good inkjet print of a quality scan of film), is like night and day, but if you don't see it, you don't see it. No problem.
To me, the difference between an inkjet printed digital B&W shot, and a good darkroom print (or a good inkjet print of a quality scan of film), is like night and day, but if you don't see it, you don't see it. No problem.
One thing for sure, it is easier to test rebuilt lenses on a Digital camera than it is on film. Immediate feedback, if something is off- just take it apart and fix it. Check until it is right. With film, the turnaround was slower.
The M8 and M9 are great for testing Sonnars.
all kidding aside- the Digital RF's are as close to using a film camera as anything that I have used. I'll not give up film, and certainly know why I bother with it. It is fun.
The M8 and M9 are great for testing Sonnars.
all kidding aside- the Digital RF's are as close to using a film camera as anything that I have used. I'll not give up film, and certainly know why I bother with it. It is fun.
dave lackey
Veteran
I am looking forward to that, Dave, but I'd like a list too. Seems to me that since the 'look' is so well known and accepted, it should be easy to describe, even in relative terms. Am I asking for too much ?
I'd hate to lend you my M9 only to find that all your documentary work then becomes Digital.
Well, since we are so far apart physically, let me just say that the images I made with my Nikon DSLR for this project were not comparable enough in character to even mix in with this book, let alone do a book entirely with my digital cameras. So, I stuck with film, shooting with the M3 and R4 and my clients and colleagues are very happy that the character of the film images match the character of the town very well.
http://www.adoramapix.com/davegt/book/meanwhile-in-grantville-georgia-1
Now, having gone through that agonizing for that project, there are many others where I have stuck with digital images (using Nikons again) and then there are photo shoots that I have used both a D2X and the M3 for totally different looks.
Here is a digital image from one shoot:
And an image from the M3:
So, it is really all about what YOU are looking for in an image. And the process if you like one or the other, or both, then go with it. I do!
Attachments
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Never drove a monster Corvette, huh?
No, 66 Olds 442 was enough of a lesson at the time.
Bob
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Oh well, what can I say other than at least it is not costing you much in the way of wasted film.
Bob
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I think it would be useful for someone to try and describe the 'look' of digital (or film) in away that can others can see and identify. (I recently compared some old and new lenses hoping to differentiate their signatures, and was surprised at how little the differences in 'look' were).
Maybe its time to do a little test to try and distinguish digital from film images !
Subash, I think this is the point that some already trying to convey: You can't distinguish an image taken with film from digital that is processed to look like film. No one in their right mind would dispute the power and flexibility of digital processes to manipulate images *digitally*. Hence such "test" that you suggested above will be meaningless.
So today it comes down to the combination of process and the result. Not just the result. I love the hand-craft process of printing in the darkroom. For me, that cannot be obtained through digital processes.
Scanning and Lightrooming around is cool but not as satisfying as emerging from the darkroom with a print that looks just ... stunning.
But if getting your hands wet is not what you'd rather spend time doing, and all you care about is getting B&W images digitally, then digital is *THE* best way to go. Trying to get it via film is kinda... futile.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Seriously, though. I must say that using an M9 did alter many of my preconceived notions about the limitations of Digital. How else would I have ended up with all this film related c**p just in the last few years ?
You have to love film for what it is, you also have to love digital for what it is.
Right now, because of M9 you seem to love digital. Not a problem, at least you find what you're looking for.
srtiwari
Daktari
Hi Will.
I agree completely. The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with a print - only the image that I saw on a monitor. The impression I get is that many feel an image made originally from film is inherently better/different- a 'look' (there it goes again) that cannot be achieved from a digital camera sensor. Again, nothing to do with a print. And that may be true, but I just don't know what the difference is.
Of course the wet print from a well exposed and developed film, printed on a good enlarger cannot be compared to what most people achieve on an Inkjet. No one would argue with you about that.
dave lackey
Veteran
Ha, ha! Same thing! Weapon of choice and irresistable. Did you ever get a ticket/or in trouble with that Olds?
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, a picture is worth a thousand words. I have done my best in a previous post to give you an idea of what MY experience has been and that it has everything to do with the character of the image that I am looking for in a particular situation...and no I am not going to go into a thousand word list to describe what was just posted as I have to be somewhere in a few minutes.:angel:
Besides, your first post shows that you have the image YOU want. I see no problem. Run with it.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Ha, ha! Same thing! Weapon of choice and irresistable. Did you ever get a ticket/or in trouble with that Olds?
You had to ask, careless driving, 6 points and $102 fine. Slow learner, skipped speeding tickets altogether and went for the gusto.
Bob
Snowbuzz
Well-known
Not sure if your question is a serious one, but yes, of course. Are you confused that I am confused about the F vs D differences ?
Whoa, this thread moved seriously fast. Ha! Yes, you are right! I'm confused that you're confused! I think what can help rather than just a list of film attributes vs digital attributes is to pick a film group on Flickr (like the medium format group, or 'I shoot film' group) and click through the pictures. After a couple hundred(!) images the overall pattern will emerge. I call it a "roundness" to film images.
It's just an aesthetics-call.
NickTrop
Veteran
I'm not starting another boring digital/film debate. I said, I love film and cited valid reasons why I shoot still shoot it and why it's still relevant. That said, I don't buy your argument. Take the print challenge. Make a normal-sized print, throw them on a table, and see who likes what. Most will not know/care what medium said print was shot on. That's something only the shooter knows, and most will gravitate toward pics they like based on the subject matter, colors, and composition. There is no discernible IQ difference between small format film and APS-C and up sensor-sized digital at this point in time. None. This includes small format black and white. It has nothing to do with how something was scanned, or anything published by any website. Only exception is if you're using a nice slow speed good color film in optimal lighting conditions - film wins by a little bit. Digital trumps color big time in low light color, technically. Again, small format. Medium, large format - film wins by a mile.
bfjr
New to RF Just Not New
If you want to shoot a RF camera and can't or don't have $$$$ for M-8,9, or a couple of other models come to mind well you have to shoot Film.
literiter
Well-known
If I was to use a few words to describe the "look" thing that I personally go for in film. It would be.. "lo-fi" .
I'm happy to have it even if it's not great in IQ.
This is a great shot.
claacct
Well-known
An image that has the aesthetic formula right and is pleasing or satisfactory to the eyes of the viewer will stand on its own merit irrespective of the medium it was shot in.
No one will dismiss an image that they like by saying it is digital or film etc., and those who do are not really worth one's time or patience.