Erwin Is my man! on the M8 part 4!

Nachkebia said:
Well, it is fact and ervin proves it, eye is beauty in portra and it has alot of information in spur film, so 35mm is still better format and capable of doing anything desired and it is powerfull as never was, don`t see reason using digital format if not adicted to photoshop :)
Click to expand...

But Puts (who I don't always agree with) indirectly brings up a very good point, and this is seen in his scan (botched or not) of Porta 160.

If you shoot film and are enlarging in the traditional way, then you are in good shape. But if you shoot film and have a "drugstore print" made, nowadays most machine prints involve the automated scanning of a negative (giving you index prints, CD's etc, exposure fixes). So you are at the mercy of the scanner (which won't be as good as a service buro Iris or drum scanner that will extract the most info out of that fine neg), and since that scan in itself is an analog to digital conversion (and not the best unless you are going to a service buro or really know what you're doing with your home scanner) most digital files yielded by a digital camera that most of us find worthy of using will give your frame of traditional film a good run for its money at the drug store.

Now, if you still print traditionally in a wet darkroom (or have a very very very good negative scanner on your desk) stick with film. But I think it's been pointed out before on other threads that if W. Eugene Smith were alive today, he'd probably be digital and very good with Photoshop CS2. That die-cut print he made of Schweitzer would have been much easier in the digital darkroom.
 
I don't think we can make any conclusions about what a deceased photographer might or might not do. For some, the end product is important. For others, the entire process must be taken into account.

But we'll never know, because they aren't around.
 
I have to admit that Portra scan looked pretty bad. If he was truely running that scanner at prime he'd get images that were roughly 117MB in size and not 70MB. But hey, his black and white stuff looked pretty good. I am looking forward to his next installment.
 
I agree with Mike. And most serious RF/M photographers seek out an optical print when high quality/display is required. Any M user who doesn't know that should donate their gear to me, since I obviously know the difference. :D
 
Trius said:
High speed Ektachrome was in the early/mid 70s. Regular Ektachrome was 64, same as Kodachrome X. The Ektachromes were E4, Kodachromes were K-12. I never shot with E3 films.
Click to expand...

I started with KII and E4 films in the late 60's, even did some E4 developing. E3 may have been when KI was out, the 10ASA Kodachrome. Need to did out some very old mags for the film ads!
Tom
 
blakley said:
I think it might have helped if he'd focused the M8 shot, too.
Click to expand...
Now that we're on the subject, how the hell can one empirically compare a film scan and digital capture in an other-than-casual manner without laying down some ground rules? RFf's own assorted comparos have been relatively rigorous compared to what Puts seemed to put up on that page.


- Barrett
 
This stuff really cracks me up. I especially like the disclaimerish sounding bit about using a tripod to minimise error caused by hand held practice. So, in conclusion, he reckons film is best. It may be. And maybe HCB, Capa, Eugene Richards, Gilles Peress, Antoine D'Agata should think about using a tripod when in the field... Perhaps their work would improve. It's irrelivant in the end, all that counts is capturing some "thing" on something light sensitive that other people can relate or respond to. A camera is just a tool, afterall.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, it's not meant to be. I love photographs and I especially admire people who make do with what the have and produce work that is improtant to them. I "went digital" because I want to hone my skills through practicing. I just can't afford to shoot a lot of film and I think that holds true for a lot of photographers, either pro or weekend shooters.
 
Just a few thoughts about the Puts conclusions.

- Comparing D. photography to Film photography might be interesting. But the difference between the act and the goal is, to my very humble opinion, rather different. Perhaps this is why only a technical comparison can be made. But, in the light of this, is it necessarily to compare?
- Why on earth is it so important to prove that Digital is as good as Film or vice versa?
- Why not accentuating the characteristic differences, and by this, the reasons of existence of the two media ( Why not coexisting instead of eliminating?)?

- Why a 20 ASA B/W film and not, like the D. file and the Porta, a +/- 160 ASA B/W film (FP4+ or, Plus X)?
- Good scanning is a professional occupation, why not using this services?

I have the impression that articles like this one are revealing more questions than giving answers.
Do correct me if I am wrong!
 
TJV said:
This stuff really cracks me up. I especially like the disclaimerish sounding bit about using a tripod to minimise error caused by hand held practice.
Click to expand...



Doesn't too much "hand held practice" make you go blind?
 
Toby said:
Doesn't too much "hand held practice" make you go blind?
Click to expand...
No, but the hairy palms certainly mess with one's proper grip of the camera...hence the need for that tripod.


- Barrett
 
mwooten said:
I like this line, "This is a modern BW film, made in a country close to the Netherlands."
Click to expand...

Me too; it's a Putz classic. Another favorite of mine from this same review:

Let us have no false illusions.
Click to expand...

I think false illusions are worse than any other kind of illusion, don't you?
 
Uh ... I think false illusions would be reality. So "Let us have no false illusions" would mean .... oh, never mind. :confused: :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom