gerafotografija
Member
I think I unintentionally convinced myself that shooting tri-x and manually setting exposure on my "new" (lightly used) M7 is actually giving me better results in extreme lighting situacions than either of the matrix metered cams I've had for the last couple years.
I go to the Treasure Island flea market from time to time, and have shot there with the em5 + PanaLeica 25/1.4, the Ricoh Gr, and just last weekend with a recently acquired M7 + Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 using Tri-X.
Guess which one gave me the most consistent exposures whether I was outside in blinding sun stopped down to f/16 or inside with charroscurro shafts of light in a dim room opened up to f/1.5?
I'll stick to b&w for these examples, since I'm not shooting color film right now. Here is the usual tonal range I get from the em5 after some effort working with the raw file.
I hate how lifeless the sky looks compared to film, and while I can crank up contrast, the digital noise that I see even at base iso is just not pleasing.
The gr gives me a better jpegs right out of the camera, but if I'm not really careful with the exposure, it can get clipped and ugly looking. Exposure compensation to bring up a mid tone usually ends up blowing out something else in a highlight.
Yes layers and local adjustments work, and until now I thought that was mandatory for well balanced results. This example is straight OOC using a a little shapening, contrast boost and weak DR enhancement in the jpeg settings.
With the M7, I set the aperture about where I wanted it, pulled out a grey card, got an incident light reading in A mode, set that shutter speed to manual, and then made third stop aperture adjustments as needed for the particular subject until the light changed drastically.
The whole roll just looks awesome, even when going from f/16 outside to f/1.5 inside with mixed lighting, all it took was a few seconds readjusting.
I should also mention I had never shot a rangefinder until a couple weeks ago, so i think i can do better after exploring this Leica/Zeiss/Kodak combo a bit more.
I could have used a filter outside and gone with a little less contrast, but the Tri-X grain adds such nice texture to bits that would just be blown out pixels in a digital capture, that little imperfections seem to add rather than detract from the look.
You can see a few more shots from that day's roll here.
Wow, now I understand why rangefinders are fun! Why exactly is it that digital is supposed to be an improvement over film?
I go to the Treasure Island flea market from time to time, and have shot there with the em5 + PanaLeica 25/1.4, the Ricoh Gr, and just last weekend with a recently acquired M7 + Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 using Tri-X.
Guess which one gave me the most consistent exposures whether I was outside in blinding sun stopped down to f/16 or inside with charroscurro shafts of light in a dim room opened up to f/1.5?
I'll stick to b&w for these examples, since I'm not shooting color film right now. Here is the usual tonal range I get from the em5 after some effort working with the raw file.
I hate how lifeless the sky looks compared to film, and while I can crank up contrast, the digital noise that I see even at base iso is just not pleasing.
The gr gives me a better jpegs right out of the camera, but if I'm not really careful with the exposure, it can get clipped and ugly looking. Exposure compensation to bring up a mid tone usually ends up blowing out something else in a highlight.
Yes layers and local adjustments work, and until now I thought that was mandatory for well balanced results. This example is straight OOC using a a little shapening, contrast boost and weak DR enhancement in the jpeg settings.
With the M7, I set the aperture about where I wanted it, pulled out a grey card, got an incident light reading in A mode, set that shutter speed to manual, and then made third stop aperture adjustments as needed for the particular subject until the light changed drastically.
The whole roll just looks awesome, even when going from f/16 outside to f/1.5 inside with mixed lighting, all it took was a few seconds readjusting.
I should also mention I had never shot a rangefinder until a couple weeks ago, so i think i can do better after exploring this Leica/Zeiss/Kodak combo a bit more.
I could have used a filter outside and gone with a little less contrast, but the Tri-X grain adds such nice texture to bits that would just be blown out pixels in a digital capture, that little imperfections seem to add rather than detract from the look.
You can see a few more shots from that day's roll here.
Wow, now I understand why rangefinders are fun! Why exactly is it that digital is supposed to be an improvement over film?
back alley
IMAGES
i'm glad that you are pleased with your decision…but this stuff has been hashed out in great detail already…do we really need another digital vs. film thread?
thegman
Veteran
They improved the ability of companies to sell people cameras more frequently.
I jest, sort of.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Everything you did to work around the M7's metering (grey card, etc.) you could have done with the digitals to similar effect. *shrug*
Nice shots anyway. Glad you are happy with your decision.
Nice shots anyway. Glad you are happy with your decision.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Huh? I don't see that digital was ever intended to be an improvement over film ... I just see it as a transition of photographic medium.
Richard G
Veteran
The M7 meter is pretty clever was my understanding. I circumvent my M9's meter in certain situations, and especially the Monochrom's. I tried getting clever with my incident meter readings or reflected off my hand over many years with the M6, but nearly every time those little LEDs in the M6 viewfinder had the right exposure anyway.
thegman
Veteran
I think it was intended to be an improvement, after all, if it's not, why transition at all? Whether it actually turned out to be an improvement in any way other than convenience (which I think is undeniable, even from a film-only guy like me), is a matter of opinion.
Stuart John
Well-known
Yep you could have done a similar thing with the digital camera but it still would not have been TriX. B&W film is the real thing, color digital images converted to B&W and made to look like film is just a simulation often a very good simulation but a simulation it is.
mfogiel
Veteran
I will give you an idea. You seem to be working as lot in strong light, just like me, and you seem to like Tri X and M7, like me.
Here's the idea:
1- set your M7 to AE
2- set EI to 500, or if not satisfied with shadow detail, to 250
3- Put Tri X inside
4- buy 4 1 liter bottles with swing cap
5- buy a gallon pack of Diafine
6- dissolve separately part A and part B, pour each into the bottles and label carefully. Use the first bottle for developing and the second bottle for adding liquid to the first one as it becomes depleted over time.
7- buy some coffee filters for filtering the developer every now and then
8- this is the most important part: when developing, agitate 10 secs every 30 secs, otherwise you will get bromide drag
9- I develop most films 4+4 mins, Acros 5+5 mins, you can test 3+3mins for Tri X, should be sufficient
10 - let me know how you like the results
Tri X in Diafine, EI 250
2008080305 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Here's the idea:
1- set your M7 to AE
2- set EI to 500, or if not satisfied with shadow detail, to 250
3- Put Tri X inside
4- buy 4 1 liter bottles with swing cap
5- buy a gallon pack of Diafine
6- dissolve separately part A and part B, pour each into the bottles and label carefully. Use the first bottle for developing and the second bottle for adding liquid to the first one as it becomes depleted over time.
7- buy some coffee filters for filtering the developer every now and then
8- this is the most important part: when developing, agitate 10 secs every 30 secs, otherwise you will get bromide drag
9- I develop most films 4+4 mins, Acros 5+5 mins, you can test 3+3mins for Tri X, should be sufficient
10 - let me know how you like the results
Tri X in Diafine, EI 250
2008080305 by mfogiel, on Flickr
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I thought everyone knew that "new" means "improved" and digital is newer than film.
Regards, David
I thought everyone knew that "new" means "improved" and digital is newer than film.
Regards, David
Godfrey
somewhat colored
+1
Come'on folks. I love what film looks like, but I also love what I get with digital capture too. It's all photography to me.
Great photographs transcend the capture medium.
G
redisburning
Well-known
I don't think you're being fair to OP since when it's the other way around you tend to sing a different tune. At least, that is my perception, be it reality or not.
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
-1
I don't think he's starting a film vs. digital debate here at all. He's just relating his experiences--and new found enthusiasm--for the M7. Let the OP share his personal findings. Of course, he could have gotten better results from the digital B/W shots, but he didn't. I appreciate the post.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
So, basically it is film vs digital thread.
OP provided very delightful examples of b/w film photography. Nice pictures. Personally, I prefer film for b/w over digital.
Just don't know why it is called "extreme lighting".
Looks like regular situation to me.
Regular middle of the sunny day.
Very bright objects indoors? Measure objects, take picture, review, adjust if on digital. Not a big deal at all.
(D)SLRs sucks, RFs are fun!
OP provided very delightful examples of b/w film photography. Nice pictures. Personally, I prefer film for b/w over digital.
Just don't know why it is called "extreme lighting".
Looks like regular situation to me.
Regular middle of the sunny day.
Very bright objects indoors? Measure objects, take picture, review, adjust if on digital. Not a big deal at all.
(D)SLRs sucks, RFs are fun!
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
off to a Great Start !!!
yummy good combo that m7 and c sonnar
yummy good combo that m7 and c sonnar
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Steve M.
Veteran
Congratulations on your good eye and getting an M7. Great camera. I don't think it's a film vs digital thread at all. It's a thread on how to get great B&W images. By any means necessary should be the point, not by any photography philosophy. Those are a dime a dozen. The first thing that jumps out at me is that the Tri-X shots are black and white, while the digital is grey and white. No surprise there, and if you gave me a free paid trip to Paris to come up w/ a reason why people shoot digital B&W, I'm afraid I would not be on that jet. Convenience? Cost? Fear of learning developing (which is not THAT hard and is a blast to do). Nothing resolves the quality issue. That digital landscape shot above is nice, but come on, look at the tonal range. It just isn't there, nor are the deep blacks. And you can't print it on photographic fiber paper, and on and on. But, I should give up on pointing this out. So many people on this forum see what they want to see when it comes to this subject, and that is that.
That wonderful Diafine developed shot reminds me of what I get w/ Acufine, Diafines' kissing cousin. Tight grain, and sharp as a tack w/ beautiful blacks. I still prefer D76 for the tones, but Rodinal, D76 and Acufine are my holy trinity of developers, not necessarily in that order.
That wonderful Diafine developed shot reminds me of what I get w/ Acufine, Diafines' kissing cousin. Tight grain, and sharp as a tack w/ beautiful blacks. I still prefer D76 for the tones, but Rodinal, D76 and Acufine are my holy trinity of developers, not necessarily in that order.
cz23
-
The issue may be resolved for you, but every day there are photographers newly wrestling with this issue. It's great to hear of someone's personal discovery, especially expressed so positively.
John
gerafotografija
Member
Hi everyone. I'm not sure who to respond to first, but I guess I'll thank everyone for looking and commenting, and especially mfogiel for the Diafine developing tip.
Maybe I should clarify that I'm not getting rid of my digital cameras, and I'm not saying I'm unsatisfied with all the image captures I get with them. So, yes, I came across with a little too much newbie enthusiasm, but it was well intentioned.
What I found most interesting was that as far as ease of use goes, I was surprised that a manual focussing rangefinder camera loaded with a classic film utilized in manual exposure mode was really easy to get used to, and the images from day 1 were pretty much good to go without any more effort than with the latest in camera technology. Pure IQ comparisons may be a lost cause, but i previously thought that the the simple snapshot taking process had improved more than this over the last, what 80 years or so?
It seems I may have been wrong, but I also assumed that the general consensus on the forum here was that basic manual rangefinders are not anachronisms, they actually work extremely well.
Since the only readily available digital rangefinders are pretty much unattainable to most people because of price issues, the film vs. digital thing probably got a little more emphasis than I intended. Yes, i probably would like an M or ME, but it ain't happening anytime soon.
Anyway, thanks and happy shooting!
Maybe I should clarify that I'm not getting rid of my digital cameras, and I'm not saying I'm unsatisfied with all the image captures I get with them. So, yes, I came across with a little too much newbie enthusiasm, but it was well intentioned.
What I found most interesting was that as far as ease of use goes, I was surprised that a manual focussing rangefinder camera loaded with a classic film utilized in manual exposure mode was really easy to get used to, and the images from day 1 were pretty much good to go without any more effort than with the latest in camera technology. Pure IQ comparisons may be a lost cause, but i previously thought that the the simple snapshot taking process had improved more than this over the last, what 80 years or so?
It seems I may have been wrong, but I also assumed that the general consensus on the forum here was that basic manual rangefinders are not anachronisms, they actually work extremely well.
Since the only readily available digital rangefinders are pretty much unattainable to most people because of price issues, the film vs. digital thing probably got a little more emphasis than I intended. Yes, i probably would like an M or ME, but it ain't happening anytime soon.
Anyway, thanks and happy shooting!
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
You're assumptions about digital B&W are laughable. Also, some of what you believe about printing B&W files is outdated.
This is a quote from you, "So many people on this forum see what they want to see when it comes to this subject, and that is that." Perhaps this is a two way street?