My First Digital Photography Impressions

giganova said:
So I jumped into digital photography with a big leap of faith....
By the end of two days, I terribly missed my M4 and realized that I made a mistake bringing this digital monstrosity with me. It will from now on only be used for party and family vacation photos. :p
Click to expand...

Hello giganova, welcome to the world of digital. I Have my Leica M's, R's, Rolleiflex, Hassy, Oly etc etc etc - only two digitals - a Sony a7 and a Fuji XE-1...
I have satisfaction with my Fuji when I have to rush and take photos of my kids doing something wonderful in their daggy clothes, or a group of people meeting and want me to send those pictures to them, or post them on Instagram... My friends love it, love me, I show love to me XE-1 and my 35/1.4 or my Fuji Zoom THEN... But that's it.

Digital has a plastic soul. Technically clinical, boring, superficial, unreal.
Useful, convenient - but my Leica's will consummate the love I have for photography in many more nuances compared to digital.

So, I feel the same as you - you CAN discipline yourself not to look at the digital capture on camera after exposure - I have, but like you frankly say, we still do.

Go back to your Leica's - you are fortunate to do so - enjoy!
 
giganova said:
Its not pointless because I can only post digital files here. :D
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the issue: film has be to be converted to digital, so on the internet film cannot reasonably be compared to digital. However hard one tries film converted to digital is one step removed from its origin.

Make prints from both in their native mediums, then compare.

I use Acros with my X-Pro2, and have found it to be excellent in A4 sized prints when viewed with film and wet print equivalents.

There are plenty of examples on my website but they bear absolutely no comparison to the originals printed at A4.
 
I suspect the reasons why we individually choose photographic mediums depend largely on the reasons why we individually make photographs.

The so-called debate about film and digital mediums in photography devolves into a self-righteous cacophony, like arguments about politics or religion. The one side will not see the logic of the other.

In truth, what seems to be the case is that we are human, and that we have preferences which depend on how we individually see the world and ourselves in it.

I can only speak for myself; but when I am making silver negatives with a camera I feel as though I am taking part in the pictorial tradition in which photography arose. For the amateur the sheer valency of this experience chuckles at the thin and ephemeral products of pixelated shimmer.

Photographs do not have objective values.

I suspect the feelings we have for photographs we make have much to do with how we made them. This is an altogether just and noble, an altogether human quality to be celebrated and admired.
 
giganova said:
I went around the corner to the Capitol and took nearly-identical shots: digital vs film!

One with the Fuji X-T3 and one with a Minox 35 on HP-5. Very light touch in Photoshop for both, no cropping. I shot with the Fuji in color (Provia profile) and converted it to b&w in Photoshop, then another one with the in-camera monochrome profile (Acros profile). The differences are very subtle, so I post the one with the Acros profile here.
Click to expand...

Nice comparison. If you want to get more of that HP-5 look on the Fuji crank up the ISO in Acros. Take the same shot at lots of different speeds to see how the look changes and then run with the one you like. Go very high with the ISO to see what it does.

Shawn
 
giganova said:
I went around the corner to the Capitol and took nearly-identical shots: digital vs film!

One with the Fuji X-T3 and one with a Minox 35 on HP-5. Very light touch in Photoshop for both, no cropping. I shot with the Fuji in color (Provia profile) and converted it to b&w in Photoshop, then another one with the in-camera monochrome profile (Acros profile). The differences are very subtle, so I post the one with the Acros profile here.

Judge for yourself:

Fuji X-T3:
000_FUJI_provia_bw_converted_edit_1000pix.jpg

Minox 35 on HP-5:
000_Minox35_HP5_edit.jpg
Click to expand...

What this comparison confesses more clearly than words is that a digital camera can make a bad photograph look not-so-bad, and that the film does not lie about the light and how one has decided to expose it. (edit: I say this with the full understanding that the poster did not intend to make an especially good photograph, only a photograph for the sake of comparison; this in fact makes my point about the difference in mediums)

A digital camera will do everything it can do to "correct" the mistakes of the sentient human. The film shows you exactly what you did wrong.

The professional photographer welcomes the digital medium for this very reason.
 
Last edited:
B&W digital is more about taste. What one likes the other won't. From the "normal" editing to the "extreme"..(crushed blacks)...depends on the what the shooter likes and the image itself.
 
I'm a film shooter, but my objective has always been to keep grain to a minimum - the less visible, the better. To this end, I almost always shoot slow, fine-grained film and I do it mostly in medium format (with a TLR on a tripod).


(The only case where I liked grain was shooting Agfachrome 1000 for window-light portraiture, years ago.)


The almost "no grain" quality of digital is something I think I would like.


- Murray
 
michaelwj said:
This was the one I was thinking about. Beautiful. I wish I could do that with any camera.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2876853&postcount=2471
Click to expand...




You probably could, it just takes practice. Some cameras do seem to produce files that convert to BW easier, though. The old Kodak DCS 14n, a 14mp camera that was one of the first fullframe digital bodies (it was based on a Nikon camera and took Nikon lenses), was one of the best for that in my opinion. It actually produced incredible color that no other digital I have owned could match.


It is the camera I used for all of the examples I posted earlier in this thread.


I made a couple of tutorials on digital BW conversions.


This one is for Lightroom, using only the tools built in to LR. No plugins: https://youtu.be/_jdMCqJdC2E


This one is for using the Nik B&W plugin. This is easier to get good results with, if you have the Nik plugins.
https://youtu.be/xvnkwa9Zwjw
 
Good thread. Some wise words here. I liked the digital of the Capitol too.

For some, the look of the photograph is so much what is desired. I really loved the output of my iPhone 3GS: it had character. I lost it and replaced it with the 4, which had a better camera, and the magic was gone.

The emotion comes through more easily with black and white film photography, but it can be captured with digital too.

My first serious digital was a Coolpix for recording events with the children. Then the X100 in 2011 whose straight out of camera colour JPEGs have always been enough for me. The M9-P output is special, and the Monochrom a marvel. I have tried to exploit the properties of those cameras and not emulate film at all. The black and white jpegs straight out of the M9 are pretty good too. I haven't really explored the Fuji Acros setting in the X100 but now I will.

Giganova: stick with it. And your M4.
 
shawn said:
The x100 doesn't have the Acros setting. That is only in the 24 megapixel Fuji's like the x100f.

Shawn
Click to expand...

What a shame. I remember it has Provia and Astia settings. I just looked now. It is simply Monochrome and various filters. Maybe it is Acros, but not designated so: they had to choose something for their Monochrome emulation......
 
Thanks Chris for your always interesting tutorials.

In my opinion about B&W we should consider the time required to have a good B&W print in the darkroom. I sometimes could get one good print in one evening (and many prints in the bin in the same time!).

It's the same with digital: it is necessary to make an i"investment" in time and to process file in order to have a good print.

Unfortunately digital has given to many photographers the idea that it is possible to have everything soon without too much effort. LR, Nick plugs-in or others similar softwares are only tool, they can only give a starting point to properly "develop" a file.

Many times I hear photographers asking what conversion method do they photographer use in the assumption that the "trick" is there. But it is not: it is in the post processing work before and/or after the conversion to B&W. And here a previous darkroom experience is a great help.

Just my idea but worthwhile to think about...

robert, who photographs both, digital and film :)
 
Richard G said:
What a shame. I remember it has Provia and Astia settings. I just looked now. It is simply Monochrome and various filters. Maybe it is Acros, but not designated so: they had to choose something for their Monochrome emulation......
Click to expand...

It is not Acros. When they released it Fuji explained why they couldn't bring that to the earlier generations of cameras as they needed the higher resolution sensor and more powerful processor that went along with it. I had an X Pro 2 and Acros and Monochrome had different looks to them.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/the-newest-film-simulation-acros/

Shawn
 
Looking back at the things the OP likes about digital and film photography, I'm thinking a Contax G2 would be a nice middle-ground between the two. AF, light weight, auto-exposure and outstanding lenses, with the image qualities of film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom