OMD verses Pentax 67ii

Thanks, Keith, for doing this.

Like some others, I like both shots but for different reasons. Regardless, and recognizing that we're all just looking at jpegs on computer monitors, it's nice to see the Oly do so well.

-Randy
 
I also adjusted Curves in CS4...from the E-M5 sample that Keith posted.
The E-M5 does a good job... The Pentax though has a different character being film..
I had done this w/o reading every post...:bang:, I see Keith DID have an adjusted Oly Image.... I shall delete it if you want...

Many times with most digital, adjusting curves can add a lot of pop to a photo, that might come naturally to a film image

P705r.jpg
P705r.jpg



Pentax 67 from First Post
U5265I1342096535.SEQ.0.jpg
 
The E-M5 documents a stand of trees; the Pentax creates a picture with implicit tension and emotion. Partly, but not entirely, due to the overexposure and heightened contrast. To me it is, so to speak, fraught with possibility. The E-M5 shot rests evenly on the eyes and goes on its way.

That's the problem, for me, with M4/3 shots. They document, to varying degrees of vividness and clarity. It takes a lot of work to make pictures out of them.
 
tomtofa said:
The E-M5 documents a stand of trees; the Pentax creates a picture with implicit tension and emotion. Partly, but not entirely, due to the overexposure and heightened contrast. To me it is, so to speak, fraught with possibility. The E-M5 shot rests evenly on the eyes and goes on its way.

That's the problem, for me, with M4/3 shots. They document, to varying degrees of vividness and clarity. It takes a lot of work to make pictures out of them.
Click to expand...

I Disagree, as one who Scans Negatives and Edits Digital.
It takes about the same time to edit a film scan or a digital camera image. And the same tools are used in Photoshop, or whatever software you use.

If you have a good exposure to begin with, the editing is very similar.
Curves, Contrast, Sharping. done... the most basic adjustments.
 
Thanks for the comparison. This is an interesting study in the image characteristics and emotional impact. The differences in image characteristics I see:
- Shallower DOF in the 6x7 image
- Different exposure gives different tonality in the foreground birches
- The figure in the 6x7 image
- Finally 6x7 film vs. MFT digital

My take: The images are quite different in emotional impact, but I think this is due to the first three image characteristics. Other than shallow DOF, I can't see anything that screams "MF" here; maybe I could in a large print and maybe that would affect the emotional impact. I'll bet the foreground birches would be very special in a large print.

One thing is obvious: It will be hard to match the shallow DOF we find in a MF shot made at f/2.4 or f/2.8.
 
DNG said:
I Disagree, as one who Scans Negatives and Edits Digital.
It takes about the same time to edit a film scan or a digital camera image. And the same tools are used in Photoshop, or whatever software you use.

If you have a good exposure to begin with, the editing is very similar.
Curves, Contrast, Sharping. done... the most basic adjustments.
Click to expand...

I guess I meant that, to my taste, M4/3 shots have to be manipulated into exhibiting something they don't natively have to be interesting - as you've tried to do with your curve manipulation of the Oly shot.

In this case, I still much prefer the Pentax.
 
tomtofa said:
I guess I meant that, to my taste, M4/3 shots have to be manipulated into exhibiting something they don't natively have to be interesting - as you've tried to do with your curve manipulation of the Oly shot.

In this case, I still much prefer the Pentax.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. Film, properly exposed does not need as much adjustment. The contrast is better and tonal range is better for wet printing, but, for scanning, a lightly soft negative will provide a better shadow tonal range in a digital form.

All, in all, the MF does have a longer Dynamic Range, The Oly has a 13.4DR or so at ISO 200, which is damn good for a m4/3 sensor. Even compared to a FF sensor. The MF is hard to tell any more improvement viewing on a monitor, other than DR or contrast. The finer detail would be interesting to see. The E-M5 can resolve 2300+ LPM in the center. And, the lenses have a much smaller Circle-Of-Confusion. (0.015 = m4/3, 0.060 for 6x7), that may have a play in large prints also.
 
I think one of the major differences is the way the Pentax isolates virtually everything from the two foreground hoop pines with the minimal depth of field but it still allows you to know exactly what's there behind those trees. The OMD image, as pointed out, gives quite a lot of detail of the rear trees and it can take your eyes away from two at front very easily!

I first saw this hoop pine 'scenario' a couple of months ago in a commercial plantation of these beautiful trees two and a half hours north of Brisbane ... but with no camera! From the moment I saw it I always wanted to get back there with the Pentax and 105mm f2.4 Takumar.
 
BW film shouldn't "blow" highlights period. Even with PanF (instead of TMax), you should have a half-dozen stops of highlight range, recoverable on a scanner. This probably has more to do with your scanner settings than anything -- in other words, your scanner (a digital sensor with limited highlight range) is blowing the highlights on your film.
 
NLewis said:
BW film shouldn't "blow" highlights period. Even with PanF (instead of TMax), you should have a half-dozen stops of highlight range, recoverable on a scanner. This probably has more to do with your scanner settings than anything -- in other words, your scanner (a digital sensor with limited highlight range) is blowing the highlights on your film.
Click to expand...

Agree.
A 16x20 print on Warmtone paper would be magic to behold!

The OM-D shot is very good.
But it's not in the same league as a 6x7 negative in terms of impact.
 
shadowfox said:
Agree.
A 16x20 print on Warmtone paper would be magic to behold!

The OM-D shot is very good.
But it's not in the same league as a 6x7 negative in terms of impact.
Click to expand...


Photos like this make me wish I had a proper darkroom and the skills to use it ... but I'm a bit transient at the moment.

One day!
 
I like the tonal separation between the foreground shrub's leaves and the undergrowth on the bottom, MF, image, whereas with the OM-D image the highlights don't separate as much.

I think what throws me off about both images is the subject matter and tonal range suggests a setting ideal for a large format camera in the classic Ansel Adams style of everything in focus, whereas the narrow DOF clashes a bit witih one's expectations. I also find the two foreground trees disconcerting because, though sharply focused, they are on opposite sides of the frame, with the defocused background gap in the middle.

Still, thanks for the comparison, I didn't mean to go all critique on you. ;)

~Joe
 
Not having read all the comments, I would say let's see if the spot meter is "spot on" (sorry) first. If so, consider metering technique, EI and development time. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom