RD1s Announced

I don't have an M6 nor a Summicron. I am familiar with Tri-x and scanners. Scanning can lead to excellent results. Scanning is also very tedious and time-consuming. Let's give you a tie on your play. But let's up the ante. Is an R-D1 better than a 35mm camera and NPZ pushed 1 stop? And I would say the answer is yes.
 
Do we know for sure that the R-D1 will cost 2000 instead of 3000? If it'll be 2000 I might be interested in buying one for sure. I would use it with my 35 'cron..
 
People are throwing the 2000 number around a lot. But what I heard first was 2000 Euros. Which is more like $2400 USD.
 
nrb said:
Is the R-D1s better than an M6, a 35 Summicron, TriX and a good scanner?
Click to expand...
I don't have any of these except a reasonably decent scanner, but I'd guess, based on experience with a 6MP SLR, that the digital would give slightly cleaner images. Of course, if you want a bit of grain, then you might think the Tri-X is "better". None of this matters unless you make enlargments bigger than about 10x12", maybe a bit more.
 
nrb said:
Is the R-D1s better than an M6, a 35 Summicron, TriX and a good scanner?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'll tell you why in two words: grain aliasing.

Believe me, I've been there, done that, tried every trick in the book, and Tri-X put through a scanner gives you substantially exaggerated grain vs. what you get with an R-D 1. The R-D 1 results look substantially smoother at EI 1600 than scanned Tri-X at 400.

And this completely leaves out the huge time investment required to scan 35mm b&w negatives, then clean them up of dust spots and drying marks. (Remember that all the tricky "digital ICE" auto-repair tricks work ONLY on chromogenic films, not conventional films such as Tri-X.)

Now, if you were comparing R-D 1 (S or no S) b&w results vs. prints from Tri-X shot in a good RF camera and processed/printed via the conventional wet process, then you'd be asking a different question. I still feel that for ultimate b&w print quality, especially at large sizes, film still has the edge over digital capture. But you have to go all the way with it -- do the whole wet-process develop and print cycle.

Meanwhile, if you use a chromogenic b&w film and scan the result, then yes, I'd agree that you can get results about as good as those you'd get with a digital capture. The "look" is a bit different, but I'll argue that both are comparable in terms of final print quality (assuming you've got a good printer for your digital shots.) But you're still going to invest a lot more total time scanninig and touching up chromogenic film, even though scanners' digital auto-repair routines will still work with it.

Overall, my take is still that the traditional wet process has the edge for ultimate-quality b&w. But the all-digital route with an R-D 1 yields results that are very close, at least up to 9x12" or so print sizes, with much greater productivity if you need to use a digital workflow.
 
jlw: Good info, thanks for that. It's interesting that GeneW's results with scanned Neopan look very good on the monitor. I know it's not the same question being asked here (web viewing verus final print), but I'm almost persuaded to give the Fuji a good workout.

Earl
 
If RD-1s cost is 2000 euros you will easily find some near mint RD-1 at 1500 euros.
On Ebay I didn't see noone able to get more than 1600€ lately. But when new model will be in shops expect to pay it even less. However same shop who asked 3000euros are now asking less than 2500 and seem afraid to loose money on it.
 
ezio, there are not so many R-D1 out there for anybody to "easily find" near mind RD-1 at any condition. and the RD-1s does not really call for an upgrade for owners, but is really craving for a second body. anyway, good luck in finding one.
 
I think I read somewhere that the new R-D1s firmware for R-D1 would be available tomorrow. I don't remember where I read it though..
 
Trius said:
jlw: Good info, thanks for that. It's interesting that GeneW's results with scanned Neopan look very good on the monitor. I know it's not the same question being asked here (web viewing verus final print), but I'm almost persuaded to give the Fuji a good workout.

Earl
Click to expand...

You're welcome. Of course, if you're talking about viewing results on a monitor rather than making large prints, you've got a lot more latitude. A monitor has such low resolution (compared to a print) that you can get away with almost anything!

For example, even though scanning high-speed b&w film will yield "grain aliasing," much of that effect will go away when you downsample the scan to a size appropriate for a monitor, and you'll get nice, smooth-looking results.

This can be good news for people who now view their photos primarily on a computer or TV set (and that applies to HD as well.) Your viewing resolution is low enough that you can shoot with almost anything and get beautiful-looking results. A sharp, well-exposed picture made with even a 4mp digicam will look great; a downsampled scan from even T-Max P3200 will look great; etc.
 
marbrink said:
I think I read somewhere that the new R-D1s firmware for R-D1 would be available tomorrow. I don't remember where I read it though..
Click to expand...

Anyone else has seen this and remebers where?
 
jlw said:
Yes, and I'll tell you why in two words: grain aliasing.

Believe me, I've been there, done that, tried every trick in the book, and Tri-X put through a scanner gives you substantially exaggerated grain vs. what you get with an R-D 1. The R-D 1 results look substantially smoother at EI 1600 than scanned Tri-X at 400.
Click to expand...
This assumes you don't want grain. But if you do want film texture, Tri-X is a nice choice. And I think if you shoot film, you do want texture -- I know I do -- and the choice of film is made to suit the enlargement and appearance of texture at that size. Personally, I want film texture to be on the same scale as the paper texture, to make them "connect". Otherwise the paper's role rarely exceeds that of merely being a canvas for the image, separate from the image itself, and always inviting the viewer to speculate about how the image came to be on it (the process). When they're connected, the process disappears. I find this very difficult to accomplish digitally, since the image is synthetic (it's not an enlargement of another object, be it film, polaroid print, silk painting or whatever). A lack of texture just emphasizes its 'unrealness', it's too perfect to be real. I guess what I'm saying with this longwinded comment is to exemplify that lack of texture can be a problem, depending on what you wish to accomplish. (Another analogy is furniture making, if the wood textures and patterns mismatch, or you see joints, you start wondering how a piece was made, who made it, and whether the result is intentional and if so why -- decomposing one piece into many, illuminating process, and reducing its presence.)

One of the things I do like about by DMR is the texture at ISO 400, it's the first digital SLR I've used (and I've used a fair number) that has a pleasing texture. I'm still at odds though whether it's actually texture or not since the image is not a real object, and making use of this appearance in print could in my mind be considered deceptive. (Or at least cheap, like say oak laminate particle board.)

Anyway, I'm not saying digital sucks. For many uses its differences from film are a benefit. I'm looking to buy an RD-1 (or RD-1s), that's why I'm browsing this group. :)
 
Jan,

What I believe jlw means by grain aliasing isn't the graininess of the film itself. It's a side effect of the scanning. Basically, sometimes the sampling of pixels interacts with the grains' "texture" (to borrow your nice word) and produces some ugly results.

I love Tri-X images that are done the chemical way, and have had similar problems to jlw when scanning it.

Norman Koren talks about it a little on his site here: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF8.html

Unfortunately, most of the sites I've seen talk about it are talking about color film. Their examples of the problem are imo mild compared to what happens with silver-based B&W films. That's one reason I often shoot a chromogenic B&W when I want to scan it. Still makes me feel guilty, though :)

Cheers,
Oliver
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom