igmotita23
Member
Hi,
The new Leica M, can take pictures with an ISO as
high as 6400. On the other hand, Ilford manufactures
a film, Delta 3200, that can be pushed to ISO 6400.
This film, can be developed with Rodinal for a fine
grain development.
Many galleries, including the afamed Leica Galleries
exhibit prints made with Leicas. My question would
be, which pictures would look less grainier, the ones
taken with film at ISO 6400, or the ones taken with
the digital Leica at same ISO? Lets say, that prints
are not larger than six feet or two meters in all their
dimensions. So, no larger than 20" x 24"
If the pictures taken with film are good enough, there
is no need for me to buy a digital camera within the
next three years. Would you agree or disagree with
this statement?
Thank you in advance, kind regards,
igmotita : ) !!!
The new Leica M, can take pictures with an ISO as
high as 6400. On the other hand, Ilford manufactures
a film, Delta 3200, that can be pushed to ISO 6400.
This film, can be developed with Rodinal for a fine
grain development.
Many galleries, including the afamed Leica Galleries
exhibit prints made with Leicas. My question would
be, which pictures would look less grainier, the ones
taken with film at ISO 6400, or the ones taken with
the digital Leica at same ISO? Lets say, that prints
are not larger than six feet or two meters in all their
dimensions. So, no larger than 20" x 24"
If the pictures taken with film are good enough, there
is no need for me to buy a digital camera within the
next three years. Would you agree or disagree with
this statement?
Thank you in advance, kind regards,
igmotita : ) !!!
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Typical answer will be that it's a Leica, so it will suck at anything over 400. Grain vs noise is the perennial conundrum. I think with careful processing they both can look good, assuming the image will work with grain/noise. A portrait of a young gal? Perhaps no. A shot of a punk band? Sure.
I like grain. I use several slow films processed so that they have more grain then they might otherwise have. I often add noise to a digital file. I'm the moron around here though.
If you want the convenience of digital get the M, if you don;t mind scanning film (I'd rather pull my fingernails out) or don;t mind printing to scan stick with film. Of course if you want color then there is only one choice...
I like grain. I use several slow films processed so that they have more grain then they might otherwise have. I often add noise to a digital file. I'm the moron around here though.
If you want the convenience of digital get the M, if you don;t mind scanning film (I'd rather pull my fingernails out) or don;t mind printing to scan stick with film. Of course if you want color then there is only one choice...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I general digital images are (much) cleaner at the same ISO value than film, even with the M8 and certainly with the M9 and more so the new M, but the pattern of noise aka grain is less pleasing. ( Except for the Monochrom)
theno23
Established
When converted to monochrome, the M9 files are are significantly cleaner than Ilford high sensitivity films of the same sensitivity, to my eyes at least.
With careful exposure and scanning I've had usable results our of ISO1600 B&W film (and even pushed a stop), but the results are typically much better from an M9.
There is something very pleasing about the tonality of low sensitivity B&W film, but I don't miss high sensitivity at all.
I've not tried any high sensitivity colour film, so I don't know how it compares.
- Steve
With careful exposure and scanning I've had usable results our of ISO1600 B&W film (and even pushed a stop), but the results are typically much better from an M9.
There is something very pleasing about the tonality of low sensitivity B&W film, but I don't miss high sensitivity at all.
I've not tried any high sensitivity colour film, so I don't know how it compares.
- Steve
thegman
Veteran
I have shot Delta 3200 once or twice, the grain is enormous in my experience, although I've seen some very nice examples of it, when developed well. I think even what is considered terrible grain in high ISO digital is still less grainy than high ISO film. However, which you prefer to look at is a personal choice.
Whether the resolution of high ISO 35mm film is enough for you, is entirely up to you. Some will say at those enlargement sizes, you should shoot medium format, some will point out that billboards have been made with 35mm cameras. It really is completely up to you, and indeed your customers, if you're looking to sell your work.
Whether the resolution of high ISO 35mm film is enough for you, is entirely up to you. Some will say at those enlargement sizes, you should shoot medium format, some will point out that billboards have been made with 35mm cameras. It really is completely up to you, and indeed your customers, if you're looking to sell your work.
Digital will kill Delta 3200 at 6400. Also, Rodinal accentuates grain in my experience.
Alex Krasotkin
Well-known
I do not like film grain at 3200. since to me it is an overkill, but digital noise is even worse.
Turtle
Veteran
Neither Tmax nor Delta 3200 actually reach a true 3200. They are ISO 800 and 1000 films respectively, which can be pushed, meaning you get loss in the shadows.
My Leica Monochrom is miles ahead in every regard: I get less grain at 1000 with the digital than I do with ISO 124 FP4+ and my 3200 is perhaps cleaner than ISO 400 TriX, but its not the whole story. While the noise of the monochrom is nice (compared to most digital cameras) its still not as nice as true film grain.
I will still reach for film for some purposes. I still find it more beautiful much of the tim, but for raw resolution and low grain at high ISO, film is miles behind digital these days.
My Leica Monochrom is miles ahead in every regard: I get less grain at 1000 with the digital than I do with ISO 124 FP4+ and my 3200 is perhaps cleaner than ISO 400 TriX, but its not the whole story. While the noise of the monochrom is nice (compared to most digital cameras) its still not as nice as true film grain.
I will still reach for film for some purposes. I still find it more beautiful much of the tim, but for raw resolution and low grain at high ISO, film is miles behind digital these days.
thegman
Veteran
I think that needs to be qualified with "35mm film", rather than just film in general. Although I'd probably hazard a guess that an M Monochrom at 3200 would probably out resolve 4x5 film at 3200 ISO...
Turtle
Veteran
The monochrom at 1250 is well ahead of the Mamiya 7 with D3200 rated at 1250, but we'll never know about 5x4 because to my knowledge it has never been made. I suspect it would be close.
kxl
Social Documentary
At or beyond 3200, I would go with certain DSLR's. The only times I've been happy at 3200 or higher ISO's have been with images I've captured with my D700.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I shoot with the MM at 3200 and 6400 all the time. THis is from a corporate event I shot a couple weeks back
6400 ISO
6400 ISO
airfrogusmc
Veteran
heres 3200
crop
crop
aldobonnard
Well-known
Rodinal is not great for grain. It exacerbates it.
Try DDX with Delta 3200, and XTol with Kodak 3200.
I have a digital M and an R-D1. Well, I only use the M7 and ZM.
Why? Digital doesn't give anything close to B&W film. Even when one tries to copy film with all sorts of softwares (which is ridiculous, just use film then).
Try DDX with Delta 3200, and XTol with Kodak 3200.
I have a digital M and an R-D1. Well, I only use the M7 and ZM.
Why? Digital doesn't give anything close to B&W film. Even when one tries to copy film with all sorts of softwares (which is ridiculous, just use film then).
igmotita23
Member
Hi,
Thank you for your messages : ) !!!
When you say, you shot with the "MM" at 3200 and 6400,
what does "MM" mean?
Kind regards,
igmotita : ) !!!
Thank you for your messages : ) !!!
I shoot with the MM at 3200 and 6400 all the time. THis is from a corporate event I shot a couple weeks back
6400 ISO
When you say, you shot with the "MM" at 3200 and 6400,
what does "MM" mean?
Kind regards,
igmotita : ) !!!
Fuchs
Well-known
MM= Leica M Monochrome
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
Don't use Rodinal to develop Delta at 3200. It's not really designed for pushing film speeds, and it is only a fine-grain developer if you shot fine-grained film. Otherwise, it gives you the grain the film has, which in the case of Delta 3200 is pretty big, though it is sharp. Try TMax or Microphen developers for more speed, or D-76/ID-11.
V-12
Well-known
I would like to know whats wrong with grain all of a sudden?
Actually the question was a bit rhetorical. On the one hand you have perhaps a changing aesthetic taste among photographers, where grain was once used for emotional effect and as a tool of the job, not just a necessity of using higher ASA values. Now the option of virtually grain free images offer different considerations. Where everything is rendered as 'normal' and in the same grain free way it may or may not enhance the emotional content in the photograph, but to be sure the photographer has to work harder to make the image stand out.
And on the other hand you have the peer pressure to abandon grain. If susceptible to this pressure your camera will show how far behind your peers you are by being grainier, a public demonstration that you aren't keeping up. You can no longer say 'I used a grainy film, or grainy sensor, because I like grain', because if you mix with the wrong people the subtext will always be 'you are a poor schmuck who can't afford the new D800' or whatever the latest system is that you should invest in.
Grain is a tool just as much as increasing colour saturation or using monochrome is used to refine the effect of the image, so don't throw it out and become conformist, be brave and use it.
Actually the question was a bit rhetorical. On the one hand you have perhaps a changing aesthetic taste among photographers, where grain was once used for emotional effect and as a tool of the job, not just a necessity of using higher ASA values. Now the option of virtually grain free images offer different considerations. Where everything is rendered as 'normal' and in the same grain free way it may or may not enhance the emotional content in the photograph, but to be sure the photographer has to work harder to make the image stand out.
And on the other hand you have the peer pressure to abandon grain. If susceptible to this pressure your camera will show how far behind your peers you are by being grainier, a public demonstration that you aren't keeping up. You can no longer say 'I used a grainy film, or grainy sensor, because I like grain', because if you mix with the wrong people the subtext will always be 'you are a poor schmuck who can't afford the new D800' or whatever the latest system is that you should invest in.
Grain is a tool just as much as increasing colour saturation or using monochrome is used to refine the effect of the image, so don't throw it out and become conformist, be brave and use it.
