Taking pictures between ISO 3200 and 6400

[airfrogusmc]

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 : ) !!!

Sorry Leica M Monochrom.

 

[airfrogusmc]

You should not push Ilford 3200 in Rodinal. You should use Microphen or DDX& You'll be glad with results

Well ya can if you really want to show the grain. Rodinal is an acutance developer. I love it with 120 T-Max 400 at 1:50 because of the detail in the toe. But even with 35mm t-max 400 or tri-x the grain is pretty pronounced.

 

[MirekE]

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"


igmotita : ) !!!

I picked one of the available samples that was shot at ISO 5000 from the M last week and printed it at 13x19". I abandoned film years ago, but the noise in the print was similar to grain from a well developed Tri-X or Delta 400. This was just one shot, one print, not a serious test.

I did not use Rodinal for decades, but I don't think it is a good choice here. Pushing benefits from a developer that is fine grain and at the same time strong. Rodinal is either fine grain (when diluted) or energetic (when concentrated), but not both at the same time. Ilford DD-X is probably the best developer for the Delta.

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?

Any APS or FF camera today (Leica M9 less than others) will have significantly better noise/grain than 35mm film of the same speed and will therefore do better in extremely low light, if that's your concern. The biggest advantage of digital photography in my opinion though is that it gives you flexibility. You can check your capture immediately and reshoot if you see any technical issues. You can shoot every frame at different ISO. And you can "develop" every frame individually.

If you are considering switching from film to digital, camera body is not the only thing you will need. You will need a printer that print high quality black and white, a computer and software and if you are not familiar with digital processing yet, there will be some learning curve and possibly frustration.

 

[MirekE]

heres 3200

How is the MM doing in incandescent light at the same speed, is it also as good?

 

[jaapv]

Excellent. The tonal response is different though.

 

[douglasf13]

I push the M9 to ISO 5000+ all of the time. While there is certainly noticeable noise, the files still retain quite a bit of detail, and I often get results that work for me.

 

[airfrogusmc]

How is the MM doing in incandescent light at the same speed, is it also as good?

Absolutely its great at 6400.

I have a lot of work in this show that was shot at 3200 and 6400. Come see the prints for yourself. Shot in all kinds of different light.


OK everyone heres the info on my show.

Calumet Photographic Chicago (Cherry St) in the gallery.

Fleeting Moments

Opening April 4th from 6:00-8:00.

 

[Lachie C]

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...

Poppycock. I shoot 800-2000 all the time on the M9; with some cursory RAW processing the results are entirely acceptable. It does get rather tiring hearing people lament the poor performance of the M9 at high-ISO.