Al Kaplan
Veteran
Ever try shooting part of a roll, rewinding with the leader hanging out, and finishing the roll later? Another way to handle it is cut the exposed film from the rest of the roll and trim a new leader. If you have an Olympus Pen those "short rolls" are really great! I wish that Ilford hadn't given up on the 72 exposure rolls.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Thanks Mitch. I rarely use my GRD II at 1600. But it is more than usable at ISO 800, and you can make good prints from the files. Here is an example taken at ISO 800.
R
ruben
Guest
dear friend,
At these small picture sizes the only thing clearly stated is the progressive grain form 400 to 1600, and the basic fact that your 400 image apparently doesn't manage to match the Neopan 1600 - although the comparizon becomes slightly annoyed by the fact that the Neopan is a a very close focus image with many out of focus areas.
All in all, the examples brought by Vladimir, from the website of Cristian Sorega are much more creditable for having shown bigger enlargements than you.
Nevertheless if you could cropp the eyes of the girl of the 1600 and display them by the size of your displayed images- then perhaps I could learn something usefull. I would be fair to make the same proportional crop to the Neopan image and try to show it in a landscape way, for the sake of the eye.
Cheers,
Ruben
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
ferider
Veteran
Ruben, the one thing you do not mention is image stabilization. Makes 400ASA quite usable when it's dark. Not that I use it (I love Neopan 1600), but my wife does with her Lumix.
Roland.
Roland.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi Roland,
I do agree with you, but imagine you and your wife at an open shade (shadow) during sunset time. Given that we agree to concede IS two stops, in case your wife is shooting at iso 400, f/2.8 and 1/10 - you may be shooting at iso 1600, at 1/40 - so far a still stand. But if your lighting situation dims and you go for an f/2 at 1/25, your wife will be compelled to switch to iso 800.
Nevertheless I went here a bit childish, IS is great of course.
Cheers,
Ruben
I do agree with you, but imagine you and your wife at an open shade (shadow) during sunset time. Given that we agree to concede IS two stops, in case your wife is shooting at iso 400, f/2.8 and 1/10 - you may be shooting at iso 1600, at 1/40 - so far a still stand. But if your lighting situation dims and you go for an f/2 at 1/25, your wife will be compelled to switch to iso 800.
Nevertheless I went here a bit childish, IS is great of course.
Cheers,
Ruben
gyuribacsi
Established
Hello Ruben, excuse me disturbing your party.
But cameras - for film or a digital one - are only the tools, to get picures.
I never go out for shooting without thinking about the location, the day- or night-time and what gear would be the best tool. I love Neopan 1600 at ISO 800 for dim conditions. even at the full box-speed of ISO 1600 this film give me very pleasant results.
But I also have a compact digital and use it as a diary or note-book. Well, I have to stop at ISO 800, beyond this speed the noise becomes very notable. But I only use these pictures as sketches for serious shots with film later.
Its a pity, but there is no general purpose camera (wether for film nor digital) and no general pupose film (or sensor) in a easily portable size.
Regards
George
P.S: I love your strudel-saga and the mouthwatering pictures.
But cameras - for film or a digital one - are only the tools, to get picures.
I never go out for shooting without thinking about the location, the day- or night-time and what gear would be the best tool. I love Neopan 1600 at ISO 800 for dim conditions. even at the full box-speed of ISO 1600 this film give me very pleasant results.
But I also have a compact digital and use it as a diary or note-book. Well, I have to stop at ISO 800, beyond this speed the noise becomes very notable. But I only use these pictures as sketches for serious shots with film later.
Its a pity, but there is no general purpose camera (wether for film nor digital) and no general pupose film (or sensor) in a easily portable size.
Regards
George
P.S: I love your strudel-saga and the mouthwatering pictures.
Gumby
Veteran
Same is true about monopods and tripods... they are great and can help (delay) the need to go to the faster ISOs and slower shutter speeds.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi George,
Not only you don't disturb, but only enhance, like every single participant regardless of his opinions. On the contrary divergence of opinions only enrich us. This thread has not been trolled at all and we all can be proud for this.
Your post has touched a bit my feelings, because in some sense I am angry. After several months of digital only shooting, in which my mind has been blown up by the extraordinary new possibilities for my photography - I want more and fall straight with my nose to the floor.
Having to return now to film, weight, several lenses, manual this and manual there, and at the same time patially leave all the free digital disneyland - well I am not doing it with pleasure.
I am aware that I am writing this at RFF, but I must be sincere.
Nevertheless, who knows ? I never tryed the combination of both type of cameras and perhaps nice surprises are waiting there.
Cheers,
Ruben
Not only you don't disturb, but only enhance, like every single participant regardless of his opinions. On the contrary divergence of opinions only enrich us. This thread has not been trolled at all and we all can be proud for this.
Your post has touched a bit my feelings, because in some sense I am angry. After several months of digital only shooting, in which my mind has been blown up by the extraordinary new possibilities for my photography - I want more and fall straight with my nose to the floor.
Having to return now to film, weight, several lenses, manual this and manual there, and at the same time patially leave all the free digital disneyland - well I am not doing it with pleasure.
I am aware that I am writing this at RFF, but I must be sincere.
Nevertheless, who knows ? I never tryed the combination of both type of cameras and perhaps nice surprises are waiting there.
Cheers,
Ruben
R
ruben
Guest
Obviously this is true, I missed the thought about it, and for sure an ultra light digital compact will require a very light tripod. Highly interesting stuff to consider.
Of course deploying a tripod is not that fast issue for street photography, but combining digital ISO 400, plus Image Stabilization, plus an already extended monopod, this may be an idea to consider.
Cheers
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
btgc
Veteran
Tripod is good unless one isn't handhelding camera or even releasing on move. Also, if speed is issue, one has to be careful while adjusting (exposure or framing) camera while it's on small tripod - they fall easily.
I vote for in-body stabilizer and meterless (read - smoothly releasing) RF's for ability to use slower times. As usually, each has it's own cake....oops, schtrudel.
I vote for in-body stabilizer and meterless (read - smoothly releasing) RF's for ability to use slower times. As usually, each has it's own cake....oops, schtrudel.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Ruben,
If your end game is scanning negatives, a GRDII is equal to Neopan 1600. Neopan is not really a 1600 speed film, its grain really comes through in scans, and shooting the Ricoh at 800 and simply adjusting afterwards gets you to the same place. Take a look at Mitch Alland's work.
BTW, are you really traveling light?
Dante
If your end game is scanning negatives, a GRDII is equal to Neopan 1600. Neopan is not really a 1600 speed film, its grain really comes through in scans, and shooting the Ricoh at 800 and simply adjusting afterwards gets you to the same place. Take a look at Mitch Alland's work.
BTW, are you really traveling light?
Dante
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Sorry. Missed the fact that Mitch had already jumped in. That's what you get for starting a post, going out for a few hours, coming back, and hitting post.
__--
Well-known
Dante:
Thanks. I wish the the GRD2 portraits of the women above were of wet fish close up so that they would glisten more and be more comparable to the Neopan 1600 shot above, which was shot either at ISO 1000 or 1600. But I just remember two fish shots from this series shot mainly at Tsukiji in Tokyo, shot with the the GRD (not the GRD2) at ISO 800. The GRD2 RAW files are basically one stop "better" than those of the original GRD, so the ISO 800 of the former is similar to ISO 400 the latter.
—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria© Book Project
Thanks. I wish the the GRD2 portraits of the women above were of wet fish close up so that they would glisten more and be more comparable to the Neopan 1600 shot above, which was shot either at ISO 1000 or 1600. But I just remember two fish shots from this series shot mainly at Tsukiji in Tokyo, shot with the the GRD (not the GRD2) at ISO 800. The GRD2 RAW files are basically one stop "better" than those of the original GRD, so the ISO 800 of the former is similar to ISO 400 the latter.
—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria© Book Project
Last edited:
R
ruben
Guest
Sorry again and again, but THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT FILM VS DIGITAL SINCE AS I STATED TWO TIMES BEFORE THIS ONE, DSLRS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE CRITICISM I MADE EXCLUSIVELY ON THE TOP COMPACTS
DSLRS AND TOP COMPACTS, TWO DIFFERENT MIGHTS, PERFORMANCES, ETC.
Secondly for the low iso settings, I strongly advocate the digital compacts. Not only advocate but use one instead of a camera film. Not only use one, but dreamed to be done with film, untill I saw my digital results at high ISO levels. Then I wanted to upgrade to a top class compact to solve the issue, only to find that this specific issue has not yet satisfactory solution within the manufactured top compacts.
Should I repeat it next time in bold ?
Yet Malland, you have every right to understand things as you like, argue upon such level of understanding, and I personally don't need the rescue of adverbs about the thread, or about RFF, to debate with you, a curious paradox taking into account that you and not me are the big shot between us.
Having published or exhibited doesn't concede anyone extra privileges to nickname here or elsewhere, specially here at RFF. So if I just may get again the feeling you are insulting RFF, I will drink a coffee and go to sleep.
"Sillier thread than usual" ? Who exactly do you think you are ?
Cheers,
Ruben
DSLRS AND TOP COMPACTS, TWO DIFFERENT MIGHTS, PERFORMANCES, ETC.
Secondly for the low iso settings, I strongly advocate the digital compacts. Not only advocate but use one instead of a camera film. Not only use one, but dreamed to be done with film, untill I saw my digital results at high ISO levels. Then I wanted to upgrade to a top class compact to solve the issue, only to find that this specific issue has not yet satisfactory solution within the manufactured top compacts.
Should I repeat it next time in bold ?
Yet Malland, you have every right to understand things as you like, argue upon such level of understanding, and I personally don't need the rescue of adverbs about the thread, or about RFF, to debate with you, a curious paradox taking into account that you and not me are the big shot between us.
Having published or exhibited doesn't concede anyone extra privileges to nickname here or elsewhere, specially here at RFF. So if I just may get again the feeling you are insulting RFF, I will drink a coffee and go to sleep.
"Sillier thread than usual" ? Who exactly do you think you are ?
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
__--
Well-known
Ruben, I just wrote a long, reasoned reply to your penultimate post but lost it when trying to post. I'll try to restate in a more telegraphic fashion the points I wanted to write:
1. I'm not into testing but am only interested in what I can do with a particular camera, but I admire the testing and reports done by Sean Reid, which I find extremely useful for helping me to chose cameras or lenses.
2. I like the Neopan fish as well, but they obviosly are not comparable the GRD2 fish because they were shot close up with a DR Summicron, a lens that I like a lot — and I like Neopan 1600.
3. You are absolutely right about the ISO 400 portrait, but that is my doing rather than that of the camera because I often, but not always, like an accentuated contrast and somewhat narrow midtones, which reflects my "dark vision."
4. I confess that I have little patience or interest in the type of "internet reviewers" that you are referring to. If they have their way the "35mm aesthetic" would be gone and digital cameras would produce a medium format-type look throughout the whole ISO range — that is not something that I'm after.
5. While I like the GRD2 for it's similarity to the "35mm aesthetic" and for it's huge depth of field, which I like for street photography, the main issue for me is the lack of robustness in the files. An example of what I mean is that, when you dodge a part of a GRD2 file, say a face that came out a bit too dark against a bright background, you immediately get unsightly and "unnatural" noise. For this reason I've been shooting with a Leica M8 since January — and also because I have several M-lenses that I like; but I may still go back to the GRD2 for street photography from time to time.
I must add that I find your personal attack — "who do you think you are" — uncalled for and inappopriate. All I wrote is that I find this discussion silly, which was not a personal attack on you.
—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria© Book Project
1. I'm not into testing but am only interested in what I can do with a particular camera, but I admire the testing and reports done by Sean Reid, which I find extremely useful for helping me to chose cameras or lenses.
2. I like the Neopan fish as well, but they obviosly are not comparable the GRD2 fish because they were shot close up with a DR Summicron, a lens that I like a lot — and I like Neopan 1600.
3. You are absolutely right about the ISO 400 portrait, but that is my doing rather than that of the camera because I often, but not always, like an accentuated contrast and somewhat narrow midtones, which reflects my "dark vision."
4. I confess that I have little patience or interest in the type of "internet reviewers" that you are referring to. If they have their way the "35mm aesthetic" would be gone and digital cameras would produce a medium format-type look throughout the whole ISO range — that is not something that I'm after.
5. While I like the GRD2 for it's similarity to the "35mm aesthetic" and for it's huge depth of field, which I like for street photography, the main issue for me is the lack of robustness in the files. An example of what I mean is that, when you dodge a part of a GRD2 file, say a face that came out a bit too dark against a bright background, you immediately get unsightly and "unnatural" noise. For this reason I've been shooting with a Leica M8 since January — and also because I have several M-lenses that I like; but I may still go back to the GRD2 for street photography from time to time.
I must add that I find your personal attack — "who do you think you are" — uncalled for and inappopriate. All I wrote is that I find this discussion silly, which was not a personal attack on you.
—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria© Book Project
Last edited:
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Hi Ruben:
I was saying that once you get through the scanning process, the results are similar. That's been my experience, and it's now been illustrated by scores and scores of pictures on this thread. Darkroom prints exhibit somewhat less grain, but then again, they are usually pretty low magnification.
(By the way, Neopan 1600 is something more like a 400-speed film pushed (underexposed and overdeveloped) 2 stops - and this is very comparable to underexposing a GRDII and then reprocessing the RAW file brighter).
Consider that "resolution" is a system concept. I think you have been concentrating on the aspect of grain or tonality (topics which people have beaten into the ground on this thread), but the issue of actual resolution is an issue that goes from lens to film to scan.
Soviet rangefinder and SLR lenses (by modern standards) have shockingly low resolution, even going by the factories' published numbers. So a DR Summicron is not representative of the average picture you would get with Soviet glass and Neopan in any event. I would put out there that independently of anything else discussed so far, the GRDII should at least equal the actual resolving power the 35mm set you describe.
My suggestion would be to use a compact with RAW for color, ditch the 35mm for b/w and use a compact 645 or 6x6 with Tri-X pushed to 1600. A Fuji GS645 folder would be the smallest modern one.
Dante
I was saying that once you get through the scanning process, the results are similar. That's been my experience, and it's now been illustrated by scores and scores of pictures on this thread. Darkroom prints exhibit somewhat less grain, but then again, they are usually pretty low magnification.
(By the way, Neopan 1600 is something more like a 400-speed film pushed (underexposed and overdeveloped) 2 stops - and this is very comparable to underexposing a GRDII and then reprocessing the RAW file brighter).
Consider that "resolution" is a system concept. I think you have been concentrating on the aspect of grain or tonality (topics which people have beaten into the ground on this thread), but the issue of actual resolution is an issue that goes from lens to film to scan.
Soviet rangefinder and SLR lenses (by modern standards) have shockingly low resolution, even going by the factories' published numbers. So a DR Summicron is not representative of the average picture you would get with Soviet glass and Neopan in any event. I would put out there that independently of anything else discussed so far, the GRDII should at least equal the actual resolving power the 35mm set you describe.
My suggestion would be to use a compact with RAW for color, ditch the 35mm for b/w and use a compact 645 or 6x6 with Tri-X pushed to 1600. A Fuji GS645 folder would be the smallest modern one.
Dante
R
ruben
Guest
Dear malland,
You asked for my "who do...." upon calling this thread sillier than usual, for the second time. By specifying that the target was not me personally, you are implying that it is targeted to RFF, and not improving the situation either.
I am chatting with you now as I not only read your last post but feel the between the lines feeling, which is humble and brings your honour back. There is nothing on Earth or sky that cannot be criticised, including me, who from time to time have found my own behaviour unpropper. You can criticise RFF too, of course, which like me is far from perfect.
But when I am treated with disdain instead of criticism, either by Mr Kovacks, Mr Springer, or be it the next generalisimo, some fuze in my head comes to short circuit, because deep inside I consider all people basically equal, despite status or talent. And for my further "disgrace" I had the opportunity to be besides some true elevated minds, whose gap with the common people only tought them humbliness.
So when a mini or bigi talented folk forwards disdain, I happen to feel hostility.
You are truly excused if you do not want to continue discussing this thread, which is not only technical but highly emotional too. And it drags a lot of efforts for that. You are most kindly invited to return with your opinions next week or next month. As I previously said your input has been remarkable.
========
Now for those still interested in the debate, our friend malland has provided in his latest row, two highly interesting images, that underline several points in my view
You can see that his Neopan shop girl is a much more darker image than his Neopan fishes. Indeed, once you underexpose neopan, or any other film (relatively to the following wet processing) you are going to arrive to a strongly undetailed image. We all know it.
In films, exposure is always the twin soul of processing. Both must sing accordingly. Therefore, we can stay with the Neopan 1600 fishes as the true represantive of Neopan 1600 film.
But this seems not to be the case with the digital compacts at high ISO levels. Here we are going to get disintegrated images by hook or by krook, being the only sanctuary the small size display.
I said that the front line of this battle for a decent image is fought at the ISO 400 grounds. Now some people may actually like this ultragrained look, and for some color images I have discovered it is acceptable for some tastes and very suitable for others. But from my favourable and controversial taste, the problem is that while it may work for a few images it will not for most - therefore I can't prefer it over film, or over a good Dslr.
Out of convenience I may carry daily just my small compact, but it will be irresponsible to go for a special day dedicated to shooting with the small compact only, as it will not guarantee heavy shadows or dark places.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
R
ruben
Guest
Ok, it more or less is the direction. I understand that on the main of this thread, you, malland and me do agree.
Cheers,
Ruben
gyuribacsi
Established
Helle Ruben,
I know Neopan 1600 very well and I can tell you that you will get the same black patches like from a small digital at high ISO. The grey-scale or tonality of this film at high ISO (with appropriate developing) is very short. It is impossible to get the same quality as with a film with 50 ISO box-speed from a fast film like the Neopann 1600. The same situation is with the small digital cameras.
You have to consider the samll sizé of the sensor too. I never would expect digital pictures from such small snapshot cameras in the quality of a full-frame (36x24) film capture.
The Neopan1600 is a very good fast b&w film up to its box-speed but you will never get results which are printable larger than 36x24 cm. BTW, this is the best size for 135-Film for printing. If you want to have pictures printable for larger sizes, use a MF-Camera, a Kiew for example. You see, every camera and evers media hat ist own achilles heel.
Regards
George
I know Neopan 1600 very well and I can tell you that you will get the same black patches like from a small digital at high ISO. The grey-scale or tonality of this film at high ISO (with appropriate developing) is very short. It is impossible to get the same quality as with a film with 50 ISO box-speed from a fast film like the Neopann 1600. The same situation is with the small digital cameras.
You have to consider the samll sizé of the sensor too. I never would expect digital pictures from such small snapshot cameras in the quality of a full-frame (36x24) film capture.
The Neopan1600 is a very good fast b&w film up to its box-speed but you will never get results which are printable larger than 36x24 cm. BTW, this is the best size for 135-Film for printing. If you want to have pictures printable for larger sizes, use a MF-Camera, a Kiew for example. You see, every camera and evers media hat ist own achilles heel.
Regards
George
Gumby
Veteran
I think you've hit the hammer with the nail, Ruben!
This statement (quoted above) is probably the "bottom line" to your dilemna. Compact digital camera technology just doesn't appear to be advanced enough for your desired application and quality criteria at this time. All one can do now is wait, wait, wait... or change the requirements/need... or find another technological solution.