Tri X against Monochrom

i have just did that last week with MM and M5
both with old cron 35 ver 1
but with fuji neopan 400

having hard times to enjoy the MM results

maybe because i am not good in any post pro software

i keep my m5 and neopan n tri x

not to say MM is not good
it is an unique performing camera


sincerely
William Jusuf
 
Ko.Fe. said:
WTF! For those who are going to open it, beware! Naked body parts.
I just opened it at living room PC. With kids getting ready to school.
Merde!
Click to expand...

seconded.

Highway 61 said:
Come on... naked body parts yes, but nothing nasty. More : great and nice shots. He's been published in some papers and is a good photographer knowing what he's doing.

We're in 2014 - I guess your kids will see way worse before you can be aware of it... 😉
Click to expand...

a humble NSFW would be appreciated. Simply shrugging it off like its no big deal just shows a lack of respect and consideration for others.
 
Noll said:
Hogwash. I don't own a Monochrome either, but I have made scans from 35mm B&W film that exceed anything that even a perfect 18mp sensor could produce. To reasonably emulate ISO 50 or 100 film, we need at least 50 MP. Tri-X should capture very similar levels of actual detail compared to 18mp digital, but with more grain.

As to the OP, I agree that they are all very close. A few things to nitpick here and there about the highlights and shadows, but nothing that would override the creative eye of the photographer.
Click to expand...

Sorry but grainy 400-speed film has less resolution than even good point and shoot cameras these days. A perfectly exposed/scanned low-speed b&w emulsion still won't get even close to the resolution potential of a modern digital FF camera.

But that's irrelevant, and I think film "looks" better, but please don't continue to think 35mm film has "50mp" of resolution!

I have shot 4x5 chromes directly against my D800E and the D800E and Provia (both shot at optimum apertures) were almost indistinguishable from each other with regard to resolution. The 4x5 was scanned on a good Microtek M1, so it had more resolution to give with a drum scan or something though, but that's a 4x5. 35mm wouldn't get even close.
 
Noll said:
I don't own a Monochrome either, but I have made scans from 35mm B&W film that exceed anything that even a perfect 18mp sensor could produce. To reasonably emulate ISO 50 or 100 film, we need at least 50 MP. Tri-X should capture very similar levels of actual detail compared to 18mp digital, but with more grain.
Click to expand...
What Corran said : you're not right.

At 4000 dpi over some 35mm Tri-X you're scanning the film grain already and there is some conflict between the film grain structure and the digital sampling. In terms of pairs of lines per mm (how the resolution must be measured) even a 12MP Bayer-array sensor (i.e., an average D700 sensor) outperforms the 35mm Tri-X... so, the monochrome 18MP sensor of the MM is way above what some 35mm Tri-X can produce in terms of resolution. And, yes, the only film media it could be compared with for that matter would be large format sheets.

Here we are discussing measurable results. I'm very free with them - I don't own a MM and I'm keeping burning one to three rolls of Tri-X a week so I am not the devil's lawyer there.

As for the rendition and aesthetics : a proper post-processing of the MM DNG files (if properly exposed) can produce images which look very good to the eyes albeit used to how the Tri-X looks.

As for the costs and user's pleasure : to each his own.

The test mentioned by the OP has no real scientific value. It's a quick "which is which" test, done on purpose some time ago (two years !) to tell that Tri-X would not be killed by the MM (of course it was not).

Anyway - the photos are nice and I don't see where the "lack of respect and consideration for others" is.
 
Noll said:
scans from 35mm B&W film that exceed anything that even a perfect 18mp sensor could produce. To reasonably emulate ISO 50 or 100 film, we need at least 50 MP.
Click to expand...

And not to mention ADOX CMS iso 20 - you need microscope to see how unbelievable resolution of this film is. I made prints 40x60 cm size from CMS 20 - they are grain free even under the loupe.
 
Highway 61 said:
What Corran said : you're not right.

At 4000 dpi over some 35mm Tri-X you're scanning the film grain already and there is some conflict between the film grain structure and the digital sampling. In terms of pairs of lines per mm (how the resolution must be measured) even a 12MP Bayer-array sensor (i.e., an average D700 sensor) outperforms the 35mm Tri-X... so, the monochrome 18MP sensor of the MM is way above what some 35mm Tri-X can produce in terms of resolution.

Here we are discussing measurable results. I'm very free with them - I don't own a MM and I'm keeping burning one to three rolls of Tri-X a week so I am not the devil's lawyer there.
Click to expand...

I disagree. At 4000 dpi you're still seeing grain aliases in your scans. I know for a fact that my 16 mp m4/3 camera does not outresolve a 35mm frame of tri-x. I posted about it here:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138560

I'm not saying Tri-x is leaps and bounds beyond 12 mp, but it still competes, albeit in a much grainier way. Comparing it to a small-sensor digi-cam is like comparing vegetable and fruit.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread, just point out misinformation. If Highway 61 and Corran want to start a thread about this in Film V Digital, I will be glad to contribute with more examples.
 
I agree but also feel that far too often film is unfairly bashed for not being "sharp" - it's the scanners that aren't. Quite often I find the magic of film really shines when we have have BIG, beautiful scans & prints to admire it with!
 
10 years ago when I bought my first DLSR, I couldn't get highlights under control with my digital conversions. So, I stayed with TriX (and TMAX). The only way I could get highlights the way I wanted them was to underexpose and then lose some shadow. I'm sure the MM is much improved from my DLSR, but I don't see it on this test.
 
Nigel Meaby said:
Equally, why do these discussions always come down to talking about scans? Negatives were designed for darkroom printing not digitising with a scanner.
Click to expand...

Simply because this is an internet forum, and we are evaluating photos online. Negatives can certainly be printed or scanned. And done well or poorly. The "design" of negative film, for at least the last 20 years, has taken into account digitizing.

Here's why these discussions are so ponderous: Currently, film and digital photography coexist - great era in my opinion. Use what you like. Use them both. It's not necessary to denigrate one medium or philosophy, or even camera, to elevate your own.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
WTF! For those who are going to open it, beware! Naked body parts.
I just opened it at living room PC. With kids getting ready to school.
Merde!
Click to expand...

Yep, me too, opened precisely when my 15 year old sensitive daughter was walking by my computer getting ready for school.
 
Well, I am not buying the MM, although I was among those, who advocated such a camera a few years back. There are 3 reasons:
- the film still gives a more pleasant output
- with film you tend to concentrate on image making more and less on fiddling with technicalities
- MM does not have an efficient electronic VF, which could finally transform a M Leica into a decent portrait tool.
 
cmc850 said:
Simply because this is an internet forum, and we are evaluating photos online. Negatives can certainly be printed or scanned. And done well or poorly. The "design" of negative film, for at least the last 20 years, has taken into account digitizing.

Here's why these discussions are so ponderous: Currently, film and digital photography coexist - great era in my opinion. Use what you like. Use them both. It's not necessary to denigrate one medium or philosophy, or even camera, to elevate your own.
Click to expand...

+1

I have seen A2 fine art prints from an MM (DNG files, properly post-processed) : incredible details, no grain, good shadows, good highlights.

I have equally seen lots of darkroom prints the same size coming from Tri-X (made by some reknown darkroom men after some great photographers' negatives): superb rendition (the one I love) but very visible grain.

In terms of resolution, the MM sensor is far above any 35mm negative film - those are facts.

Then, you can prefer the Tri-X rendition, as well as using it. Who cares ? Personally, I do.

@Noll : to my eyes, in front of a good screen, at 50cm distance, the cropped Lady Wisconsin scanned at 6500dpi shows less details in what the statue really is than when scanned at 3000 dpi. At 6500dpi the digital sampling of the film grain makes most of the statue matter disappear. We only see the "digital grain" artifacts. It looks like there is more detail - but, no.
 
I must be a witless fool.
I don't see enough significant difference here to make or break one medium versus the other where content is concerned.
With the subject and lighting of this comparison. It's very close on screen. Maybe a print would expose some more dramatic differences.
Cheers Sir... Thank you for posting the link.
 
Noll said:
I agree but also feel that far too often film is unfairly bashed for not being "sharp" - it's the scanners that aren't. Quite often I find the magic of film really shines when we have have BIG, beautiful scans & prints to admire it with!
Click to expand...

I have a Screen Cezanne. This scanner can pull more detail than a Nikon Coolscsan 9000.

I have scanned T-Max 100 at 6000 DPI. That DPI is past the usable resolution of the film. There is simply no contest - there just isn't that much resolution on such a small piece of film.

Darkroom prints are irrelevant if we are comparing to a digital file. The resolution is also irrelevant, as I stated, if one prefers the look of the film (as I do). But it's a fallacy to think 35mm film has some huge ridiculous resolution. It just doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
Coupled Rangefinder 35s and their Discontents: How to get the most out of these vintage classics.
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
12K
lohrentz
lohrentz
Back
Top Bottom