mfogiel
Veteran
I've come across this post by chance today. It is in french, but the photos speak for themselves.
[Mod adds: link NSFW!]
http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51356
The author admires the higher ISO capability and resolution of the MM, but laments the need to fiddle continuously with exposure on the MM in order to nail it precisely, and appreciates the greater simplicity of the M6.
To my eye, when the light is flat, it's so close, it starts to be difficult to tell which is which, at least on screen.
[Mod adds: link NSFW!]
http://www.summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51356
The author admires the higher ISO capability and resolution of the MM, but laments the need to fiddle continuously with exposure on the MM in order to nail it precisely, and appreciates the greater simplicity of the M6.
To my eye, when the light is flat, it's so close, it starts to be difficult to tell which is which, at least on screen.
MiniMoke
Well-known
Wonderful comparison of two completely different media....
I like the Tri-X versions better, and if you take into account that it takes over 10,000€ to get those very good digital results.... well, the choice is easy.
Just the scanning process is tedious and not always up to my expectations. But so is the pp of digital files.
This leaves the primal joy to handle a purely mechanical film camera and those wonderful film canisters...
I like the Tri-X versions better, and if you take into account that it takes over 10,000€ to get those very good digital results.... well, the choice is easy.
Just the scanning process is tedious and not always up to my expectations. But so is the pp of digital files.
This leaves the primal joy to handle a purely mechanical film camera and those wonderful film canisters...
bonatto
looking out
Interesting comparison and shows the highlight capabilities of Tri-x versus a digital sensor. You can see in some of the images that Tri-X manages to retain much more detail, though this could perhaps be rectified in post.
Ansel
Well-known
I agree. There is something magical about the Tri-X shots that digital never seems to capture, as perfect as it is...
tsiklonaut
Well-known
I normally don't post on Leica stuff since I don't follow the hype train, but to this instance: not even close if you ask me. Clearly I can see the superiority of Tri-X - the rendering from highlights to shadows and grain distribution over verious tones even looking at those small and limited web-sized pictures. The clinical digital sterility is still there with the Monochrom, especially seen on mid tones and highlights, despite it's a dedicated b&w CCD with a "film-emulating" manipulation engine inside. I guess you ought to do a lot more PP work with Monochrome images, add digital grain to certain midtones, soften highlights, expand shadows etc to acheive at least a poor-to-average "look" of the film.
Considering it's a Leica, the high-end of things, I'm also somewhat surprised after decades of rapid development in the particular field the best digital gear engineers still haven't mastered the art of digital film emulation despite the hype train going on this for over a decade - I still haven't seen one that does the trick even at a "poor-man's" level, yet the massive hype on this keeps on coming from the marketing department (i.e. I remember the claim M8-9 delivering real Kodachrome colors made me LOL a lot). I guess the mindless agressive marketing is a today's trend and everybody are ought to buy "the next model" every year to keep improving on "film-emulation" or "film-look".
JMHO of course,
Margus
Considering it's a Leica, the high-end of things, I'm also somewhat surprised after decades of rapid development in the particular field the best digital gear engineers still haven't mastered the art of digital film emulation despite the hype train going on this for over a decade - I still haven't seen one that does the trick even at a "poor-man's" level, yet the massive hype on this keeps on coming from the marketing department (i.e. I remember the claim M8-9 delivering real Kodachrome colors made me LOL a lot). I guess the mindless agressive marketing is a today's trend and everybody are ought to buy "the next model" every year to keep improving on "film-emulation" or "film-look".
JMHO of course,
Margus
starless
Well-known
The difference in quality would have been much more pronounced in favour of Tri-x, had he not scanned the film on a flatbed scanner.
pete hogan
Well-known
Thanks for posting the link to this interesting comparison. Tri-X must be saved.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
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!
I just opened it at living room PC. With kids getting ready to school.
Merde!
Highway 61
Revisited
Even with a 4000 dpi dedicated film scanner on the Tri-X side, the difference in quality would have been much more pronounced in favor of the MM, had he not posted postal stamps-sized images, but full res. ones, and had he post-processed the MM RAW files properly, not just so that the MM photos looked like the Tri-X ones.
Come on guys. I love Tri-X and still shoot it as my main film, and I don't own any MM, but the MM sensor outperforms any B&W film available now, in terms of resolution and greyscale depth.
What it should be compared with is a 4x5" low speed film sheet, not a 24x36 ISO 400 one.
The goal of this "test" was to demonstrate that Tri-X was "nicer", so it was biased from the beginning.
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...
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Naked or neked? The difference being that neked is being naked when you're up to no good.
~Joe
~Joe
starless
Well-known
I am not so sure about the latter.
In specific low-contrast situations - maybe. But in general I have yet to see an MM image that looks anywhere close to a well exposed, developed and scanned negative, without clipped shadows or highlights.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
And where exactly are you looking?
rodt16s
Well-known
Maybe a better comparison would be the MM with Acros
Highway 61
Revisited
I have to add a few things.
The test was done using one of the first MM prototypes - unachieved firmware.
The photographer had never used such a capable digital camera - he exposed the MM shots as if they were shot on some negative film (beginner mistake).
To any obvious eyes, the MM shots are very likely to be OOC-Jpegs, not properly post-processed DNG files.
Even if they were, it is very obvious that their post processing is a bit amateurish at the very least.
The test was done using one of the first MM prototypes - unachieved firmware.
The photographer had never used such a capable digital camera - he exposed the MM shots as if they were shot on some negative film (beginner mistake).
To any obvious eyes, the MM shots are very likely to be OOC-Jpegs, not properly post-processed DNG files.
Even if they were, it is very obvious that their post processing is a bit amateurish at the very least.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Tri-X has more latitude than an MM image I would imagine .... but I don't see anything to convince me it's the better medium.
Apples and oranges!
Apples and oranges!
starless
Well-known
The aforementioned link for example.
Steve M.
Veteran
Very different images to my eye. The tones, the detail...and of course these are online images of small size on a computer monitor. I have no doubt that good size prints would eliminate the post processing work and give a clear picture. Yes, flat lighting might give a similarity in tones (flat light is not a strong suit of Tri-X w/o shooting it and developing it specifically for that), but it isn't going to make a digital image look like a film image. I'll be quite honest. I think digital B&W images are plain old ugly for people shots. They have too much edge sharpness, no grain, shadow detail is totally lacking, tonality is too compressed, the skin looks like plastic, etc. But that's my tastes. It need not be anyone else's. Why would anyone object to nude photos? They're very tasteful, nothing dirty here. Good stuff for one and all..
What a lot of people don't seem to get about film is that the way an image looks is highly dependent upon the choice of developers, the developing protocols during that development, the ISO the film has been shot at, etc. If I shoot Tri-X at 100 ISO, which I often do, and develop it w/o any compensation, I will have a totally different image than if I had shot it at 250 ISO and developed it in Acufine, Rodinol, etc. That's one of the wonderful things about film: the ability to change and tailor make your final images by chemistry and/or shooting decisions in order to get the type of images that you prefer. So any film/digital comparison needs to be understood that the film was shot in a particular manner in order to get a particular look. It has no native look, like a sensor. How it appears is totally dependant on many variables that the photographer chooses.
What a lot of people don't seem to get about film is that the way an image looks is highly dependent upon the choice of developers, the developing protocols during that development, the ISO the film has been shot at, etc. If I shoot Tri-X at 100 ISO, which I often do, and develop it w/o any compensation, I will have a totally different image than if I had shot it at 250 ISO and developed it in Acufine, Rodinol, etc. That's one of the wonderful things about film: the ability to change and tailor make your final images by chemistry and/or shooting decisions in order to get the type of images that you prefer. So any film/digital comparison needs to be understood that the film was shot in a particular manner in order to get a particular look. It has no native look, like a sensor. How it appears is totally dependant on many variables that the photographer chooses.
Ansel
Well-known
All the hype about the MM but whenever I see images from it the just look digital. The qualities that make film so special can not be digitised.
Noll
Well-known
Vince Lupo
Whatever
You could look on this very forum under the thread 'Leica M Monochrom: Best Pics' for plenty of great examples. In particular, Dave Martinez's photos.
And if you want to see even more, you can look here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/direction-one-inc/sets/72157632389994225/
No problem with clipped highlights at all -- you just need how to expose properly (which admittedly does take a bit of time to adjust to). If you shoot with it like it's neg film, you're going to definitely end up with clipped highlights. Shoot with it like it's slide film, and clipped highlights (or shadows) are not an issue.