rolfe
Well-known
All the sample images are in very flat light, or at least moderately flat. That alone would tend to equalize the look. Out on the street, I think it would be a different story. Not better or worse, just different.
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
So? What's wrong with the human body? Are your kids aliens?
Geoff
Newbie
I love film. There is a softness, a gentleness in the transitions, an analog virtue that digital just doesn't have.
That said, 35mm film for me just doesn't do the trick anymore. This size of negative Just runs out of oomph at larger prints (11x17 and larger). That's not everyone's take , but this person only.
Years ago, I moved up to MF film in search of higher quality. The MM is very similar to MF in terms of resolution and sharpness. Also the MM, when exposed right (and that's a bit tricky), is almost as nice as TriX. It can be fairly seen as an approach to shooting and printing on its own terms, n o longer a poor sister, but of equal value to film. While there are some differences, they are small and well within the range of differences we experienced from one film type to another (for example). The MM shots in the French thread are poor examples - there is a lot more latitude in that sensor.
That said, 35mm film for me just doesn't do the trick anymore. This size of negative Just runs out of oomph at larger prints (11x17 and larger). That's not everyone's take , but this person only.
Years ago, I moved up to MF film in search of higher quality. The MM is very similar to MF in terms of resolution and sharpness. Also the MM, when exposed right (and that's a bit tricky), is almost as nice as TriX. It can be fairly seen as an approach to shooting and printing on its own terms, n o longer a poor sister, but of equal value to film. While there are some differences, they are small and well within the range of differences we experienced from one film type to another (for example). The MM shots in the French thread are poor examples - there is a lot more latitude in that sensor.
Sparrow
Veteran
.. please don't say "what the ****" or "****e" on a forum my daughter uses ... thank you in advance, Stewart
Highway 61
Revisited
Of course. Especially if you think of the fabulous resolution that a 16MP micro four-thirds sensor would have if you expanded this sensor size to a 24x36mm surface while keeping the same pixels density. That would be over what a D800E or A7R sensor can do (and if you think that many people now digitize their 35mm films with a D800E and a macro lens, this says it all about what such a sensor is capable of). So, comparing Tri-X on a 24x36mm surface and a 16MP micro four-thirds sensor doesn't make much sense if it's to try to demonstrate that film "wins". Because it just can't.
I have found that at 2820 dpi, the 35mm Tri-X grain is very well visible already, without any artificial resampling of its structure. Since that grain structure is by itself thinner than the film resolution (by definition it cannot be otherwise), how could a 6500 dpi scan do justice to what the film can capture ?
Of course, things are a bit different with, say, Acros 100 in 120 format or even larger (provided that the taking lens has a resolving power superior to the film one).
Alesc's photos are crappy small Jpegs and we are looking at them on some 72dpi monitors... so there is nothing substantial in that "test", other than a "I didn't like using the MM eventually and I'll stick to my M6 and Tri-X" message.
Yet, his naked bodies match my taste with no problem, whatever they got shot with.
goamules
Well-known
Nothing, in the privacy of your own home. But I wouldn't want a naked person driving my kid's bus, or walking around the mall when they were there. Similarly, I don't want to have to pre-kidcheck every web site for nudity, which I've seen go from art to porn pretty quickly, when my daughter is in the room.
Back on topic, I like that he did a careful comparison study. And skin tones are important to that. But I don't get all the shots that are centered on her chest, he could have done normal portraits to do the comparison, the nudity distracts from the goal.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
"Tri X against Monochrom"? ... Another paean to film in the Great Film vs Digital Debate, I guess. What bullpucky.
Nice photos. Wish he would learn how to process both scanned film and MM digital captures a little more skillfully, however.
It's hysterical to hear the two-faced nature of comments about the MM. Film aficionados point to the superiority of film when a Leica MM, with its terrific top-of-the-line sensor is compared to their love-child. Digital aficionados point to the Leica MM sensor saying, "Pah! That ancient thing? Even it is better than film, and it's an antique."
Next ...
G
Nice photos. Wish he would learn how to process both scanned film and MM digital captures a little more skillfully, however.
It's hysterical to hear the two-faced nature of comments about the MM. Film aficionados point to the superiority of film when a Leica MM, with its terrific top-of-the-line sensor is compared to their love-child. Digital aficionados point to the Leica MM sensor saying, "Pah! That ancient thing? Even it is better than film, and it's an antique."
Next ...
G
mansio
Established
i see nothing wrong with the naked body either, they weren't intended as erotic or sexual anyways
from just the v700 scan and jpg output i still prefer the DR of tri-x.
the other site shows a similar DR between MM and trix though, even if the scan is made with just 7600i.
ultimately i think if large film prints were acceptable in the past i see no reason "resolution" be an advantage/disadvantage when consider the two format. not everyone here is a forensic analyst of paper. if money is non-issue MM will be my choice since it's "close enough" to film and iso-adjustment is always welcome.
from just the v700 scan and jpg output i still prefer the DR of tri-x.
the other site shows a similar DR between MM and trix though, even if the scan is made with just 7600i.
ultimately i think if large film prints were acceptable in the past i see no reason "resolution" be an advantage/disadvantage when consider the two format. not everyone here is a forensic analyst of paper. if money is non-issue MM will be my choice since it's "close enough" to film and iso-adjustment is always welcome.
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
The MM and 35mm are both 24x36mm; so in this case the area is the same. The resolution of the MM is finite at 18MP. You'd have to scan the film to provide a matching 18MP image to do a "proper" comparison.
The thing with Tri-X (more so) but also other films - is that the ultimate resolution is somewhat "grain limited." You can scan at higher resolutions but in the end, you won't get more details out of the granules.
The thing with Tri-X (more so) but also other films - is that the ultimate resolution is somewhat "grain limited." You can scan at higher resolutions but in the end, you won't get more details out of the granules.
goamules
Well-known
I think "The Monitor" today is "The Print" of yesterday. So whatever looks best on computers is about all people will care about. Few go to galleries to see prints, or even put prints in their homes. Most people, like myself right now, have their faces stuck to various size screens all day. But I do like the film shots a little better.
cmc850
Established
Few points to add to such a comparison:
-Comparing resolving power was not the point here - if it was the MM wins hands down
-Tonality is a highly subjective preference, and there is no one way to render a scene to each person's taste - a negative is rendered many different ways with printing - VC filters, paper, burn/dodge - so one can think of the MM raw file as a negative also, subject to various renderings in Photoshop etc
-Lastly - Tri-X seems to have gathered some folklore around it here- I have used it for 30 years, but in 35mm, never because I desired its tones or detail abilities. In fact, for scenes like those in the OP's examples, I would have never chosen it.
-Comparing resolving power was not the point here - if it was the MM wins hands down
-Tonality is a highly subjective preference, and there is no one way to render a scene to each person's taste - a negative is rendered many different ways with printing - VC filters, paper, burn/dodge - so one can think of the MM raw file as a negative also, subject to various renderings in Photoshop etc
-Lastly - Tri-X seems to have gathered some folklore around it here- I have used it for 30 years, but in 35mm, never because I desired its tones or detail abilities. In fact, for scenes like those in the OP's examples, I would have never chosen it.
Highway 61
Revisited
Sounds like you haven't read the thread carefully. There are no "digital aficionados" that I can see here.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Sounds like you haven't read the thread carefully. There are no "digital aficionados" that I can see here.
As I intimated, this particular thread is a paean to the film lover. But there's the same silliness on both sides of the fence in this ridiculous controversy.
Eh? I just loaded the Polaroid 350 Land Camera with another pack of FP-3000b. And it's jammed in my bag alongside the Leica X2. I'm not conflicted by either.
I'll just be lucky if I have the time to make more than a single exposure with either today ... 8-\
G
Highway 61
Revisited
I really don't see where the "controversy" is... there is one guy posting a link to an old thread from a French Leica forum, where another bloke posted a "test" to demonstrate that the MM and an M6 loaded with Tri-X produced equivalent results. For that purpose, he posted small images of mid-tones low contrast and soft lighting shots, and, yes, on a screen, they all look pretty the same... which is of course totally subjective, because we all know that the MM has more "power reserve" than any B&W film. Even if we - me included - don't own any MM and mostly shoot film with vintage mechanical cameras, we just cannot deny the huge possibilities of the MM sensor.
Have fun w/ your Pola !
You might look at this with some interest : http://www.expolaroid.com/
The bottom line appears to be personal... you choose what works best for you and your wants / needs. Anything else is just trying to sway people's opinion in your direction. I like to think that good photography is good photography regardless of medium used.
Ansel
Well-known
I think we can all agree there are some nice images there though!
hendriphile
Well-known
[From a translation of this article]
... digital is more detailed, but made me bored ... I also prefer the feel of film cameras, which are real hand tools that can be kept for decades! I am also very attached to the lab and all the "constraints" of the silver process: to wait to see the pictures, it requires them to be right the first time, and it's a little Christmas every time you leave the negative in the tank ... But I gladly would buy MM if I could afford to supplement my current hardware. For its beautiful picture quality, of course. And for photos immediately: very convenient for some sessions or for photos everyday
... digital is more detailed, but made me bored ... I also prefer the feel of film cameras, which are real hand tools that can be kept for decades! I am also very attached to the lab and all the "constraints" of the silver process: to wait to see the pictures, it requires them to be right the first time, and it's a little Christmas every time you leave the negative in the tank ... But I gladly would buy MM if I could afford to supplement my current hardware. For its beautiful picture quality, of course. And for photos immediately: very convenient for some sessions or for photos everyday
hausen
Well-known
The film v digital does certainly get a little tiresome. For me I have the MM because I love B&W but I am generally underwhelmed by scanning any B&W film. Have always loved Tri-X but recently gave all of my darkroom gear to a young guy who will get more out of it than me. I think I am more adept in the digital darkroom than I am in the analog darkroom which is why I bought the MM. Is not a digital v film argument for me more just about the fact I really like both but I am better at one than the other. Probably a little different than most I shoot B&W digitally and colour in my M6 with Ektar/Velvia.
gho
Well-known
Heresy, heresy!!! No, seriously, not bad, not bad. Given the subject I clearly prefer the Tri-X shots. The grittiness adds a bit of texture to the overall feel and adds a touch of abstraction.
Tonality is a matter of processing, especially with film. I am sure one could have gotten more highlight detail out of Tri-X - or most of any other BW film - if one was after that.
Given the cost of Tri-X I clearly prefer the film over the Monochrome.
Tonality is a matter of processing, especially with film. I am sure one could have gotten more highlight detail out of Tri-X - or most of any other BW film - if one was after that.
Given the cost of Tri-X I clearly prefer the film over the Monochrome.
35photo
Well-known
You can close 1/2 the threads with your comment..because its 100% true..DONE