What is wrong with the "digital Look"?

Just say that you're buying the M8 because you like to shoot with a Leica made digital RF and be done with. No one can argue with that statement. Making bold statements that are basically saying: "M8 is the new definition of digital photography" and "The digital look is great" is just asking for debates like this. You don't need to try to convince sensible individuals that you bought the M8 for any reason other than affection for the Leica brand and the RF photographic style.

Guy on photo.net summed it up nicely:

"I don't think the M8 is so much about results, if the results are within reason. It's about being able to use essentially the same old camera, but with digital guts. Big price to pay though. For some, too much."
 
Last edited:
The first I said and believe to be true, the second I did not in any way say and is putting words into my mouth.And your analasys of my motives is a good condensed rendering of about every second post I made.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for bringing the thread on track again.:)I would like to discuss the advent of digital photography as a seperate entity.
 
Last edited:
I love film, I love digital. They're different and digi pics remind me more of col slides than anything else. I've had great results from both media, and lots of duds in both.

The thing that keeps me using film is that I like film CAMERAS more than digital CAMERAS. If I could afford top-end digital gear, that might change, but I'm still taken with the feel, heft and operation of manual cameras. Doesn't make them better, just nicer to use -- for me.

Gene
 
Hey, we're all in a major paradigm shift; an inflection point in photography.

Film usage will diminish but not go extinct: everyone will have more choices for their personal expression as a result.

I just don't want to be dominated and controlled by all the necessary nitty-gritty (boring) computer work after shifting more of my image creation from film to digital. I've had a film scanner for four years so I'm not going at this "digital thing" cold but still would rather be taking pictures than bit-twiddling them.

-g
 
You said it; it is a digital look. You like it, so this is good for you.
What I mean to say is that let's each enjoy what we like to use.


Raid
 
Last edited:
I agree 100% with GeneW's comments above. I love the feel of film cameras, a reason the Hexar AF makes me just want to get a digital. And digipics do remind me of color slides, I guess because they share the fact that their light is filtered direct light, instead of the reflected light of prints.
 
Having now read through all the posts in this thread, I thoght I'd toss a few bits in. In 1964 I made my first enlarger, so that I could get prints the way I had envisioned them when I took the picture. I spent 40 years doing the dark, wet smelly thing, to keep doing the same. This was all hobby work and about 60%/40% color/ B&W and mostly self taught. In that time I certainly made all the mistakes possible and tried every process to come out. Beyond all that fun, I began to see what I was looking at for years. Now, we have a new process and hey, it is again different. A lot of the "difference" comments are generalities, rather than specific traits. Not a lot of comments are made about where certain traits would be very useful, either.
The real question might be, can we still get prints the way we envisioned then when we took the picture? If not, why not and how can we? When I wet printed, I used to make as many as 6 generations of prints before I got what I wanted. Now, I might do two or three, but seldom hear about others doing that. I like digital as a process. I think the craft is still there and I think the results can be every bit as good as the wet trail. Another thing I like about the digital process is that I can make more mistake in a shorter period of time and that is an important part of my learing process...LOL
Bob
 
This so called "digital look".... as a opposed to a "film look"...I'm guessing...I'm struggling with this concept a little.... is it a film look when it is shot on film (obviously)....then hand printed in the darkroom (on fibre based paper ;) no less ) ... is it still a "film look" when a neg is scanned...or a tranny for that matter (no not a man in a dress..chrome??) .... and printed...what if it is an inkjet print....what if it just "lives" online???....Is it still a "film look" when you've spend 3 days photoshopping into something very different from where you started.... and this "film look" is it Tri-x...Velvia...Kodachrome...Polaroid T55.....

I'm sorry I just can't buy into this "film look" "digital look" idea... I realise a lot of you are saying its not a X Vs. Y....but you are saying that there is a divide, a difference....but that divide exists between EVERY type of film, every type digital capture device, every way the film or digital file is processed...isn't that the whole point of having different film stocks and different digital cameras and backs...so there is no ONE look, rather many....

One thing I will say is that with film, if you don't have the knowledge or facilities...you send your film off to be processed...BUT with digital you grab that raw file and have a hack...maybe these are the results that look "digital"... maybe what is being pick up as "digital" is just poor control...

Just a few thoughts

Bronek
 
What Gene said and, to an extent, what Doug said. Digipics remind me of slides, but they are NOT slides.

And just to emphasize what Gene said, the tool (camera) is an integral and intimte part of photography. If one camera/medium is significantly "better" in my hands than another, then who the hell cares whether it is analog or digital? I don't. It's simply a better tool for achievng my vision.
 
When I look at one of my film prints, from an FSU camera in particular, I can recall, primary, the reckless abandon I felt by photographing with something that was essentially free. Beyond that, I recall the scent and feel of the Fed leather ERC, the little sting of the cold eyepiece on my lashes. I remember how the wind lever felt when I advanced to that frame, with all the perfect mechanical harmony inside, and a quick whiff of lithium grease. I remember what the emulsion smelled like when I loaded it. I impart all this to what I see in the print, and I'm sure it's not much, compared with those who do their own processing. The crafting of a digital print has it's own remembrances. But to me, it is akin to traveling to my favorite fishing hole. It seems more special when I've gotten there by bicycle, than it does if I've driven my car. Of course, the fish don't care how I got there.

What the hell am I blabbin' about. Blab blab blab, curse you, $9 wine. :)
 
Last edited:
It is nice to see that most have a sensible approach to digital and film. I like Genes comments on the matter very much. I also find what Magnus has said about how it is funny that once Leica made a digital camera quite a few Leicaphiles that were formally anti digital now feel that the Leica is/will be a superior digital camera. Some things never change but are still good for a chuckle.

Bob
 
i think for me a big difference between digital and color slides is that the slide IS the final image. this really is a big difference between slides and digital.

a slide isn't a starting point for a "digital workflow". your photoshop comes in camera with your choice of film, lens and metering. personally, i think it is really fun knowing that it is all up to you and the decisions you make as you take the picture. i think it's cool that you are making the final image as you take the image.

for best results with digital it is necessary to use a computer to "fix" the image that another computer captured. some may prefer this method and believe that digital gives them more "control" over the final image. maybe they enjoy the post processing rituals, whatever makes people happy, ya know?

i just know that with slides if you use a sharp lens and focus correctly, the slide is tight and sharp. there is no need for sharpening "tools" in post. i like that.

and with slides if you meter right for what you are going for, then you get a nicely exposed image right out of the camera. there is no tweaking like is necessary with a digital file. there is no histogram watching and trying to push everything to the right or whatever.

i started with and still like digital for some stuff and have been on a M8 waiting list, but have realized that all digital really has to offer to me over slides is convenience. i don't know if that is worth $4795. i have the money set aside and have been waiting so long for the digital M, but for some reason i'm just sort of underwhelmed at this point.

i think maybe i will wait a while for the firmware fixes etc and to see more images.
 
Last edited:
the calotype had a different look to a daguerreotype, collodion wet plate gave a different look than the calotype and the dag-type.
dry plates gave a different look still..... and so on,
in time we learn to love them all.
just think, in a few years we will nostalgic about that crispy digital look of the first decade of the 21st century, and seek out those legendary cameras that took them. all photographic process are fashions of sorts.
 
First there was drawing with a stick,then scupting from stone, then painting with pigments/dyes/oils, then photography with plates and films, now images with sensors and computers. It's evolution at work. And you know what?-all the pre existing techniques to create images/art are still in use. Embrace them all they are here to stay.
Digital has revitalized and energized my photography and I still shoot 50% film.
Steve
 
bronekkozka said:
This so called "digital look".... as a opposed to a "film look"...I'm guessing...I'm struggling with this concept a little.... is it a film look when it is shot on film (obviously)....then hand printed in the darkroom (on fibre based paper ;) no less ) ... is it still a "film look" when a neg is scanned...or a tranny for that matter (no not a man in a dress..chrome??) .... and printed...what if it is an inkjet print....what if it just "lives" online???....Is it still a "film look" when you've spend 3 days photoshopping into something very different from where you started.... and this "film look" is it Tri-x...Velvia...Kodachrome...Polaroid T55.....

I'm sorry I just can't buy into this "film look" "digital look" idea... I realise a lot of you are saying its not a X Vs. Y....but you are saying that there is a divide, a difference....but that divide exists between EVERY type of film, every type digital capture device, every way the film or digital file is processed...isn't that the whole point of having different film stocks and different digital cameras and backs...so there is no ONE look, rather many....

One thing I will say is that with film, if you don't have the knowledge or facilities...you send your film off to be processed...BUT with digital you grab that raw file and have a hack...maybe these are the results that look "digital"... maybe what is being pick up as "digital" is just poor control...

Just a few thoughts

Bronek
Click to expand...

Hi Bronek, take a full size digital image say 5-8mb and then get a 30x20 print, you'll see what happens to the image. Take any reasonably shot piece of 35 mm and scanned to it's full image of 15- 20 mb and have the 30x20 image printed. You'll see this image is also not as good as a MF. The difference between retail digital and retail film cameras is still visibly apparent.

This may be irrelevant for people shooting for 4x6 or perhaps up to 8x10 but after that my eyes see the difference in a colour print from digital.
 
Trius said...
"Most of the "digital look" shots that I see are so sharp and clean that texture and volume (3-dimensionality) are severely reduced if not totally obliterated, IMO of course."
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this and at times, 100% "sharp and clean" are what I might find interesting for a particular shot, but not that often. (Geez, I guesstimate focus distance at least half the time. Razor sharp is just no biggie to me... usually.) Most often what I prefer is the "texture/volume/3-D" depth Trius mentions over "sharp/clean/flat-ish". Again, it's just a preference for me, but down the road, some endeavors or projects might encourage me to invest in something to play with the tack sharp "digital look" somewhat - like scenic shots, architecture, etc. That would be fun.

The "equipment side" of digital photography just hasn't tripped my trigger enough yet to even attempt a dabble with digital... until the R-D1 and now the M8. But for the time being, both are waaaay-hay-hay out of my range to even consider. However, despite the price tags, they give hope and I feel fairly confident that a niche will be realized and the future will bring more digital compact RF-types with [maybe] interchangeable lenses, etc. that [maybe] aren't sooo pricey for a tourist like me. So who knows? It might not be that long until I toy with the "digital look" as we say (if I can get used to batteries - arghh! ;) )
 
jan normandale said:
Hi Bronek, take a full size digital image say 5-8mb and then get a 30x20 print, you'll see what happens to the image. Take any reasonably shot piece of 35 mm and scanned to it's full image of 15- 20 mb and have the 30x20 image printed. You'll see this image is also not as good as a MF. The difference between retail digital and retail film cameras is still visibly apparent.

This may be irrelevant for people shooting for 4x6 or perhaps up to 8x10 but after that my eyes see the difference in a colour print from digital.
Click to expand...



When you say "5-8mb" I take you mean mega bytes not mega pixels??...Well yes it will look like crap...that would be akin to taking 110 film and blowing it up to 30x20.... but who is suggesting that... 10Mp camera or 16Mp camera is going to give you a 30+ or 50+ meg file.....

yes "retail" film and "retail" digital is a different story...for the comparison to be fair resolutions need to be at least in the ball park.....also remember alot of those cameras employ bad jpeg compression...I guy I work with has a canon 7Mp camera...shot on RAW...it is great ...on jpeg...OK little snaps....but this thread is really talking about the likes of the M8... not really retail.... Also I think you have look at the glass too, everyone is bagging Canon...I have a crappy little 350D for home...with a crap lens on it it is awful but if I put my 85mm 1.2 (probably the best lens I own) the difference is amazing

I just shot a job recently that was blown up to 3x2m, this is the largest I have gone with digital - to date....so I don't think resolution is an issue...anyway this is more about the so called "film look" and "digital look" isn't it....surely there are no arguements abot rez anymore...

Bronek
 
If you know what you're doing, you can "process" a RAW to an infinite number of looks. What gets lost in all this debate about the film vs digital "look" is that there is no homogeneous digital look. I've processed and seen Canon files that do look too smooth for my tastes and, yet, on the other hand, I've had Canon files that don't have that look at all (as well as many that people can't tell if it's digital or film). It all comes down to your chops. The only thing that gets revealed when someone says they hate the "Canon plasticky" look is that person's lack of skill and understanding with what you can do with a digital file. The only way you get there is by throwing yourself in the water and doing the necessary tinkering to see where you can go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom