wpb
Well-known
I think the obsessing over lenses has more to do with the fact we rarely, if ever, looked at our chromes with a microscope and that what we are effectively doing with our digital files at 100-400% view in Photoshop.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
kevin m said:
Digital capture B&W conversion tools get close; but not quite "there" yet ya know?
What I'm waiting for is the "Leica Glow" that people used to (still do) talk about but in a digital file rather than film.
Here's a challenge to you folk out there who get the M8 and have the available equipment. Without using Photoshop (or any other program) for anything other than going from RAW to jpg; take your M8 and your lens (whatever lens you want), put a Zeiss softar I on the lens. Take a portrait shot. Post your "straight from the camera" results. I'll tell you why I'm asking for this after I see your shots
Everything I've seen so far shot by the M8 could just as well have been shot with a Canon or Nikon low end (D80/Rebel XTi) DSLR and prime lens. It's hard for me to even tell what I've seen from stuff shot from a digital P&S.
Why should there be a difference? Well.. I guess it does come back to costs. I can run down to my local shop and snag a Fuji F30 for under $400 CDN after taxes. I could also order the M8 and wait and pay $6500-7000 CDN after taxes. If I'm paying that much, I want some "advantage" over the $400 option. One advantage would be that I get to use my fast RF lenses. One disadvantage is that I now have to consider a 1.3x crop factor. There are other pros/cons to it as well but for $6500-7000; there had better be one hell of a lot of pros over the cons and something in the image quality that will convince me that the body is just that special (beyond being Leica's first digital RF).
Myself, I'm happy using my film cams (all Leica currently) and that's likely all I'll ever use for my own enjoyment. My digital gear (and I've got a truckload of it) I only use to make me money... I can live with that; and so can most, if not all, the clientelle I book. The only people who I ever hear complaining about "film" vs "digital" are folks like us who are so beyond "camera geek" that we are a subculture unto ourselves
Dave
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Here's another take on it (mine): the exclamation "that looks digital" is a product you have when somebody that doesn't know how to "properly" (i.e. color management, contrast, highlight handling, etc.) work with digital images produces an image that is seen by somebody that doesn't have the eloquence to say what's wrong with it, and can only exclaim "that looks digital".
This combination comes by the dozen of dozen (of dozen).
It's all good. Film and digital. Watercolor and oil. Paper and plastic. Yin and Yang. Not Pepsi and Coke
This combination comes by the dozen of dozen (of dozen).
It's all good. Film and digital. Watercolor and oil. Paper and plastic. Yin and Yang. Not Pepsi and Coke
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
gabrielma said:Not Pepsi and Coke
No Coke!! PEPSI !!
No fries!! Chips!!
Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah, Cheeseburgah...
Belushi-izing,
Dave
Bromo33333
Established
jaapv said:
The characteristics of digital if negative would be - blown out highlights, lack of shadow detail, no subtelty of shading, and a high degree of pixellation and noise visible. If someone says it looks digital, one or more of the above will probably be referenced. Well produced digital pictures have these characteristics minimized or not noticeable.
Positive aspects will be a lack of grain allowing large magnifications without grain.
But the photogrpaher HAS to be mindful of these issues when producing their work in order to avoid it. But film photographers have to be mindful of reciprocity failure, film sensitivity and grain - and the criticism is "that looks grainy" in "bad" analog unless it is an effect sought after.
wpb
Well-known
dcsang said:
Thanks Dave, now I'll have to walk down to the Billygoat for lunch.
grantray
Established
rhogg said:
Nice usage of Leaves of Grass to describe the ever evolving fickleness of the human soul that changes its mind concerning the nature of the justification to the adult equivalent of toy shopping.
-grant
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I still contend there is "a film look" vs. "a digital look", regardless of film type vs. sensor type/post processing. It's a "family" look, if you will.bronekkozka said:
It all boils down to preference, the vision of the final image the photographer wants, etc. In the end, you are "stuck" with the original image, whether it is a neg/chrome on filmstock or a file from a particular sensor, and I'm sort of assuming a raw file of the highest quality you can capture.
So, choices are made at the exposure end that will dictate some of what the final image can be. Film or sensor? If film, which film? If sensor, which sensor?
And THAT piece (which sensor?), is the digital divide. Until someone makes a camera with interchangeable sensors, that is. Even then ...
Film: ~ $4-15
Sensor: ~$???
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Magnus said:
This is a wondrous world - some hecklers convict me for changing my mind about film vs digital which I didn't, others criticize me for preferring Nikon and Leica digital over Canon witout a word about film , others PM'd me some time ago that I had too many digital shots in my gallery, still others paraphrase my posts and present that as a hidden agenda on my part ..... I guess some like to interpret without reading...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Not with a microscope, but with a very good loup!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Nothing. It's just a bit different.
I'd say the people who complain about it, 50% is a matter of taste and 50% is just snobbish whining.
I'd say the people who complain about it, 50% is a matter of taste and 50% is just snobbish whining.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
wpb
Well-known
Not my 8X loupe, I don't think that is near the enlargement of a 8-12MP file at 100%... maybe a microsite grain focusing scope at 25X.
P.S. I've got to shoot more Neopan 1600!
P.S. I've got to shoot more Neopan 1600!
KM-25
Well-known
There is nothing wrong with it for me except that it takes more tweaking to get the image to look my Provia or Kodachromes. I still like the look of film right out of the camera better, just my preference.
Film still rules, digital has a way to go yet.
Film still rules, digital has a way to go yet.
Ronald M
Veteran
Digital can have a look that is poor. I have seen it. Seeing the digi stuff from my p&s Canon and scanned color from any Leica, I am convinced the bad pics are from those who can`t properly process the digi files. Perhaps my years in the dark has given me the ability to properly do simple Photoshop.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
wpb said:Thanks Dave, now I'll have to walk down to the Billygoat for lunch.
I hope you went to the original one... under the bridge
I haven't been to Chicago since 93 so I don't even know if the original one is still around
Dave
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
Pherdinand said:Well,not a "chrome" but a Neopan 1600 black and white.
But yes, there's a microscope involved.
And a digicam shooting through the microscope optics
[approx 42 x and 400 x]
That is interesting, Pherdinand! I was always curious about how the grain really looks like. Do you need some special equipment to be able to make a picture of it or will any cheap microscope from that auction site do?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Dunno, Robert.
We have a few quite good Olympuses(Olympussy?) at work. They are definitely not cheap, i would not buy one for myself. This one was a long working distance one.
I guess for a 400X magnification you need reasonable optics. Usually the occular is about 10x, but the objectives are the tricky ones, and, of course the tiney digicam sensor helps as well. A short working distance version might get there much cheaper (for these, objectives above 20x are common)
We have a few quite good Olympuses(Olympussy?) at work. They are definitely not cheap, i would not buy one for myself. This one was a long working distance one.
I guess for a 400X magnification you need reasonable optics. Usually the occular is about 10x, but the objectives are the tricky ones, and, of course the tiney digicam sensor helps as well. A short working distance version might get there much cheaper (for these, objectives above 20x are common)
ffttklackdedeng
Registered User
Thanks, Pherdinand!
I've seen - and wondered - that on my own 4000dpi scans the image seems to be built from dark spots. However, from a b&w negative I'd expected white spots.. Always thought that the silver particles that get exposed to light somehow stay on the neg while the ones without 'light contact' get washed away by the fix bath.. Never mind, I'll try to get some simple microscope from my nephew or so and see myself
I've seen - and wondered - that on my own 4000dpi scans the image seems to be built from dark spots. However, from a b&w negative I'd expected white spots.. Always thought that the silver particles that get exposed to light somehow stay on the neg while the ones without 'light contact' get washed away by the fix bath..
Never mind, I'll try to get some simple microscope from my nephew or so and see myself
Bob Ross
Well-known
The Black of the famous Black & White pair is, indeed, nothing other than Silver Tarnishffttklackdedeng said:Thanks, Pherdinand!
I've seen - and wondered - that on my own 4000dpi scans the image seems to be built from dark spots. However, from a b&w negative I'd expected white spots.. Always thought that the silver particles that get exposed to light somehow stay on the neg while the ones without 'light contact' get washed away by the fix bath..
Grain and Noise is one of the "different" aspects of film/digital mediums. In a B&W print from film the blacks will be pure and grainless and grain will appear more toward the highlights, where it will fade again as the grain clumps in the film get densist. In a B&W print from a digital camera the noise begins in the blacks & shadows and fades evenly going to the highlights. Depending on how you convert to B&W from the color digital image, you might get white fleck noise, from the RGB noise, which looks really strange. One of the tip offs to a digital B&W image (or a badly processed one) is the gritty blacks and darker shadows. A grainless B&W may also be a tip off, too....
Bob