Reading mode: Light Dark

KR compares M9 and M3 (2 large img)

Go to last post
Hate to get into film vs. digital talk, but I think such comparisons are pointless. The grain of the wood is lost in the film grain of the M3 exposure while the M9 preserves it in all its glory. Just pp the M9 image to achieve the same effect if you wish. And why settle for 4 minutes exposure if the M9 takes only a few seconds?

From what I have seen IQ comparisons always favour digital. It is not about IQ anymore. It is about a different approach to photography, different styles, perception, emotion if you will. If I am going to try film (which I would love to), it will be for the latter reasons, not IQ.
 
Its nevertheless interesting to read, KR is obviously a die-hard film supporter, almost blind to the evidence in his own examples.
I give you right, for the same reasons I dont use my 6x9 Fujica very much.
 
I agree, and have learned a lot from visiting his site; also, like that he now has an obvious interest in Leica M Bodies, whether film or digital M, is somewhat immaterial to me, as they use the same leica lenses. :-)

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


CarstenDP1 said:
Its nevertheless interesting to read, KR is obviously a die-hard film supporter, almost blind to the evidence in his own examples.
I give you right, for the same reasons I dont use my 6x9 Fujica very much.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps, but just as in Music, where digital lacks the humanity of acoustic, photographic film has an organic quality that digital just can't duplicate.
Martee said:
From what I have seen IQ comparisons always favour digital. It is not about IQ anymore. It is about a different approach to photography, different styles, perception, emotion if you will. If I am going to try film (which I would love to), it will be for the latter reasons, not IQ.
Click to expand...
 
CarstenDP1 said:
Ken Rockwell prefers Velvia 50 over digital, and likes the feel, finder, and shutter of the M3 more.
Interesting reading, IMO

The complete article:
http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-10/index.htm

With M9:



With M3 and Velvia 50:

Click to expand...
--Interesting comparison. The digital image has done a far better job of handling the extreme contrast range but at the expense of the spectral highlights being so clearly defined as to appear surreal. While the velvia may be just as sharp its giving up detail and the finer nuances of contrast separation which is being lost in the grain. In this single instance I prefer the digital image but its only one example. I may strange but I don't seem to get the appeal of slide film in this application as it cannot even begin to relate to the contrast range of the subject. Even black and white film unless your using some rather unusual contrast reduction tricks cannot handle this much dynamic range. This to me is an example of where digital has some real strength over film.
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
 
in the complete article. Also in less contrasty motifs, KR is just fundamentally film-inclined. But some velvia examples are oversaturated for my taste
 
LOL. That is kinda the point of Velvia.

Personally, I prefer film... but you need to use the right film for the job. Velvia isn't a good choice for that scene.
CarstenDP1 said:
in the complete article. Also in less contrasty motifs, KR is just fundamentally film-inclined. But some velvia examples are oversaturated for my taste
Click to expand...
--
Rob aka NoTx...
-Film: Fuji GX680, Leica M6TTL, Contax G2, Contax G1
-Digital: Olympus E1 x2
 
wblynch said:
Perhaps, but just as in Music, where digital lacks the humanity of acoustic, photographic film has an organic quality that digital just can't duplicate.
Click to expand...
That certainly is a philosophical point of view - which I don't share. The only organic components I can see in film as opposed to digital is the use of organic phenolic compounds in developers. Just my HO, of course. ;-)
 
CarstenDP1 said:
.... KR is obviously a die-hard film supporter ....
Click to expand...
KRs opinions and preferences tends to change ever so often, and he often flies away on the wings of his enthusiasm (that may be unconscious or calculated). His opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
If digital sensors had a random arrangement of pixels they would look like film.
 
Film shot is horrid and should have been put in the round file -- Velvia is the wrong film -- I prefer Astia. The film shot is double imaged -- something really wrong there.

The digital shot is red fringed. Both shots are failures.

Rockwell has some good points and observations but he gets carried away with things like his hatred of the D3X because of price. He also likes jpeg images out of camera and I believe we all know RAW is better.
 
Signs of either a genius, saint or both, to me; and, besides, a lot of people his age and older grew up with "film" and appear to still like it ---- horse and buggy were nice too, and so were log cabins to live in, and candles to read by; but, most of us don't use them as they were required for use in the past, either. :-)

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


olstrup said:
olstrup said:
.... KR is obviously a die-hard film supporter ....
Click to expand...
KRs opinions and preferences tends to change ever so often, and he often flies away on the wings of his enthusiasm (that may be unconscious or calculated). His opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
 
olstrup said:
olstrup said:
Perhaps, but just as in Music, where digital lacks the humanity of acoustic, photographic film has an organic quality that digital just can't duplicate.
Click to expand...
That certainly is a philosophical point of view - which I don't share. The only organic components I can see in film as opposed to digital is the use of organic phenolic compounds in developers. Just my HO, of course. ;-)
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Speaking for myself (although I've heard quite a few others say the same), a significant reason why I chose to shoot film, is because I enjoy the tactile experience of everything from loading the film...to seeing my film emerge from the tank...to physically dodging and burning a print. I understand that many people don't feel the same way about shooting film, which is just fine with me. But I think it's interesting that many of us still do, still appreciate that physical experience with the entire process of making pictures. I suppose it's like someone who still enjoys driving a manual transmission in an auto. There is hardly ever a practical reason to do so (but many not to), yet there is that similar experience.

Yes, the final image/print is what we all strive for. But if you don't enjoy the journey, whether it's using a camera that is practical for your style of photography (for example, 35mm for street and MF/LF for landscape), or the delight when you see a print come to life in the developer...well, then I really think you're missing out on a significant part of this art/craft.

BTW, I still shoot a lot of digital.
--
  • Mark Ehlers (formerly 'markE')
http://www.pbase.com/marke



'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'
 
Mark Ehlers said:
olstrup said:
Mark Ehlers said:
Perhaps, but just as in Music, where digital lacks the humanity of acoustic, photographic film has an organic quality that digital just can't duplicate.
Click to expand...
That certainly is a philosophical point of view - which I don't share. The only organic components I can see in film as opposed to digital is the use of organic phenolic compounds in developers. Just my HO, of course. ;-)
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Speaking for myself (although I've heard quite a few others say the same), a significant reason why I chose to shoot film, is because I enjoy the tactile experience of everything from loading the film...to seeing my film emerge from the tank...to physically dodging and burning a print. I understand that many people don't feel the same way about shooting film, which is just fine with me. But I think it's interesting that many of us still do, still appreciate that physical experience with the entire process of making pictures. I suppose it's like someone who still enjoys driving a manual transmission in an auto. There is hardly ever a practical reason to do so (but many not to), yet there is that similar experience.

Yes, the final image/print is what we all strive for. But if you don't enjoy the journey, whether it's using a camera that is practical for your style of photography (for example, 35mm for street and MF/LF for landscape), or the delight when you see a print come to life in the developer...well, then I really think you're missing out on a significant part of this art/craft.

BTW, I still shoot a lot of digital.
Click to expand...
I hear and understand what you say, though I don't feel the same way myself about handling film. I shot on film and did my own developing and copying for 35 years before switching to digital. I still don't miss the darkroom work, the orange light and the acetic fumes. I do miss the slick handling feel of my M4 and M6 cameras, though. But the performance of the present digital Leica M cameras as compared to my Nikons has not (yet) made me buy a digital Leica. However, they are definitely on the way with the M9.

That said, I think what the poster meant was that THE LOOK of pictures shot on film is more organic (whatever that is). It was that statement I adressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top