The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Just for fun -- film or digital
- Thread starter mathomas
- Start date
mathomas
Active member
To clarify (too late to edit): I meant I was waiting for someone to say "they are all digital on line", not that #3 is digital. The poll runs for two weeks -- I'm not giving any hints.@darr: I was waiting for someone to say that
M5-Guy
New member
I agree. I shoot both, and develop BW... 1 and 2 show the type of detail that only film can give... digital lacks the gradual tone slope (DR) and adds edge detail that film does not have, [IE: Film has a more feathered edge sharpness]. But, Digital has more finer detail and the edges are more defined than film. Giving digital a sharper appearance, even though it may not be actually sharper, but just records edges with less feathering than film.
mathomas
Active member
OK, this has been up for a week. 285 views and only 15 votes. I think we're done here. Thanks to all of you who voted and commented! :salute:
I think the results are interesting.
Here's the breakdown:
Image 1
Film
Leica M2 + Voigtlander 35/1.4 SC
Plus-X @ EI 400, developed in Diafine 3+3 (standard process)
Image 2
Digital
Leica M8 + Zeiss 25/2.8
B&W Conversion and adjustments in Nik Silver Efex Pro
Image 3
Film
Leica M2 + Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5
Rollei Retro 80S @ box speed
Developed in Adonal (like Rodinal) 14m @19C, gentle agitation every 2m
Image 2 and 3 were taken in the same session, so same light. Obviously, the focal lengths and lens qualities are a bit different.
I mostly posted this because I was surprised and pleased at the grain-free qualities and smooth tones of the Retro 80s compared to the Plus-X, and wanted to share with others. Of course, the Plus-X frame was exposed in very low light, with a push, in a different developer.
I also thought it might be interesting to do a B&W conversion of my M8 file and try to make the M8's results look like the Plus-X. I applied Silver Efex' Plus-X adjustment, and added more grain to match the Plus-X negative.
Then I started comparing all three images and started thinking a poll might be fun.
As I said before, I happily shoot both digital and film. I have no dog in any fight between them. I shoot film partially because I have to work harder for my results (the process is the reward, to some degree), and I like the authenticity of B&W results from shooting B&W film (among a lot of other reasons). I shoot digital because, let's face it, it's more convenient, and you can use amazing tools to get the results you want (within the limitations of digital), and then change your mind later.
In the end, it's about the image.
I think the results are interesting.
Here's the breakdown:
Image 1
Film
Leica M2 + Voigtlander 35/1.4 SC
Plus-X @ EI 400, developed in Diafine 3+3 (standard process)
Image 2
Digital
Leica M8 + Zeiss 25/2.8
B&W Conversion and adjustments in Nik Silver Efex Pro
Image 3
Film
Leica M2 + Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5
Rollei Retro 80S @ box speed
Developed in Adonal (like Rodinal) 14m @19C, gentle agitation every 2m
Image 2 and 3 were taken in the same session, so same light. Obviously, the focal lengths and lens qualities are a bit different.
I mostly posted this because I was surprised and pleased at the grain-free qualities and smooth tones of the Retro 80s compared to the Plus-X, and wanted to share with others. Of course, the Plus-X frame was exposed in very low light, with a push, in a different developer.
I also thought it might be interesting to do a B&W conversion of my M8 file and try to make the M8's results look like the Plus-X. I applied Silver Efex' Plus-X adjustment, and added more grain to match the Plus-X negative.
Then I started comparing all three images and started thinking a poll might be fun.
As I said before, I happily shoot both digital and film. I have no dog in any fight between them. I shoot film partially because I have to work harder for my results (the process is the reward, to some degree), and I like the authenticity of B&W results from shooting B&W film (among a lot of other reasons). I shoot digital because, let's face it, it's more convenient, and you can use amazing tools to get the results you want (within the limitations of digital), and then change your mind later.
In the end, it's about the image.
Last edited:
mathomas
Active member
Probably has a lot more to do with the conditions than the medium. The first one was shot in very dim conditions. Not a lot of contrast between the background and the foreground in that case. This is esp. true given the fact that the last one is also film.
However, my scanner is not the best in the world, either, and that is a massive variable.
However, my scanner is not the best in the world, either, and that is a massive variable.
mathomas
Active member
Hi, just saw your reply. Don't feel bad that I "got you"
. I wasn't really trying to. I just found myself in awe of the "smoothness" of the Rollei Retro 80S frame, even compared to an M8 file from the same day. The Retro 80S is a very nice film, but super-contrasty, which may account for the blown highlights (that, or my scanner, of course).