M9 and B&W?

[nei1]

Sorry Lloyd, just getting used to Zenfolio - this one should work :



Click on the link for the larger size.

What do you think?

Cheers

Brian

Ill try once more........ ,Brian do you really find the chair back fused to the girls arm acceptable?and what looks like a light saber lazer dividing the picture in two,am I going crazy or is this really not important to any of you.I find this digital artifact just completly unacceptable,a jarring distortion of reality.Is there a way of fixing this?or do you just have togrow to accept this sort of thing whenusing digital?

 

[stevem8]

Here is a B&W from today with the M9

I am finding it no different than the M8 in regards to processing.

 

[stevem8]

One more

One more...

 

[Brian Mosley]

Ill try once more........ ,Brian do you really find the chair back fused to the girls arm acceptable?and what looks like a light saber lazer dividing the picture in two,am I going crazy or is this really not important to any of you.I find this digital artifact just completly unacceptable,a jarring distortion of reality.Is there a way of fixing this?or do you just have togrow to accept this sort of thing whenusing digital?

Hi nei1, it looks like a high contrast / blown out of focus area which is indeed rendered harshly - I tried to subdue the bright white patch, but the out of focus edges were rendered as the odd line you noticed.

I'm not sure whether it's a characteristic of the lens or the way the sensor renders the edges of blown highlights, or a combination of both - I'd be interested in reading the experts' take on it.

Kind Regards

Brian

Cheers

Brian

 

[fotografz]

Is there a way to get tones that would look like tri-x in rodinal with the actions from Jeff A?
I still think film has the advantage but this progresssion is very interesting to watch and I understand that film is not an option sometimes.

Look forward to more. Thanks for all the testing.

Film not being an option is usually part and parcel of doing commercial work these days ... like Guy's work ... and most any commercial gig I get. Even if I wanted to shoot film, no one will pay the scanning fees any more, and most certainly aren't willing to change their production time line to accommodate that extra step.

Some personal work is another matter.

Digital color conversion to B&W has most certainly come a long way, and to answer your question NO there isn't an Ascough Tri-X in Rodinal choice ... but there is a B&W ISO 400 film, 400 film with diffusion, and ISO 800 film choice ... then a bunch of different enhancements to simulate enlarger effects ... like diffused grain more, or condenser grain & condenser grain more.

I'm just new to these actions and am playing as I go. I just shot a wedding where the client showed up 1 hour late and we lost our light, so I'll really be pushing these M9 films around like a bully in a schoolyard.

-Marc

 

[nei1]

Brian,glad you find it a little offputting too,Im sure one of the many photoshop wizards here will correct this in a second.After all this is a brand new 7000$ camera. GUY and JACK,..the ball is in your court,..Im 99.9% sure that film would not have blown this highlight to infinity as this sensor has done.If there is a way round this it would be nice to see.Ive often thought that a direct comparison with film would give a good baseline reference point to really see how good the new technology is,but its seldom done,...just one digital camera against another.

 

[Mike Hatam]

Steve - those are great shots. I especially like the 2nd one. The find detail and signature Leica smoothness... very nice!

 

[Jack]

.Im 99.9% sure that film would not have blown this highlight to infinity as this sensor has done.

Maybe not. I think if you want to do good digital B&W, it is my opinion you need to start with a properly exposed file first and especially one with no seriously clipped highlights that may be distracting.

 

[Lloyd]

Ill try once more........ ,Brian do you really find the chair back fused to the girls arm acceptable?and what looks like a light saber lazer dividing the picture in two,am I going crazy or is this really not important to any of you.

Well... poorly exposed image, for sure, but I find much more interesting things about these two women than the arm against the chair. Just sayin'...

 

[kevinparis]

fotografz wrote

"I just shot a wedding where the client showed up 1 hour late and we lost our light, so I'll really be pushing these M9 films around like a bully in a schoolyard."

well isn't that what you were paid for... getting the photograph?. Don't blame the client or the light

peace
K

 

[fotografz]

fotografz wrote

well isn't that what you were paid for... getting the photograph?. Don't blame the client or the light

peace
K

Thanks for the tip.

Wasn't blaming the client or light ... just mentioning it because it's a chance to see how the M9 works under difficult conditions.

Got the shots.

Always get the shots.

But again, thanks for the tip, even if it was sort of uncalled for.


-Marc

 

[Lloyd]

Thanks for the tip.

Wasn't blaming the client or light ... just mentioning it because it's a chance to see how the M9 works under difficult conditions.

Got the shots.

Always get the shots.

But again, thanks for the tip, even if it was sort of uncalled for.


-Marc

Didn't enjoy that one, eh Marc. :ROTFL:

Not to worry... you always get the shots... even the last (or parting) shot, in this case. :thumbup:

Hey. How about doing some side-by-side comparisons of the D3X and the M9? Love to see comparisons of the DR and IQ from someone who's work we know and admire. :salute:

Thanks in advance.

 

[fotografz]

Didn't enjoy that one, eh Marc. :ROTFL:

Not to worry... you always get the shots... even the last (or parting) shot, in this case. :thumbup:

Hey. How about doing some side-by-side comparisons of the D3X and the M9? Love to see comparisons of the DR and IQ from someone who's work we know and admire. :salute:

Thanks in advance.

Thanks, will do.

I shot with both the M9, Sony A900 and D3X at the reception for this wedding job.

But I don't know how fair of a comparison it would be ... most all of the M9 shots were available light, where all of the DSLR shots were with flash.

I have a SF58 flash coming for next week's wedding to see if I can use the M9 for some of the really dark conditions. A little fill sometimes makes the difference even with a M.

- Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Brian,glad you find it a little offputting too,Im sure one of the many photoshop wizards here will correct this in a second.After all this is a brand new 7000$ camera. GUY and JACK,..the ball is in your court,..Im 99.9% sure that film would not have blown this highlight to infinity as this sensor has done.If there is a way round this it would be nice to see.Ive often thought that a direct comparison with film would give a good baseline reference point to really see how good the new technology is,but its seldom done,...just one digital camera against another.

Film would have blown that chair arm also. Major issue is it is reflecting back at the camera with full reflection. If I was right or left a little the reflection would have been less. Also I can bring it under 255 pretty easy with clipping but there is not detail in it anyway. Just a smooth glossy chair. So in reality it has two negatives going against it right out of the gate . Even the MF system would most likely not capture that correctly. Basically a spectral highlight with no real detail in it

If you look at it very closely the very very top left is the top of the chair and it is in another direction so it is not reflecting the light and it is a little better tone. The light is coming from the right and if you shot a bullet into the chair from the sun angle to the angle of the chair it would reflect right in the camera. The angle of reflectance equals the angle of incidence. I think I said that correct. Only thing to save it is angle the chair differently.

This happens a lot when in the studio shooting product and I shot a lot of art glass in my day and this issue is a real bitch to deal with. Seriously I would call that part of the image a bad sample for a comparison with film but I agree sometimes film does have a better tone. For a lot of us it is a forgotten art per say but I am glad i grew up in that age because i learned so much about the process of it and i am afraid in general the younger generation has no clue of those processes that actually taught you about highlights, shadows and tone. That is just a gut feeling.

 

[Brian Mosley]

I'd have no problem with a totally white highlight, but the transitions are where digital can sometimes fall down... the outline of the chair leg also seems like a monotone... a bit like it was painted in a pixel editor?

Do you think that would have looked the same with film?

I wouldn't want to blow this out of proportion, but highlight transitions are obviously of huge interest with any camera system.

Thanks Guy

Brian

 

[nei1]

Guy thanks for the reply,I see your point about the reflection and it seems that b&w conversion has exasberated the problem,(naively could those highlights be masked before the conversion)but it remains a problem with dynamic range from digital cameras.What is certain is that its a lot uglier than it would have been with film.

Ive noticed that the foveon sensor favours the rendition of highlights at the expense of shadow detail,As the "volume"of a sensor can be turned up to give more sensitivity its presumably impossible to move its dynamic range up and down in a similar way,for different situations.

It would have been intersting to compare this with film,...not to wave any flags,just to give an aging filmite like me an easy reference point,thanks for your time..Neil.

 

[Vivek]

IMV, a shot taken in that light with film or digital or any format would produce exactly the same results.

Light and not the medium or the various processing discussed is the problem.

Had that shot been taken under less harsh light, this film vs digital discussion would not have taken place.

Does anyone remember trying Agfa APX-100 under similar condition? Would have been far worse.

 

[fotografz]

Guy thanks for the reply,I see your point about the reflection and it seems that b&w conversion has exasberated the problem,(naively could those highlights be masked before the conversion)but it remains a problem with dynamic range from digital cameras.What is certain is that its a lot uglier than it would have been with film.

Ive noticed that the foveon sensor favours the rendition of highlights at the expense of shadow detail,As the "volume"of a sensor can be turned up to give more sensitivity its presumably impossible to move its dynamic range up and down in a similar way,for different situations.

It would have been intersting to compare this with film,...not to wave any flags,just to give an aging filmite like me an easy reference point,thanks for your time..Neil.

I'm a film-aholic also Neil, that's why I was pushing for B&W conversion ideas for the M9.

What I do with B&W digital to overcome the DR limit is to initially process the RAW file semi-flat in tone to maintain the brights, then select the brights in Photoshop, feather them, and place them on a layer to protect them when manipulating the base layer. Then I can add the levels of contrast to the base layer with affecting the brights. When finished, I can adjust the Brights layer opacity to blend with the base layer.

This is a really, really fast technique that works so well I've had numerous inquiries on how I manage to keep such faithful detail in a bride's dress while the remaining image is high contrast with detail in the shadow areas.

-Marc

 

[TRSmith]

At least in my mind, the true beauty and power of film is best portrayed when actually printed in a darkroom instead of digitizing the neg through scanning. I think it's worth mentioning that had the shot been taken on film with the same specular highlight present, the only option in a traditional analog work flow would be to try and manipulate the highlights and shadows of the print by dodging and burning (and/or some other more arcane printing technique).

At that point, the success of the print to capture whatever nuance that film might have allowed would depend almost entirely on the skill of the guy standing in front of the enlarger. A very tricky and time consuming feat to pull off, even for an expert.

In the end what this shot needed was simply a half-step to the left. (No offense Guy, I can understand 100% why you might have been distracted.)

 

[glenerrolrd]

I'm a film-aholic also Neil, that's why I was pushing for B&W conversion ideas for the M9.

What I do with B&W digital to overcome the DR limit is to initially process the RAW file semi-flat in tone to maintain the brights, then select the brights in Photoshop, feather them, and place them on a layer to protect them when manipulating the base layer. Then I can add the levels of contrast to the base layer with affecting the brights. When finished, I can adjust the Brights layer opacity to blend with the base layer.

This is a really, really fast technique that works so well I've had numerous inquiries on how I manage to keep such faithful detail in a bride's dress while the remaining image is high contrast with detail in the shadow areas.

-Marc

Marc

Since I know you are a fan of LR as well.....have you tried to accomplish this with the Local Area adjustments? I have generally found that I can create a mask on any part of the image with the brush...and then adjust with the LAA sliders to taste.

It seems to have the same effect but maybe I don t know what to look for in the file.