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!

M9 and B&W?

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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.)

None taken basically was just processed and nothing done to it but yes a little burning might help it. This image falls squarely into my ugly testing bin. LOL

Which is something I love to do is shoot in the worst conditions and see how things hold up. This qualifies. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Guy, I think your test served more than its intended purpose. Thanks for reporting. :)

It is unfortunate that one image got dragged into film vs digital (again :eek:) discussion.

Just how many stops is print paper (darkroom) capable of showing?

It is either that or the scanner's DR that would determine the usefulness of film.

Projection (slides and movies) are a different matter but I guess the discussion has not alluded to that w.r.t. film.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Thanks but that is what this forum is about and discussing even one image is great. There will always be the film vs digital comparisons. One will never be like the other but certainly you can get very close with good technique. For folks that want to get close to film than learning this stuff and knowing what limits there are is good to know.
 

cam

Active member
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.
curious as you mentioned that you beta-tested Jeff's actions.... his first package include a Highlight Paramedic that has worked brilliantly when i thought i ****ed up. actually, honestly, it was probably my bad, but i've always been surprised at what details in the highlights can be recovered without the expense of the other details going south.
 
C

colin

Guest
First post here. Thanks for making the DNG available for play. Here's my go with assistance from Alien Skin Exposure:
 

mwalker

Subscriber Member
guys original is better than that, what did you do? maybe its my laptop monitor. looks muddy to me.
 
Last edited:
N

nei1

Guest
Colin, mwalker is not critisising your attempt but mine that I removed not thinking how it would look.
Mike ,Iagree,but as an excuse Im only trying to get some detail in the areas that worry me.Others will do a better job but it seems by lowering the contrast and toning the image in raw then adding grain with dxo film plug in ,something can be done.Honestly have little idea what Im doing and maybe have degraded the image with what Ive done,thanks..Neil.
 
C

colin

Guest
Thanks Neil. I think yours looks pretty good! In working with the RAW files, I pretty much did what you said - processed low contrast followed by toning in ASE - except that I didn't add grain.
 

mwalker

Subscriber Member
Colin, mwalker is not critisising your attempt but mine that I removed not thinking how it would look.
Mike ,Iagree,but as an excuse Im only trying to get some detail in the areas that worry me.Others will do a better job but it seems by lowering the contrast and toning the image in raw then adding grain with dxo film plug in ,something can be done.Honestly have little idea what Im doing and maybe have degraded the image with what Ive done,thanks..Neil.
I like the grain but it seems to have lost its pop...oh and by the way I wasn't ctiticizing just making an observation...I'm sure you have a "little idea" of what you're doing .
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

A quick snap gets 100 hours of processing and discussion. :wtf:


Marc ... :ROTFL:
 

Lloyd

Active member
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

A quick snap gets 100 hours of processing and discussion. :wtf:


Marc ... :ROTFL:
I think you kicked that boulder off the cliff, Marc, didn't you? Look at that sucker roll... no stopping it now.
 
D

ddk

Guest
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

A quick snap gets 100 hours of processing and discussion. :wtf:


Marc ... :ROTFL:
Been wondering he same thing, why did everyone pick this one to play with?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
ROTFLMAO . I had other shots in that folder. The two girls together in black would have been a good one also 0527. Or the old buildings . I know boring but has the full tonal range in them
 
N

nautilus

Guest
...

I can do that with a $2,000. 24 meg image stabilized Sony A850 and Zeiss optics.

...
Hi Marc,

I remember that you are familiar with different cameras, e.g. Sony Alpha900, Nikon D3x and now M9. And that you have no problem with telling the truth. Hope there is no error so far with my assumptions. :):D;)

When I see some of M9's pictures here and on other places I get the impression that these pictures have a presence, clarity and easy natural sharpness that cameras like the A900 even with Zeiss glass can't deliver.

Of course I can be wrong because I only saw these web pictures and a few big prints from Leica in real life. (which were very convincing!) Therefore I would like to ask for your personal opinion on this topic.
Could it be true that the CCD sensor is responsible for this different look?

Thanks!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Been wondering he same thing, why did everyone pick this one to play with?
Because it's the one Guy uploaded :ROTFL:

Seriously though, I think it was a good example specifically because it is a "tough" file to work with.
 
Top