Analog Dreams are Over

[cam]

Jono,

first off, ignore the flat comment -- especially in comparison to the DP1. Sigma tends to over-sharpen and the files naturally have more pop. however, it would also be very difficult with that camera to get the delicate tonalities you achieved here -- which i think is much more in keeping with the subject matter. not to mention how perfectly easy it is to get flat files from film. it's all in the processing....

one day on, and i'm quite amazed at the tonal values the M8 is capable of. very different from any other camera i've used and i was quite taken back by the gentleness of the files. definitely much more filmic than any other....

and i am totally with you on the randomness of your shooting style -- finding things rather than going out in search. it is often my whimsical shots (one i'd never dare "waste" on film) that are my best. there is a place for digital, no doubt.

however, i'm not giving up my M2. i love what film can do and am not going to abandon it. i plan to take it out now again and force myself to shoot as normal. this will keep the cost down (it really is disgustingly expensive here -- i could never shoot only film!) but allow me to still play in that medium. i also think there are days when i'll take it out in tandem with the M8, pulling it out for shots where i know it will excel.

i'm actually happy with my arrangement, but i got an M that cost much less than the one you had your eye on so i don't feel that pressure. i think you might, eventually, decide to go at it again and be pleasantly surprised. i know you've worked hard to get a flow going where you don't have to spend much time on each photo, but mixing it up can be good for the soul.

dabbling in analogue may keep you from complacency (you know pretty much what you're going to get whereas the M8 is still an anathema to me). get a beat up meterless cam and play. there's a joy in not having the foggiest idea of what you're going to get and it's amazing how much nicer an M2 feels in the hand....

 

[helenhill]

Congrats Cam...very HAPPY for You
Post some Pixs



Best- H

 

[nei1]

Cam my reference to flat concerns depth not contrast

 

[cam]

thank you, Helen. still just playing around.... i completely understand your frustrations, however, as these files need to be PP'ed. i personally find it heavenly to have a camera that gives you such raw RAWs, but it will take a bit to find the sweet spot. i love that they're so untouched! any processing will be all me -- rather than what a manufacturer believes it should be. i find it the digital equivalent to developing and scanning film yourself

Neil, i know what you were talking about and i emphatically disagree. there was plenty of depth, just much more subtle than we're used to seeing. i thought it worked with the delicacy of the subject matter and imagine it would look gorgeous in print (which, after all, is the true test). i'm a fan of the texture in film, mind you, but i think the air of virginity here does show where digital perfection can work brilliantly for a given subject matter. film would have given it an entirely different air altogether.

 

[nei1]

Last post.

I wish someone who has both an M8 and a film M would put a decent slow film in it ,put it on a tripod,take a suitable photo,change to the M8 take the same image with the same lens and then post them side by side.
Cam ,I think you should do this and shut me up for good,if you succeed Ill sell all my analogue gear(might keep the M6)and buy an M8

 

[jonoslack]

Sorry to offend Jono,thought you were made of sterner stuff,maybe I should have included that your shot of the daffodils is beautiful,but it is also flat.

Offended?:ROTFL:
I'm not offended, but it's like religion:
"I believe God exists"
"I believe digital is flat"
There isn't much point in saying "I don't believe in God"

. . . . Mind you, I could start a campaign on the side of buses

Just to prove I'm not sulking here is another flat digital image:

together with crop (but I'm really not sure why this is relevant):

 

[cam]

tit for tat

I wish someone who has both an M8 and a film M would put a decent slow film in it ,put it on a tripod,take a suitable photo,change to the M8 take the same image with the same lens and then post them side by side.
Cam ,I think you should do this and shut me up for good,if you succeed Ill sell all my analogue gear(might keep the M6)and buy an M8

Neil -- i will see.... once i get a little more comfortable with BOTH cameras, perhaps. to do it now would be unfair -- to both mediums. i also need to figure out which lenses to use. i have equivalent focal lengths, but the character of the glass is quite different -- which makes the test unfair....

you cannot "take the same image with the same lens" because of the 1.33 crop on the M8 unless you back up/move forward -- in which case it's not the same image at all.... i'm afraid you may have to continue being in digital agony until a full-frame digital M comes out. but what the hey, you seem to be enjoying yourself! it would be a shame to shut you up

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,

first off, ignore the flat comment -- especially in comparison to the DP1. Sigma tends to over-sharpen and the files naturally have more pop. however, it would also be very difficult with that camera to get the delicate tonalities you achieved here -- which i think is much more in keeping with the subject matter. not to mention how perfectly easy it is to get flat files from film. it's all in the processing....

Ah yes - tonality vs zap. One thing the A900 is very good at (that daffodil shot was with the A900) is tonal subtlety, most black and white film is designed to get the black blacks and white whites which we all love (I'm not being sarcastic), I think that this makes it hard to get the mid tone subtleties, especially when you then go on to scan the negative - the grain (which is also lovely) exacerbates this situation.

You'll notice that in all this discussion there is no point where I'm dissing film . .. I'm just arguing against my fellow Cornishman's dissing of digital.

one day on, and i'm quite amazed at the tonal values the M8 is capable of. very different from any other camera i've used and i was quite taken back by the gentleness of the files. definitely much more filmic than any other....

It's lovely isn't it - especially in black and white - good digital files are gentle - again, the A900 files are gentle, especially in the mid range.

and i am totally with you on the randomness of your shooting style -- finding things rather than going out in search. it is often my whimsical shots (one i'd never dare "waste" on film) that are my best. there is a place for digital, no doubt.

Ah yes, I'm afraid Cam that you and I don't take it all seriously enough

One of the oft mentioned arguments for medium format is that it makes you more deliberate and careful . . . . with me that spells disaster.

Mind you, I'd hate to give the impression that I take millions of shots at random. I'll often go out for a couple of hours and only take 1/2 dozen shots. It's just that I always have a camera with me - compacts are never good enough, so it's either an slr, or the M8. A Hassy with three or four lenses really is more than I want to carry around all the time.

however, i'm not giving up my M2. i love what film can do and am not going to abandon it. i plan to take it out now again and force myself to shoot as normal. this will keep the cost down (it really is disgustingly expensive here -- i could never shoot only film!) but allow me to still play in that medium. i also think there are days when i'll take it out in tandem with the M8, pulling it out for shots where i know it will excel.

I'd love to - if there was a local lab who scanned well - then I'd go for it . . . But there isn't, I've rung lots of labs about their scanning, and none of them even pretend that it's good enough. To do it myself simply takes too long.

dabbling in analogue may keep you from complacency (you know pretty much what you're going to get whereas the M8 is still an anathema to me). get a beat up meterless cam and play. there's a joy in not having the foggiest idea of what you're going to get and it's amazing how much nicer an M2 feels in the hand....

Well, it's so rare that I've had anything like a settled camera situation, that was a last reason to stick . . for years now I've been changing around cameras every couple of months. I may be crap, but I ain't complacent :ROTFL:


Thank you for your post - all that remains is to congratulate you on your M8 . . . I hope you're very happy together!

My black one increasingly has the feel of an old pair of levis . . . it's not scratched, but the corners are gradually getting shiny.
lovely

 

[jonoslack]

Last post.

I hope not - this discussion is already infinite - no reason to stop now!

I wish someone who has both an M8 and a film M would put a decent slow film in it ,put it on a tripod,take a suitable photo,change to the M8 take the same image with the same lens and then post them side by side.
Cam ,I think you should do this and shut me up for good,if you succeed Ill sell all my analogue gear(might keep the M6)and buy an M8

This is pointless Neil - partly because, as Cam says, the crop makes it so. But also for 3 good reasons:

1. Some things look better in film and others in digital
2. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder
3. You have already made up your mind, which means you filter any new evidence through the decisions you have already made.

I think the thing which is really telling is that, having decided you might dabble in digital, you've picked on the DP1 - which, to my eyes, produces the most digital looking files there are; sure, they have 'sparkle'.
It's almost as if you're TRYING to reinforce a decision you've already made (surely not )

 

[cam]

Thank you for your post - all that remains is to congratulate you on your M8 . . . I hope you're very happy together!

My black one increasingly has the feel of an old pair of levis . . . it's not scratched, but the corners are gradually getting shiny.
lovely

i am a dog with... well, you know

seriously happy, but still a little puzzled with all the settings. my Epson was just soooo anologue-like, i'm a little befuddled (i really hate having to RTFM). i am looking forward to breaking mine in (you should see what i did to the Epson in less than a year!) but seriously hope it doesn't resemble any of my Levis. i'm afraid they all have holes in the knees

 

[fotografz]

Re: tit for tat

I don't understand the issue with field of view?

Shoot with set width boundries and crop the film shot to 1.33X factor. The lens draw remains the same whether on a crop frame digital M or a film M. Leave the tripod stationary, shoot M8, then swap and shoot the film M ... crop the film shot to match the digital crop. If you do this test, it should be a high resolution scan.
(What would be even better is to print the film as a silver print and the M8 as a digital print.) IMO, the ISO should be the same. If 160 film is used that's what the M8 should be set to.

As for making up one's mind before hand ... that's a two way street is it not?

 

[nei1]

I beginto wonder at your real level of experience with analogue Jono,judging by your last comments,I think there may be more of a discussion if I was to bark at a different digital tree,one with analogue branches,so thanks for the entertainment,catch you later,Neil.

 

[Oxide Blu]

"I believe God exists"
"I believe digital is flat"

I don't understand; are you blaming God for your flat pixels, or are you asking God to fix your flat pixels? Good luck. :ROTFL:

 

[Amin]

film is designed to get the black blacks and white whites which we all love (I'm not being sarcastic), I think that this makes it hard to get the mid tone subtleties, especially when you then go on to scan the negative - the grain (which is also lovely) exacerbates this situation.

Jono, I respectfully think you've got it backwards here. I think film makes it easier to distinguish midtone subtleties, which are present in both good digital (ie, A900) and film, but take more processing expertise to bring out with digital.

I've yet to see any digital black and white with nice tonality that wasn't processed skillfully. This is evidenced by the fact that there isn't a digital camera around that gets great results with the in-camera black and white JPEG option (IMO). I have seen film black and white with nice tonality without any special care paid to developing and subsequent processing.

 

[jonoslack]

Re: tit for tat

As for making up one's mind before hand ... that's a two way street is it not?

It would be if I were trying to say that digital was better - which I'm certainly not.

 

[jonoslack]

I beginto wonder at your real level of experience with analogue Jono,judging by your last comments,I think there may be more of a discussion if I was to bark at a different digital tree,one with analogue branches,so thanks for the entertainment,catch you later,Neil.

Perhaps, as Marc says - this is an argument which could be reversed?
I've never claimed great experience (even though I shot analogue for 20 years). But then, I'm not criticising film either.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, I respectfully think you've got it backwards here. I think film makes it easier to distinguish midtone subtleties, which are present in both good digital (ie, A900) and film, but take more processing expertise to bring out with digital.

I've yet to see any digital black and white with nice tonality that wasn't processed skillfully. This is evidenced by the fact that there isn't a digital camera around that gets great results with the in-camera black and white JPEG option (IMO). I have seen film black and white with nice tonality without any special care paid to developing and subsequent processing.

HI Amin
I was really talking about scanned film - but I'll accept your correction.

 

[jonoslack]

I don't understand; are you blaming God for your flat pixels, or are you asking God to fix your flat pixels? Good luck. :ROTFL:

:ROTFL:
Well, I suppose one could try?

 

[woodyspedden]

Sorry guys but this thread is becoming circular. It is now hard to tell what were the original positions and the explanations seem to be getting further and further from the point. No one is really learning here any longer (if indeed ever) so why not go with what you love and believe in and recognize that there is no one size fits all. JMHO

Woody

 

[jonoslack]

Sorry guys but this thread is becoming circular. It is now hard to tell what were the original positions and the explanations seem to be getting further and further from the point. No one is really learning here any longer (if indeed ever) so why not go with what you love and believe in and recognize that there is no one size fits all. JMHO

Woody

Bingo Woody!
:thumbup: