wnw: Film vs Digital Low light shoot-out--B/W

Well it's a way to tell if they're looking at the photo to determine anything, looks like they're not.

*istD<div></div>

Crappy labscan of Fujicolor 1600. - I stood on that stage with my meter and used a spotreading of his face too. The negs were so thin that the lab didn't find the spacing of the frames during a 1st attempt to print.<div></div>

A better example of same film and lab.<div></div>

Twilight, Delta 3200, Leica M6, 50mm Summicron.<p>

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4934601-lg.jpg"></center>

And 500 x 500 pixel detail.<div></div>

In focus detail.<div></div>

Jeff you embarrass yourself. For a moderator of one forum to come over to another and play a little game in order to show people up in the other forum is not respectful.

 

Is anyone moderating the moderators?

"Is anyone moderating the moderators?"

 

Wahhh... Teacher teacher, Jeff is throwing spitballs again. Make him stop... Wahhhh...

 

 

Was very telling, even if Jack's feelings were hurt.

I agree with Allen about Rich's photograph of the pipe. There just is no logic to the idea of the human brain taking in a photograph. You can write book after book, make internet post after internet post. You can argue digital this or digital that or film blah blah. But the fact remains that some photographs are just downright interesting, and that pipe is one of them. I am really curious why!

How was it very telling? How do you tell anything from these small low quality shots on this forum? I thought this thread was supposed to be a "show and tell" not a contest to see who can trick others by deceiving. It wasn't telling, it was lame.

Brad your feeble attempt at sarcasm is just a bit off. What I'm actually saying is: "Wah, the teacher is throwing spitballs on us." And your chirping in at this point is quite appropriate and telling.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6344/1997/1600/Blog%202%20e.jpg

 

Hell, I couldn't have known the ISO at the time. We still called it ASA. I didn't have to worry about copying the "file" every few years and the film still seems nice and stable. The negative is nearly 45 years old but the print was made but a year or two ago.

<I>Brad your feeble attempt at sarcasm</I><P>

 

Huh??? Not my intent. Just portraying how your post comes off to others - as a child's whine.

I do feel bad that you get upset so easily.

Brad, we're still waiting to see some of your fantastic Leica photographs, perhaps even some mediocre ones, but at least something shot with a "Leica or Rangefinder". We've been waiting for years. Nobody is denying that you have a good handle on digital techniques. Tell us how to get great low light shots in digital B&W with our shiny new M8s. We know that you don't believe in film. That's cool, no problem. Just tell us something useful once in awhile, and back it up with results.

Two more

<br><br>

<center><i>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/69086444.jpg">

<br>

Leica M3, Summicron 50/2, Kodak BW400CN

<br><br><br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/68678624.jpg">

<br>

Olympus 35UC, Neopan 1600

</i></center>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images17/HandBW.jpg">

</center>

<i>"... Is anyone moderating the moderators? ..."</i>

<p>An age old question:

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes?

How do you tell anything from these small low quality shots on this forum?

 

A person called Jonathan claimed he could when he looked at a pic by Ray on another posting. He was very sure about it when he was told it was a Leica pic. It seems that others on this posting were equally sure when they were told it was a Leica pic.

 

They have become very upset when they realized they have been duped.

Would things really be so different comparing prints. If we printed them all as inkjets with a grey print set there would probably be more difference between photographers than there would be between their film and digital work.

Jeff (www.spirer.com), oct 22, 2006; 01:20 p.m.

 

"heh heh, that is a shot on Tri-X. I put the EXIF into it. Obviously you don't judge by the

appearance of the shot."

 

I offered no judgment; I submitted only "the facts."

Johnnycake, you said something way up-thread about highlights on film blowing out. It's worth comparing your scan with the negative. Try as I may by adjusting levels before scanning, I cannot get all the info into the scan. But I can burn it in when printing. This applies especially to artificial lights.

Jonathan Reynolds, oct 24, 2006; 12:05 p.m.

 

Johnnycake, you said something way up-thread about highlights on film blowing out. It's

worth comparing your scan with the negative. Try as I may by adjusting levels before

scanning, I cannot get all the info into the scan. But I can burn it in when printing. This

applies especially to artificial lights.

 

I "honor" my submissions.

 

[which "image" are you "monkeying" with?]

If Ray's image in the other thread is indeed digital -- for the record, he claimed it was film and never subsequently said otherwise -- then he has done a masterful job of achieving the look of film and I am curious how he did so and how much post-processing effort it took. Perhaps someday all digital images will look so good.

 

However, the basic point -- that even on a computer screen, and even moreso in prints, few digital images have the beautiful tonality that many film images have -- still stands. The evidence is the other images posted in that thread, great images by talented photographers but still lacking the rich tonality of film, especially in the highlights.

 

Obviously, I have my preference, but I'm not out to convert anyone or play "gotcha." I wonder why anyone would want to play that game. Is it a symptom of photo.net's transformation from a community to a marketing tool for digital camera makers?

Neopan 400 developed for 1600, I believe I shot this at 800. Light was very good - a huge factor.<div></div>