Jump to content

From digital to film


Recommended Posts

Hi, I agree with the article and I also prefer to use my Fuji 69 rangefinders, an enormous negative, with Efke 25.

 

I bought a Fuji 680ii from $80 from a daft camera store, took it home and fixed it and now it works perfectly. Try that with a Leica.

 

 

http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/mp/index_e.html

 

 

I like the way film is an established, if sometimes specialist, medium. Like another post said, the digital files of Ansel Adams are worth nothing compared to his prints. I am a beginner for past 18 months.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "worth" of Ansel's work has entirely to do with the responses of viewers and whatever satisfaction he experienced. Mr. Meyers confuses price with "worth." And he confuses "image" with print.

 

It's peculiar to claim Ansel, who didn't mind printing and selling unsharp folding room dividers from Polaroid negatives, thought sharpness was crucial. As well, Ansel certainly didn't confine himself to one lens, or even to the best lenses.

 

Ansel would have been excited to shoot digitally, exploring the new medium. If he was alive and shooting, he'd surely have a 22MP back for his Hassleblad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy makes one good, valid point:<P><I>In my opinion, no one ever bothered to invent a film product to fit the new age. E6 and C-41 compatible film are dead paths for a digital world. We need something new and designed exclusively for digital scanning.</i><P>The rest is a bunch of narcissistic, goose-stepping Leica worship and contains the typical boring B&W sh1t complete with crops to show how sharp his wonderful German glass is. I've deleted more interesting junk from my 10D capture cards without bothering to rotate the images.<P>The Fuji Rangefinders, especially the 6x9, are better film machines than Leica users can possibly comprehend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy makes one point worth following up on:

 

"In my opinion, no one ever bothered to invent a film product to fit the new age. E6 and C-41 compatible film are dead paths for a digital world. We need something new and designed exclusively for digital scanning."

 

No kidding. Astia is about as low contrast for E6 as you can get, short of using EDupe (which is a tungsten film needing an 81A or 81B filter over the lens to shoot in daylight or flash.)

 

What I would REALLY like to see is a low contrast C41 film, WITHOUT that pesky orange mask, i.e. a simple-to-process negative film explicitely for scanning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe change "The LEICA MP is a tool" to "The Leica zealot is a tool"?

 

Or at least the ones who go on about how sharp images occur when you shoot completely wide open. Honestly, even if it were true is the sharpness what made the images good in the first place?

 

I think articles like this just justify gear-obsession and the notion that taking good photographs means having very expensive equipment which are imbued with magical properties like perfect sharpness and ease of use. I need to write an ode to my Canonet so others will understand that without the silent Canonet and its awesome lens you cannot possibly take good candid photographs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heaven help him if he ever gets his hands on a Hasselblad and Efke 25 in 120. Sounds way

too much like the speaker-cable people; yes, you can hear a difference between baling wire

and decent speaker wire, but after that point has been passed, you're projecting your own

issues onto the hardware.

 

Still; all that effort, and he's still shooting a postage-stamp sized piece of film, and scanning

it on a CCD. You'd have thought he'd at least be paying from drum-scans, given the rest of

his obsessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read this guy's rant about his almost unique DCS760m B&W digital camera, you'll see he's living in a fool's paradise.

 

And this is someone (me!) who is switching the film part of his shooting from Nikon 35mm to Mamiya 645AFd!

 

Though, I will give Pete Myers credit for one thing: Many photographers (this one included) have too many lenses...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine that the market for a negative film optimized for scanning would be large enough to make marketing it worthwhile. Almost anyone who is finicky enough to find current films like 400UC (which scans very well) inadequate will switch to a DSLR if he hasn't already. Hybrid workflow is strictly a stopgap for those who can't or won't spend the money to go digital (i.e., me for six years), or for a few situations where the "look" of film might be preferred for purely artistic reasons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, there's alwasy the Agfa Portrait 160

 

For once, I have to voice out that Hybrid workflow had nothing to do with not wanting to spedn the money for Digital. Most highend Film scanner are in fact are more expensive than most mid range DSLR and some are just as expensive as the top of the line DSLR or even more. I shoot digital & I shoot film, my workflow now is purely digital before the print ( which goes to the lab ), but my capture can be either film ( from small as a half frame to large format )or digital. Just like many had said, I just see them as different tools. Sometime digital is better but sometime its the film. My film scanners are there to give me a way to integrate different captures from different media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank, you nailed it nicely before I had a chance to reply (busy day at the lab).

 

Choosing the right tool for my image captures -- Whether it's a product shot, a Bar Mitzvah, or a stock car running 200 MPH -- is a function of the lighting, how fast I need the results, and how good the quality needs to be... And I shoot everything from a Fuji S2 Pro to a Mamiya 645AFd to a 4x5 Speed Graphic.

 

Oh, and besides working in a commercial C41 lab with plenty of scanners and a 30 inch Durst Epsilon photo printer, I also have a pair of Jobo ATL-3 processors in my own lab in my basement.

 

You have to use the right tool for the job at hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When he says "too many lenses and not enough practice" I'm quite prepared to stipulate the latter. And I suspect it is quite possible to have too many lenses in your bag at one time, if for not other reason than the difficulty of lifting them all at once. But how can he possibly know that the lens he uses is the absolute best for his work when he hasn't tried the rest? Besides, his lens may be perfect for the work he is doing today, but it means that will also be all he do do tomorrow. The same could be said of any other single piece of equipment.

 

Van

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the funny things I usually hear from Leica people is the weight issue. If you take a MP, a 28/2 and a 90/2 the total weight of the system is 1.39kg. If you take a Canon EOS 30, a 28/1.8 and a 85/1.8 the total weight is 1.315kg. Add a lightmeter to the Leica and you're way off. Get a EOS 300 and the weight is down to 1kg. Sure, you don't have the brightest viewfinder in the world but it does make up for it with USM autofocus, proper metering, 4fps and lots of other goodies.

 

And what I find even funnier is the sharpness claim. All decent lenses, Leica or not, are sharp in the center. So sharp corners at f/2? Who cares? Your DOF is so shallow that hardly anything will be in focus outside your subject, which usually lies between the 1/3-2/3 area of the frame.

 

And the other silly arguement is the "use some ISO 25 or 50 B&W film and see the results". Who on earth uses ISO 25 film for normal shooting? The arguement is that a lightweight Leica makes for a super-travel package. But then, ISO 25 or 50 needs a tripod. Which weighs more than any camera system so what happened to the weight and speed of shooting arguement? So using something in the lines of HP5 that seems to be a favourite (you know, B&W film, Leica, I'm HCB and so on...) the lens is hardly the limiting factor.

 

Not to mention that the level of photos used to demonstrate the superiority of Leica equipment would in other places be used to demonstrate the inferiority of disposable cameras.

 

To end the rant, since Leica zealots seem to mention Salgado and HCB as an arguement for their superiority (perhaps HCB rises from the grave and helps them frame better), I'd say there is a million of other equally famous photographers using Nikon, Canon, Olympus or whatever, film or digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but if you compare lenses with equivalent mechanical quality and size, you may find that Canon makes none. And sometimes, in available light indoors (yes, black and white), you can use all the sharpness you can get from a lens wide open, I certainly could use more sharpness than my primes give at f/2.

 

What is it with people that tempts you to bash people or their cameras? It only makes you look stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilkka,

 

I guess I was asking for it. I have no problem with people using Leicas if that's what they like. I do have a problem people telling me that Leica is the holy grail, blah blah blah just like that article and most Leica fondlers in the Leica forum.

 

Yes, mechanically and size-wise Canon or Nikon do not even get close to the level of Leica lenses. But they don't get there price-wise too. And I am sure that my EOS 30 will die long before an MP will if I were to stamp on it.

 

But I am always amused/annoyed by the "I cannot understand more than 1-menu levels or read the manual, therefore the camera must be too complicated to do anything useful with it, therefore anyone who uses that kind of cameras is a lost cause and cannot take decent photos" arguement, be it digital or a film AF SLR (but almost invariably is done between an MP/M6 and a 1st/2nd generation digital camera).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am amazed at the actual venom and hatred towards the article in "Luminous Landscape" and Leica! Its a viewpoint! Thats it.

You can do your own thing. Leicas are indeed special..

I use Canon AE-1P(gift), Nikon-F and Pentaxes.

I do the usual photography, photojournalism,weddings,functions and my own personal documents.I have owned a Leica M-3 since 1967. I guess I have shot more than 66oo rolls thru this body. It works!

The ease of using a rangefinder and the fast focus make it a dream for long shoots. My Pentax viewfinders are set for "far-sighted" folks.I am near sighted. It causes headaches after a time. Even with glasses. The Nikon and Canon viewfinders are great. The EOS system and I parted company almost 2 years after purchase. I hated the whole thing. We simply did not mesh. I gave the rig to my daughter, who loves her Spotmatic. I guess she hated it too. It was sold.

Leica lenses have a different look. Rent one. Ask a friend who has the Leica system to shoot a few rolls. Every lens is better tha Nikon and Canon and Pentax. Some are indeed very close in sharpness and contrast. Leica lenses are on average two f-stops sharper than Nikon and Canon. Maximum apertures are for usage, not FOCUS! Ona SLR you need to focus well. A lil depth of field is needed for errors!

Fact. The Leica and its lenses, the 50,90 and 135mm all SELL more portraits than my Nikons and others.. The Nikon is usually with the 105mmf2.5 plus "softnar-filter". The Leicas are as is.. I think its about distortion! Trying out the 35~105mm Canon Zoom for Ae-1P i saw the horrible distortions easily in viewfinder. Pincushion at one end, barrel at the other. My Eos was about same except manufacture had taken a dive into wobbly pathetic manufacturing. I see distortion in all Mamiya 6x7 lenses. Its not as bad as zooms but its there. The Hasselblad's Zeiss lenses do NOT have distortion. I don't own a Hassie because its way to expensive to own and feed. Main reason actually I simply cannot focus it well.

So everybody who has not ever shot with a Leica, give it a try for a few months to a year! I did not say it was a easy learning curve.

Then compare your own photos!!

I came to Leica when the Bronica-C( the worlds worst camera) was exchanged for an M-3, in 1967.

May your journey thru life be as rewarding and recorded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof is in the prints.

 

All the exhibitions I've seen where they were prints from various cameras, no one could tell which came from a Leica or a Nikon or a Canon.

 

A camera is only a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. And it doesnt add to your status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some photographers who like to take most pictures with wide open fast lenses. They just love the selective focus effect and any equipment they think will give it to them. Other photographers like to use only fast black & white film even when they are shooting in good light. They like the grain effect. I have read that some photographers consider fast Leica lenses to be the best of their type. There are others who consider the Zeiss lenses for the Contax SLR cameras to be far superior. Different lenses and lens lines have different characteristics. Some have a flatter field even close up. Others are not as good close up but better at longer distances. The idea that only Leica makes good lenses or that only Leica lenses can give good results wide open is simply false.

 

One of the problems with evaluating lenses is that a test result may not be something you can see in normal use. When I was much younger I did quite a few lens tests. I would also read Stereo Review to see whether a particular sound system gave .003 THD (total harmonic distortion) or .0031. I wouldn't be able to hear such a small difference but I thought it was interesting. When Popular Photography last tested 50mm f/1.4 lenses the Zeiss lens edged out the Leica lens for the best performance. That's very impressive but when Herbert Keppler compared the Zeiss lens to a 50mm f/1.4 Takumar from the 1960s by using TMX and making 11X14 enlargements, he couldn't see any difference.

 

With medium format equipment going for so little it just isn't worth arguing over whether a certain lens for 35mm cameras can resolve 73 lp/mm or 84 lp/mm. While putting together a Bronica ETR outfit earlier this year I got a 75mm f/2.8 Zenzanon EII lens for $43. An 8X10 or 11X14 made with this lens on 120 film will look better than a similar size print from any 50mm lens on 35mm film. The 35mm format is very flexible and portable. It can also be used for low light and other specialized areas of photography where it has advantages but for general use it will not give as high quality an image as medium format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be one of those who beleived all the crap about German lenses. Yes, they are good, but not that good. That's why I traded my m6 ttl kit for a Mamiya 7 + lenses. Leica M lenses are great up to 50 mm, but anything beyond that ? I think the Jap lenses are better.

 

My Nikkor 85 1.4 Afd blows away the Leica summiwhatever at large apertures, no contest. Same goes for my Nikkor 105 lenses and Canon 135 f2 when compared to equivalent Leica, Zeiss or strudel lenses.

 

Unless you can make the best out of the lenses you have, regardless of brand, your photographs will always suck!

 

I don't have a scanner, so I'm unable to post photos, but I'm pretty sure I've got tons of images taken with my 15yr old Practika that will blow away what most of you Leica-snobs call 'art'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW..

 

No one looks at HCB's photos and says "This was taken with a Leica"

 

No one looks at Mario Testino's photos and says " This was taken with a Pentax"

 

No one looks at Steve McCurry's photos and says " This was taken with Nikon/Canon"

 

Get the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...