The days I had to purge the spent C-41 at the mini-lab, were not my favorite. sebboh wrote:
they both have a "special" odor.
Black and white film, filtered per a shooters needs/vision, yields amazing tonality. A Fuji 6x9 with Acros or even T-Max gives astounding results. If I could get that in a monochrome sensor at a reasonable price point, I'd consider it. The capture method, mind you - not a 6x9 sensor. Realistically I don't think we'd see that size a sensor in the market for mortal men - color Bayer or not.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Can't say I use film nowadays, digital is just too powerful. I also no longer ride in horse and buggy although I can see the romance in it.
more like a volt versus an e-type
still, it's funny to see people argue for practicality on the alt forum lol.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Can't say I use film nowadays, digital is just too powerful. I also no longer ride in horse and buggy although I can see the romance in it.
I still shoot film, I dev and scan it myself. I find 100megapixel files and larger dynamic range (current kodak C41 emulsions) more powerful, but that's just me.
I have a Razzle 900 (4x5 folding rangefinder) calibrated for my 135/3.5 planar currently being made for me by Dean Jones. Aside from changing the slide every two shots I don't see this as much less convenient that shooting any other manual focus rangefinder. The results I think speak for themselves.
That said, I obviously also shoot digital for high volume and instant feedback. However, discounting film as less powerful than digital is a little naive in my opinion. Horses for courses.
thrice wrote:
discounting film as less powerful than digital is a little naive in my opinion.
Beautiful. 100% agree with you, I love film
and love to shoot film. But I still think a 100% B&W
digital camera is a very bad way of spending
limited R&D money when you need
a modern up-to-date M10 so bad... If they were bigger
and had 3 versions of great digital FF bodies
accepting M lenses, I wouldn't care. But if we get
this weird B&W thing tomorrow INSTEAD of the new M10,
they s@ck big time in my opinion.
I am sure the M10 is moving ahead full speed, don't worry about that part. I think Leica just likes to cater to specialist markets with niche needs, especially in the 135 arena, and with something like this, it is a big nod to their own past.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Can't say I use film nowadays, digital is just too powerful. I also no longer ride in horse and buggy although I can see the romance in it.
Of course, the horse and buggy offers virtually no advantage over a car, other than the romance.
On the other hand, colour film offers many advantages over digital (and many disadvantages, of course), not the least of which is greater dynamic range (in the case of C-41 film) and a subjectively nicer looking image (there's a reason that Alien Skin, Nik, VSCO, etc, etc sell loads of film emulation plugins and presets).
jotdeh wrote:
It is a scan of more than 100MP. Downscaled 50% (still more than 25MP) it looks about equivalent of what you'd get out of a decent lens on digital.
A single image isn't a comparison. There are lots of digital cameras with widely varying image quality, which digital did you compare it with?
I think a valid comparison would be cameras with similar handling. What's the point of comparing a big slow-handling camera with a more compact, quicker-handling camera?
made with a 10MP Leica DMR at ISO 400 and 280mm f/4 APO lens. When I compared this camera and lens with the same lens on a Leicaflex SL with Kodachrome 25 (similar-handling cameras) the difference was very clear and as it turned out I was glad it was my last roll of K25.
Note: the full image of the bird is cropped from the original file.
Excuse me, what's the point? I was basically agreeing that the zoom / crop of the eyes doesn't seem great, but pointing out that when downscaled it does have the sharpness that you would expect to see. I.e. it's not a bad lens.
jotdeh wrote:
Excuse me, what's the point? I was basically agreeing that the zoom / crop of the eyes doesn't seem great, but pointing out that when downscaled it does have the sharpness that you would expect to see. I.e. it's not a bad lens.
The point I got from your eyeball crop was a clear illustration of why film is no longer mainstream.
