[Leica] M2/HP5 and Monochrom comparison

[afirkin at afirkin.com (afirkin)]

I should add, that looking at the further images, the Mono and the PanF 
images
on the Contax 645 are more "comparable". Sorta shows where the digital world 
has
led us: 35mm cameras producing Medium format or larger quality.

> On March 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM afirkin <afirkin at afirkin.com> wrote:
>
>
> Very interesting. The Mono tones are lovely, and give the model much more
> 'clean' skin. I prefer the Mono, but recognize the 'film' ethereal look 
> will
> appeal at times. If I had one choice I'd go with the Mono, as the film 
> cannot
> do
> what the mono does and the Mono can 'mimic' to some extent the effects of 
> the
> analogue image albeit in a more 'controlled' way. The film cannot give you 
> the
> cleaner smooth tonality. IMO.
>
> Cheers and thanks for the comparison.
>
> Alastair
>
>
> > On March 21, 2014 at 7:16 PM Peter Klein <pklein at threshinc.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here's an interesting article from Steve Huff's site. John Tuckey did a
> > shoot with a lovely model where he used both the M Monochrom and and M2
> > loaded with HP5+. You can see full-sized images if you click on the
> > pictures in the article.
> > <http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/03/21/a-night-at-the-opera-with-the-leica-monochrom-m2/>
> >
> > I'm not interested in which one is "better," but I am interested in how
> > they are different, and how that effects the look and aesthetic
> > qualities of the pictures. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison,
> > because he used different lenses. While the exposures are equal, the MM
> > shots originally were darker. And he shot the Noctilux at f/1 from
> > farther away than the 50 Summilux ASPH at f/1.4, so the relative DOF is
> > the opposite of what you'd expect. Still, same model, same lighting,
> > same session, same photographer.
> >
> > Just for fun, I created a "side-by-side" where I tried to reduce the
> > confounding variables further. I took the second pair of portraits, one
> > MM and one film, and reduced the size and tone curve differences as much
> > as I reasonably could quickly. I also did some " burning in" of the
> > hairline shadows in the MM picture to get closer to the film version.
> > Here's the result (best if you view full size on the LUG Gallery):
> > <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/temp/Huff032114MMvsFilm.JPG.html>
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Mine are that both are beautiful in their own way, but the MM and film
> > are drastically different media. The rendition of the lips and hair
> > color are different. Highlight renderings are completely different. And
> > (obviously) the film picture is made of just-visible grains that of
> > random size and placement. The MM picture is made of a grid of pixels
> > that are exactly the same size and too small to see. Tones on the film
> > are made up of different proportions of black grains and clear film.
> > Tones on the MM are made up of many pixels that are similar in tone.
> >
> > This latter point, I think is the key. I think it's often missed in
> > Web-sized versions film-digital comparisons, where the pictures are
> > either too small to see much difference, or at pixel-peeping 100%, where
> > you don't see how the elements would work in a decent-sized print.
> >
> > Take your pick. In these pictures, I prefer the film rendering. With a
> > different subject, or at a higher ISO, I might very well prefer the 
> > digital.
> >
> > --Peter
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information