[Leica] M2/HP5 and Monochrom comparison

[pklein at threshinc.com (Peter Klein)]

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