[Leica] M2/HP5 and Monochrom comparison

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

The exposures do not look equal here. The digital appearing a full stop
lighter than the film making comparisons impossible in the top two examples.
I'd have balanced them in that respect first and then see what the
difference may be betwixt them.
I can say I did a lot of such pix; fashion - glamour - promo and I never
used 400 speed always mid or slow speed films. A favorite with me and a lot
of people (Avedon) was Plus X.
The reflections in the eyes here seem to indicate flash. Which is how I
certainly mainly worked as did many. Hence the slower films. In my last
decade of shooting film I shot Fuji Across 100 in Xtol 1:3 for such stuff.
Going between that and fuji Neopan 1600 with the same development. The later
for non flash non tripod location work.


On 3/21/14 8:16 PM, "Peter A. 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




-- 
Mark William Rabiner
Photographer
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/