Kodak Tri-x 400 FILM vs Digital B&W Photography
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 авг 2021
- What's better, Film Photography or Digital Photography. In this video, we compare Black and White Kodak 400 Tri-x vs the Leica M10 Monochrom. The Leica M10 Monochrom is a black and white only camera and has a special sensor to make amazing black and white photos. The Film Camera used in today's video is the Leica MP.
Leica M10-M : bit.ly/3lTTWKV
Kodak Tri-X: bit.ly/3yEVKLz
Leica MP: bit.ly/3saJ2Ss
The Blog Post contains all the sample images.
bit.ly/3DsiQb8
Check Out Our Latest Made In Wetzlar Product: bit.ly/MIW35mmHolders
#Film #Filmvsdigital #Filmphotography 
Наука
Thanks for watching! See all the Samples here: bit.ly/3DsiQb8
Back in the day when film was our only choice for B&W photography, I can’t remember anyone raving about grain. The goal was always to get as clean an image as possible which now can be achieved best with Leica Monochrom digital cameras. Grainy pictures are an esthetic of choice. Is it better? I’ve been doing photography since 1971, and thrilled by the results I get from any Leica Monochrom. I stopped shooting film over a decade ago. Nevertheless, if film is your preference the best choice is what works for your personal esthetic. Enjoy!
Most of use don't like grain per se, and especially not back in the days (unless, of course, for some artistic purposes).
It's just that digitial photography introduced us to a new kind of grain: perfectly square grain, perfectly aligned. The eye immediately latches on to these regular patterns once they become visible. And, thanks to the Moiré pattern, this happens frequenty - not just when taking pictures of repetitive patterns but also in edge cases. Literally edge cases - edges with hard contrast. It's just called differently ("aliasing") when edges are concerned.
At 40 megapixels (true (!) 40 MP in this case - a "40 MP" color camera will only have 10 true MP!), this is of very little concern.
Sadly, this video shows that the Tri-X photographs were scanned with a bad scanner which cannot compete with the Leica M10 Monochrom. And, in any case, this video's resolution (2 true MP) actually adds artifacts by itself, to both analog and digital photographs. But even with that, you can see that the randomness of the analog grain yields different results than the digital photograph (on the picture with the wires, you see a more pronounced staircase pattern on the left side, while the right side shows...a different artifact: striped wires.
I shoot cheap black and white film like fomapan, Kentmere. I kinda dislike the crispy images when I shoot B/W in digital. Also I print my photos and store them in my album along with the negatives.
If I want to shoot colour I would go for digital(rarely film as its a few dollars extra compared to black and white )but for black and white I prefer the imperfect film esthetic.
That intro was extra and then the rest of the video is so calm 😂
It was a tad annoying.
Object to the heavy handed processing of the Monochrome. Too dark and too bunched up. Doesn’t have to be that way.
The Monochrome images were way too contrasty. Why didn't you adjust them to be more like the Tri-X versions? That would have been a more fair comparison if you couldn't get the digital files to look better...
I agree completely. The Tri-x seemed to show more gradations in the bright and shadow details. It could be the settings or just the way how digital creates a black and white image. Which is better? it's probably a matter of preference.
Development also plays a very big role when it comes to comparing the final results of film v/s digital. Unless the film is developed and digitised properly, I don't think the comparison would be fair.
It is a comparison, so adjusting it would make no sense.
Most films developed will come out flatter to allow contrast to be added while printing or while digitizing @@itacatv2146
Love the video. Film all the way for personal work; digital for clients.
Thanks!
Why do you move the images so fast? Can’t even pause to see.
Sorry about that. Looks like some of our timings might have been off. You can see all the images here. bit.ly/3DsiQb8
I shoot these days either with an M10 or M10M..I also shoot film with several cameras including an M7. The only part missing from your comparison is how the process of how the digital images was done. With less than 30 seconds of 'developing' in Lightroom or Photoshop the images will look completely different. (better). I get you wanting to do this comparison but really without even the most rudimentary adjustments it means very little, at least to me. I love film for sure but I love my Leica digitals too. I don't even think about this sort of thing anymore..I've done real world tests and am extremely pleased w my M10 and Monochrom..this is the third I've gotten..Soon I'll get the new one...addicted to ISo. cheers! and Hi to Sean
I was interested in the Leica Monochrom a while back but I didn't think I could afford it so I got into black and white film photography instead. If I add up the cost of my Nikon F6 bodies, Mamiya RZ67 body, and the lenses that I have bought for those systems I'm probably starting to come close to the cost of an M10 Monochrom and one lens. Factor in the cost of chemicals, film scanners, enlargers, etc and you can come close to digital in cost. I certainly love the look of film though and my used film gear might last me a lifetime whereas digital bodies have a 4 to 5 year refresh cycle. Both have their pros and cons.
@@mrnavarropablo You are right and a film Leica with one lens would be the direct apples to apples comparison. My problem was once I went down the rabbit hole of film I couldn't stop myself. The RZ67 was a little bit of an impulse buy because I saw some posts online that I liked. It's a beast of a camera though.
Good point, I have also thought about all of this before. I think if the Monochrom camera would last at least 20 years it would be a no brainer. I think estimated that it costs about 50 cents an image to shoot Tri-X 400 in 35mm (film and home development). Then have to factor in scanning which takes a while.
Thanks for the comarison. Tri-x just looks so beautiful compared to digital.
👍
It's not digital it's a fixed outcome camera? Any digital camera can reproduce tri x, especially in RAW.
Thanks, Carlo, for doing this little test. It looked like you enjoyed doing it. I paused some of the side-by-side comparisons to get a better look at them. Overall, the Monochrom seemed to have a greater range of mid-tones and no discernable grain. The Tri-X photos generally had more contrast and definitely more grain, and were overall, more pleasing to look at to me. But that's just my personal preference. As you said at the end of the video, it all depends on your personal taste and what you want to accomplish in the photo. By the way, SF is a great town to take pictures or to do just about anything. Either way, gotta love B&W!
Love the contrast of the intro and the rest of the video! The video editing and photos captured were 🔥🔥🔥
Thank you 🙌
You need to know how to calibrate the M10, less contrast, slightly open shadows. it is negative publicity for the Leica M10
Okay that intro brought a VERY different energy that I was expecting! Great video, makes me both miss my bulk rolling B&W days and want a monochrom. But I do agree with others that some of the differences could have been reduced by turning down the contrast in the monochrom photos. It would be interesting to see a video about editing the monochrom files to see how closely you could get them to match the film.
Cool comparison! I wish it had been a little longer and bigger, but of course I get the idea :). I shoot almost exclusively B&W film that I really enjoy, and the only reason I’d love to have a Monochrom is because there are moments I’d like to have immediate results. With film of course the opposite is what makes it attractive, the surprise factor, especially if you tend to have your exposed film developed after a longer time. For me it also comes down to the fact that I’ve got extremely limited time to shoot these days, which is what you need if you want to slow down and really think about each shot on your roll with the kind of slightly meditative and slow photography that analog is. Maybe a Monochrom (or digital) would keep you going in those in-between times more.
I prefer the Tri-X. Makes sense; I’ve been shooting it since 1968.
I never did get to like the CMOS sensor based monochrom; either type 240 or the M10. Now the CCD m9 monochrom was something special. It really had a unique feel that the M10 could never emulate. So, film black and white would be the best alternative.
I shoot both digital and film black and white and I don't prefer one over the other. I love the tactility of shooting old manual cameras, and I like the infinite gradation of tones in film. But the practicality and versatility of digital is also something I love.
I started with film in 1962 and it was probably ten years before I shot Kodachrome. When digital came along for me it was 1991 or 92, forget which, with my Kodak DCS200 (I bought the black and white version.) Despite its limitations I immediately found digital to be liberating. Back then I was spending $200 a week on film, so the saving was wonderful, but the most liberating thing was being able to electronicaly send my images directly to my editor without spending half the night in the darkroom.
Both film and digital are deserving of equal love. They are like our children. All my kids are different to each other and I love different things in each of them, but I ultimately love them all the same amount.
I prefer the MA with the tri-X. 😊
I loved this! Thank you for doing it. Even though me getting a Leica Monochrome is about as realistic as me getting a Lamborghini 😜
Thanks Craig! Honestly it doesn't need to be unrealistic. The original monochrom is still amazing and goes for quite a bit less than the new M10-M 👍
@@CameraWestTV Good point! I think if I get the money I’m going to get a Q2 Monochrom that is unless Fujifilm comes out with one soon.
Thanks for this review ... tended to lean towards the film!
Thanks 👍
The Leica M 10 Monochrom is excellent at B & W but I much prefer the Kodak Tri-X. I've gone back to film lately and I do prefer it from an artistic and emotional point of view.. Thanks for the video.
Thank you Carlo, enjoyed the video and admire your skills as a photographer. (M6 & Try-x-400 user).
👍
Great video! Thanks for doing it. What happened to the third roll? Battery died in the M-A? (🤣).
Is nobody going to mention how this intro was directed by Michael Bay?
Super interesting. Well done!
Can you please share what software was used to render the digital images (and if any editing was done with it).
I use the Mastin Labs Ilford styles in Capture One for my B&W digital images.
Thanks for doing this comparison!
Superbe comparaison , c est vraiment un sujet qui m intéressait. Pour une situation peu contrasté j ai préféré le monochrome , mais dans un contexte plus contrastés , la plage dynamique de la pellicule me semble plus intéressante avec un rendu beaucoup plus riche.
Outstanding review and comparison! Wonderful images captured on both media. But oh, my, what a dreary environment.
Thanks for watching!
I really liked your video. I've got the M Monochrom, which is my favorite. While it was away getting its sensor replaced I tried shooting film again. That was like picking up a musical instrument after a long time. There's a lot of relearning to do, and my first couple of rolls were a great embarrassment after years of digital laziness (getting the correct exposure all the time; no desktop or fixer--or less than reliable lab; no dust). As noted below, they both look great. Currently, my question is how the M10M compares with the MM.
I'd love to see the side by side of M9M and M10M/Q2M... I have a Q2M and it is almost clinically neat imagery.. I have seen some M9M images that have a layer of imperfection to them that I sometimes prefer honestly..
You could probably watch Red Dot Forum camera talks or other video comparisons. If I’m not mistaken Matt Granger has also made a video. The M10 Mono takes a big leap from the M Typ 246 Monochrom.
Tri-x is much better to my eyes, but of course I belong to the older segment of photographers. The digital camera seems way to dark
In the shadows area. Thanks for the video. ❤
My opinion: the crushed shadows from the Monochrome look awful. I can hear a distant whirring sound - I think it’s Ansel Adams spinning in his grave. Don’t tell me this is the best Leica can do? Surely there’s some combination of camera exposure and Lightroom curves that can fix this? I’ve had better results from stewing litho film in highly dilute Rodinal for an hour or so. At the time I thought they were failures.
A terrific video. Thank you
RS. Canada
Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching!
I used the Mono mode in the M8 and loved it and used the Mono M 246 for a few years and loved it. It’s more organic and liked not to have to spend so much time in post and liked the ease of getting consistent output when one shoots - like using film. I have used the Mono M9 and that was very unique. Wish the price points were lower. 😊 got one digital M and film- hard to get a Mono
I really enjoyed this comparison between film and digital. I prefer to shoot B&W using film. Hey, San Francisco's Outer Sunset district is much maligned but I love it. Great choice of venue.
Thanks for watching!
I am really liking the look of the Tri-x.
Are the files from M10M DNG or JPEG? (what contrast/sharpness, neutral/middle?) Curious, maybe I missed it.. I will say the Q2M DNG files have incredible range in the shadows that can be brought to life/light.. 📷
From Carlo "I shot the M10-M RAW at the default contrast setting and then also did minor contrast edits and set the black points using levels in photoshop."
@@CameraWestTV thanks for reply 🙏
@@CameraWestTV Great video and thanks for doing this. As a long time film user gone monochrom (because of the hell of scanning) I would say that the raw file from the mono is very far from a final product. You can make it look like Delta 100 off 4x5 or like Tri-X. But it you do all that in post. The raw files don't "look" like anything. It's just a puddle of data you shape later. Once you expose and soup your film, your final is much closer to baked-in. It's a very different paradigm and more work to get a super-consistent feel with digital. Which I think is one of the appeals of film (and of jpegs off the Fuji cameras with their film-sims for many people). Cheers!
I like digital for color, but for black and white it always looks too contrasty, too sharp and flat for my tastes.
Just loaded Tri X into my FED2 vintage camera so see how it goes...
Like your video.... thanks..
Have fun!
That's an M-A, not an MP. In fact, I got my M-A from Camera West. Also, I have both of these cameras and shoot them both in the field. The convenience of using the M10M (or M11M, or Q2M) surpasses the film, however the benefit of the film is 1)archival, 2) pseudo-organic, 3) further limitations.
Love it bro(:
Thanks!
Nice educational video.
RS. Canada
Thanks for watching!
I noticed right away that the monochrome had darker blacks than Tri-X. I would like to see how much closer to the monochrome look you might get if you used a yellow or orange filter on the film. The monochrome look was closer to Panatomic X.
On an overcast day, results are similar. Digital will have better quality than 35mm film. You can post process both to look similar contrast wise! But the real difference comes in “harsher” conditions. Film is SUPERIOR in brighter conditions; better highlight rendition. And Digital is SUPERIOR in the darkness and in preserving shadows.
Excellent. Surprised that the blacks were crushed more with the Monochrome, perhaps related more to post processing style? Tri-X is a contrasty film, more so than HP5+. I prefer HP5 as you have more room to control the tonal range to taste.
Very good photographer who carries the video camera.
👍
Which fast 64gb sd card do you recommend with Leica M10 monochrom?
It would seem the Leica would have film emulsion emulator selections. It's photos are more contrasty like TMY. You can correct both in a photo editor to look very similar to each other. There are many different B&W film stocks and even more developer choices. A roll of film and home developing will run about $20. A Pentax or other SLR cameras can be as low as $25 with a lens. There are deals to be had. You can use M42 Leica lenses with a Pentax body. Personally I wouldn't buy the Leica. Fuji are much less expensive and do a great job.
Film cameras are cheaper than film! I recently picked up a Nikon FM10 for $4. Not the best Nikon, but very light-weight, smooth, and easy to handle. I would prefer it over the heavier FM-2, etc.
Very fast when comparing - no time to really understand.
Looks like some of our timings might have been off. You can see all the images here. bit.ly/3DsiQb8
What I reflected over was that you didn´t smell the film, oh so that sweet smell
"It is hard to copy the color of the film to digital" of course, they are different system and have its own aesthetic side. It doesn't have to have a look like film for a decent photos. I picked that word from Ralph Gibson who once shot with film and when he shoots digital, he never try to copy the look of film
The one thing this comparison shows is how far we have come. I shot film for decades before switching to digital, for the usual reasons, practicality being one. At his point, any side to side comparison like this one is unfair, even without a half decent post processing of the two, in image quality the Monochrom will easily surpass any 35mm film camera - and most medium formats, even using a fine emulsion, low ISO film. Grain was never a feature, it was always a flaw that people tried hard to limit!
If one is looking for that particular "look" and the pleasant experience of shooting film, than by all means go for it.
Nowadays I shoot mostly with my Monochrom (the original CCD one, still the best one, in my opinion), plus another monochrome digital camera, the SL when I want color, and occasionally my '65 M2 (which I would use more if I was still processing my film; having to use a lab makes the whole thing a p.i.t.a.).
I enjoy them all, each one has strengths and weaknesses and is suitable for a specific task.
Better/worse? To each his/her own.
I must have over 100 film cameras - Leicas, Rolleis, Nikons, etc. As much as I'm tempted to shoot some good old Tri-X in any of them, I basically take the lazy way out by shooting digital (usually with my iPhone), convert to B&W, and sometimes use the DXO film emulator program to get a more classic look like Tri-X.
I have seen some gorgeous stuff out of the 'older' CCD Monochrom.. and am somewhat envious honestly, even as a recent Q2M buyer.. I'd love to shoot it side by side with the Q2M.
Avec l'argentique, quelquefois les ombres sont bouchées, et un peu foncée à l'ombre. sinon toutes les autre photos sont biens. Si l'on reste avec un révélateur grain fin et un développement normal. A l'agrandisseur, en plus des bouts d'essai, quand on aura établi le temps de pose,pour la photo définitive, avec les mains, retenir un peu ici, focaliser la lumière là etc, pour avoir les photos que l'on voit dans le film.
Pour le numérique tout se joue sur photo filtre, (gamma,couleur, contraste, et luminosité). Pour le noir et blanc (gamma,contraste et luminosité). Si on sait comment faire, vous aurez des photos comme avec n'importe quelle sensibilité et des photos parfaites. Pour avoir du grain, mettre sur poussière, ici couleur ou noir et blanc,comme si on avait une argentique d'une certaine sensibilité bien agrandies
En couleur, si vous prenez un certain pourcentage, et que l'on dise que c'est une ( K o d a k ,A g f a, F u j i ou autre,c'est que ce sera bien fait.
You don’t seem to indicate much about how you processed the Tri-x. That is, all the nasty issues of development, particularly how you pushed the film for ISO 800. Did you print to paper and scan the prints? Did you perhaps scan the film? If so, dpi? Show comparison zoomed in to the grain level.
4:20 not having a cfa has no impact on the camera dynamic range ;)
Something about the Leica shots screams VSCO phone filter. I can't put my finger exactly on why that is.
What developer did you use ?
The film was developed and scanned by The Darkroom
Film camera is not MP but M-A type 127
You didn't mention the convenience and time factors. With film you have to develop it first (obviously). How many labs are open anymore to develop film? You could actually develop B&W film at home, but the chemicals are toxic, and you can't just pour it down the drain (at least not legally). Then after you develop the film, you need to either print it or scan the negatives. With the digital Monochrom, you get the photo file out immediately.
1) I develop myself with widely available chemicals. It usually takes 15-20 minutes (I can develop up to 5 rolls at the same time). Bear in mind that you're also "editing" photos at the same time through development (contrast, sharpness, acutance etc) by choosing the most appropriate developer and development technique.
2) Most B&W chemicals are no more toxic than those that people use to clean their bathroom.
3) I develop for wet printing, because at the end of the day the print is the final result. Yes, it takes some time and knowledge. But the quality, look and feel of the print (which costs like a couple of bucks for 12x16 print) is at least comparable to what you can get from ink jet printing, and maybe even cheaper.
But after all photography it's not all about time and convenience, but also about the process and aesthetic that you like.
Film wins again.
Tmax100 could be better with this weather
Where are the clouds ? Would have been better if we could have 14 -16 zones . Not 10 .
37 seconds in and I can't do it.
Clearly tri x won, and then you realise any digital camera can reproduce the same outcome without the faff, we've moved on!
To pay all that money to get what looks like you used a yellow filter doesn’t make a lot of sense.
All you have shown me is that the digital camera can reproduce the same crappy look as film exposed and developed by somebody who has no idea what they're doing
Tri x400 isn’t the best and not everyone uses it his info is false ilford is the best b&w film. Thier the experts and have so meny variants
A huge flaw in this comparison is not using the same kind of metering.
Don't see the point in this. Isn't everything on the internet digital?
Film grain sucks. You can dirty up a digital image but you can't actually remove film grain.
The price of film and processing also sucks. Big time. And I REALLY hate dust!
I've had maybe seven or eight film cameras, mostly Pentax, during the 1970's through the early 2000's.
However, I've owned over 40 digital cameras since I bought my first one in 1999. I include cellphones in the list since I still have the photos I took with all those cellphones although I no longer have most of the phones. Currently I own maybe ten or so digital cameras.
BUT.... I bought a few vintage Pentax lenses a few years ago to use, with adapters, on my Canon digital cameras. Since it was sometimes cheaper to buy the vintage lens with the vintage 35mm body I ended up with a few old Pentax cameras.
So, I bought some film and now I shoot four or five rolls every year.
The images are always inferior to my Canon digital camera.
BUT.... I do like the tactile process of loading and shooting film. I also have to consider the limited number of photos I can take so I spend more time evaluating each shot I take.
BUT.... don't get me started on the emotional roller-coaster of instant film photography! 🤫