M8 shots - Page 2

chikne · 05-22-2008

Hmmmmm, was it shot with a noctilux too?

Highway 61 · 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

We have no idea. I think we are posting our best M8 photos. Here is one I took of the floor and display case, at J&R Photo, by accident. It could have been really good.

It is actually very good, a bit of contrast/saturation gives it a nice bump, and framing adds for a nice artistic touch, yet you have a dust spot on your sensor I'm afraid.

chikne · 05-22-2008

Though one might notice that the bokeh isn't very sharp.....

nightlight · 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by NB23

I'm starting to get the hang of the M8's files.
Jpegs are crap but the RAW files are outstanding!

It will take some time to shoot the M8 just like I do with M film cameras but I feel I'm getting there.

You can relate to what I said? If yes, then please post your M8 shots

I can't relate to that not having an M8 but I understand you have a Noctilux - have you tried the M8 with that? I would be interested to see some samples please, whether B/W or Colour, if you have some at hand of course.

thank you
clarel

nightlight · 05-22-2008

Hi Highway 61,

I can't see the image you've linked your post to.

I just wanted to see some samples from the O.P. or whoever who has them, out of interest, that's all.

Clarel

jaapv · 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by NB23

Hum, I don't think so. You post your shots and I will post mine. And we'll talk about skill. A'right?

Not quite my style. I leave the fisticuffs to others.

NB23 · 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaapv

Not quite my style. I leave the fisticuffs to others.

Too bad. So I guess I'll never know how brilliant or how bad you are at post processing digital files. So if you don't want to play, please don't give lectures and lousy advice.

jaapv · 05-22-2008

I fear I cannot grant your wish... Please add me to your ignore list and solve your quandary.

digitalintrigue · 05-22-2008

Too much noise. Try a D3 instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highway 61

It is actually very good, a bit of contrast/saturation gives it a nice bump, and framing adds for a nice artistic touch, yet you have a dust spot on your sensor I'm afraid.

NB23 · 05-22-2008

Good. So to end this digital debate on a good note, here is what I came up with. The processing is mine. Also, note the lack of dust and no jaggies. And the composition is not made by a 1 hour lab. I made it myself. No noise. How fantastic.

jaapv · 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

Too much noise. Try a D3 instead.

What's wrong with noise?

digitalintrigue · 05-22-2008

Jaapv, the M8 has too much noise for that kind of photography, don't you think? Plus it would help to have 8 frames per second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaapv

What's wrong with noise?

digitalintrigue · 05-22-2008

Looks like some back focus there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NB23

Good. So to end this digital debate on a good note, here is what I came up with. The processing is mine. Also, note the lack of dust and no jaggies. And the composition is not made by a 1 hour lab. I made it myself. No noise. How fantastic.

jaapv · 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalintrigue

Jaapv, the M8 has too much noise for that kind of photography, don't you think? Plus it would help to have 8 frames per second.

I agree for web use. In print, it is another story. I do not like the SMOOOOOOOOTh look. I fear I cannot think at 8 frames per second. I never use continuous mode. If I needed it I would not use an M8.

NB23 · 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

Very funny Ned.

So you are posting your worst M8 shots (if they really are M8), saying how much you like them,

just daring someone to say the truth, ie "The Emperor has no clothes."

OK Ned. The two shots you posted in the thread are remarkable only in being so ordinary. If that is the best you can do with the M8, time to sell the M8 and go back to film.

Stephen

Are you saying film is for creating ordinary images and digital for more then ordinary images?

No Stephen. I enjoy shooting the M8 for its simpleness. I was only trying to stir a conversation.

As we all know, shooting film and shooting digital are entirely different. Different philosophies. I thought it would be interesting to know what people think about it. How they shoot theirs. Are they after exactness such a DSLR or are they persuing a more liberal approach, the rangefinder way?

But if you insist that people only post extraordinary images in your forum, I'm afraid you'd end up with no participants.

NB23 · 05-22-2008

My darkroom is fully operational. I print my own for the past 17 year now (started around 15). Took a 2 year or so break when I first got a D100, some 5 years ago.

NB23 · 05-22-2008

Fred,
I agree if I put my purist hat on. But I've shot many BW films lately and I just scanned the negatives and retouched in photoshop with results that, sometimes, I couldn't dream on achieving in my darkroom. Dodging and burning in places I can't normally reach. Contrast layers, masks...

Also comes to mind Andy Summers' exhibition I visited 6 months ago. All his BW prints we're all scanned negatives from the 70's and 80's and printed on HP scanner. The photos we're great. I guess all depends on the output paper. Cotton rag usually erases digital flaws...

I consider myself a purist but I have achieved enough good results by scanning my negs so I can't really jusge digital Versus film shooting in regards to print alone. For me, the main difference is in the shooting stage.

NB23 · 05-22-2008

Hey John!

Have you left the country? How are your plans going through?

Yes, this thread is weird. Happens... :-)

NB23 · 05-22-2008

Busy busy! Good luck...

tomasis · 05-23-2008

ned, this thread is sad. it smells so much of jealousy, hate and satire here. RFF is gone completely crazy!!!

I dont really think that most people here recognize how good your two m8 shoots here. So it is okay to continue to be a misunderstood artist and have fun for while. Shoot for fun sake, it is what one says.

First photo is special. I thought at first that face in the car could be more visible but when I look at your original file, so I think you did good PP. Is it not boring to process that much for every file? It feels like the digital process is quite more time consuming than you believe. I guess one can always use script/action instead. Digital is not only the positive thing, also devilish

tomasis · 05-23-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

I am not sure Ned would agree with you there. Maybe?

The idea is OK that is for sure. But this particular shot? Perhaps Ned should actually chime in, since Stephen put it on the block, so to speak.

What is considered "great" is very subjective, my "accidental" M8 photos might be serious work to someone else, and if I did them intentionally then they would have to be judged seriously. That was the point of my posting them, and perhaps Ned's? To test the emperor's clothes!

you know I dont really care what other think about including Stephen. I think it is very natural that those gear nuts guys dont understand "abstract" works of artists and vice versa

As you say above, all this is subjective and relative. But why destroy such this thread with such other worthless crap as silly pictures and comments? is it something that some have personal grudge against the original poster?

If people get impression that the shoots are accidental, so that may be the purpose also. Or maybe you are climbing on the Babylon with Emperor clothes still?

my impression of RFF is that we know much more about gear here. Thats why I come here to get information about lenses and bodies here. its enough. LEts not go further than technical discussions.

NB23 · 05-23-2008

I like my the first shot and this is why I posted it. It's strictly my taste so I can't talk for others. I also like the second shot which is, like I already said, my best M8 missed shot so far.
I'm not sure what happened in this thread, including me, but I have to thank Stephen Gandy for letting us express ourselves. This is a very cool place after all.

kevin m · 05-23-2008

Quote:

But I've shot many BW films lately and I just scanned the negatives and retouched in photoshop with results that, sometimes, I couldn't dream on achieving in my darkroom.

I'm going to freak Ned out and agree with him.

There is no "best" method. I sold my Focomat V35 enlarger about 10 minutes after I bought Photoshop CS and I haven't looked back. The degree of control in the digital darkroom simply trumps the look of B&W paper, IMO. Selective burning and dodging, sharpening, filtering, etc., are so much easier and quicker in the computer than in a wet darkroom.

I still think that you get a certain look with scanned film, particularly B&W, that can't quite be duplicated with digital capture. For now, anyway, it's worth the trouble.

NB23 · 05-23-2008

This is freaky!

Keith · 05-23-2008

Here you go again Ned ... surfing the crest of the wave created by your own controversial nature ... I love it and it makes this forum really crackle at times!

Also like your two pics by the way!