Thread: B&W: Comparing X100 to Ilford HP5 film

Incredibly un-scientific, and done for a goof. I was in VT camping a few weeks back and took pictures with both cameras in the same spot (more or less, as you can see), then cropped the images together. LOTS less detail on the film scan, of course, but I love the contrast compared to the un-tweaked Fuji file. I don't have the software to do much better than this.


BWComparo by gordopuggy, on Flickr

I must say I like the B/W from the Minolta

My experience is similar to yours. There is something about the B&W tones you get from film that is difficult to recreate digitally. As to the detail, a lot depends on the scanning. I have also found that scanned negatives require, and can take, a fair amount of sharpening.

Cheers,

Antonio

I think if you worked on the fuji file with silver effects then it would be a lovely photo! I guess all photos need some work these days

I'd imagine that the scanning software you've employed adds contrast / sharpening as part of the process.

Film is nice and I miss the wonder of viewing newly developed negs or watching a print in the tray come to life. But I don't miss scanning or dust or storing negatives or dust or reloading every 12 exposures or sending colour neg and slide film out to someone else or dust ...

Thought I'd miss it, but I don't.

toss up the raws n let us play! :D

Originally Posted by adanac

I'd imagine that the scanning software you've employed adds contrast / sharpening as part of the process.

Film is nice and I miss the wonder of viewing newly developed negs or watching a print in the tray come to life. But I don't miss scanning or dust or storing negatives or dust or reloading every 12 exposures or sending colour neg and slide film out to someone else or dust ...

Thought I'd miss it, but I don't.

+1! Film is nice, but digital is so much more convenient. And I never got used to waiting for results, up to the point where I developed a workflow to get my film developed and ready for printing within 1.5 hours. How nice is it to just slide the card into your computer and see the picture just seconds after having taken it.

Originally Posted by Gubrz

toss up the raws n let us play! :D

God I wish.

So the film scan is by the developer, a local Hunt's chain. I get roughly 2meg files back on a disc, and my developed negs, for about $13 for a 36 roll.

Meanwhile on the X100 front, I work on a work-owned laptop that's locked down so I cannot install ANY software. That means I can't edit RAW files, so I don't bother to create them at the moment.... I am a jpg-only shooter for now. I would love to see what people could do with some of mine, though. I like the look of a little editing, though usualy I don't like a heavy hand.

Originally Posted by addieleman

+1! Film is nice, but digital is so much more convenient. And I never got used to waiting for results, up to the point where I developed a workflow to get my film developed and ready for printing within 1.5 hours. How nice is it to just slide the card into your computer and see the picture just seconds after having taken it.

As to this, I really enjoy having both options now that I got the old minolta. As most of you know by long experience (and as I vaguely remember from the 90's when I shot film for fun), the process of film shooting - especially on a budget - forces certain discipline and heavy thinking that digital doesn't. That lag time and cost come with interesting benefits along with the bad baggage. "Is this shot worth $50 cents? Do I wanna wait a week to see -this-?"

I find myself with the X100 around my neck, and the Minolta in an open bag over my shoulder, and as I walk around somewhere nice I flipflop back and forth on which to use, based on the focal length I want, the light (what ISO is loaded in that Minolta), and the colors (is the minolta loaded with black and white?)