A Leica M6 And Tri-x V. The Leica Monochrom

Actually the monochrome looks more smoother and clear, less pixilation. But that is Kodak film though. I would like to see a better film used, something like Illford, which does not pixilate as severe as Kodak does. This is the reason I will not shoot Kodak film.
As far as quality, I think they both are producing very good images.

Agree, Dan, on quality. I suspect they chose Tri-X because it is popular, as I personally have shot thousands of rolls over the years. I happen to like the rough pixelated look of Tri-X, but it doesn't look anything like the Monochrom image.

They both have good coverage of the subject, but the pixilation makes it look worse than it actually is. After looking though the images a few times, I started getting a better view of them. They both have excellent coverage, it is just the quality of the media, and that is where the Kodak film fails to deliver. Yes in that respect it does majorly hurt the image. I like the monochrome better too. A lot more effective image. More clear, and smooth contours, looks a lot more professional, as an image you would expect from Leica.

Philip, I agree with you, on a lot of this. On a view like they were showing, I would want a clear image, and not a pixilated image that someone could not tell was good or not. Even a more finer grain would look a lot better than what the T-max produced. Like I said I would like to see it compared to Illford, which has a much finer grain and better imaging. THat would be a far better test in my book.

You make sense Philip ... now I know why I like the Tri-X better. Couldn't put my finger on it. I never liked the 'sharper' T-Max. Hey, you changed your avatar!

True. I never liked the heavy grain of Kodak, I prefer the finer grain of film like Illford. Kodak's film always makes me have to hunt for the image. :)

Being a Leica M4 and Monochrom owner, I will add my own two cents about why own the Monochrom over an M4. This logic only applies if you have a need for digital files. The reason you would take the Monochrom is time and the when you think about the true cost of going from film to digital the difference is not as great as you think. The convenience factor. If you need a digital file when you get home from a shoot you pop out your CD card and you are ready to go with the Mono. Film, you have to develop then scan. All timely and potentially costly. If you do own you developing then you need to add the cost for that setup and chemicals plus the cost to scan. If you want to scan to get the equivalent digital images you need a high end scanner. I have an epson v750 scanner which is between $800-$1000 new. Those images aren't even close to the images from the Mono. So to get equivalent digital images you need a high end scanner maybe in the $2k-$4k range. I shot about 10,000 images in the past 6 months with my Mono. I bet you when you add up the costs of an m4 with the equivalent equipment to create a very good digital image, you might be around $5k. Not to mention the time involved with having to develop and scan 10,000 shots from film.

Thanks, John, I was hoping you'd jump in there ... in fact, I thought of you when I posted this thread. Good counter 'argument' to think about.

I do agree that if you want that "film" look then just shoot with film. When I want prints just for myself or to hang in my house I do shoot in film. When I need a digital image for POD sites or other work, I shoot with my Mono.

Makes sense ... since I don't own a Mono, I'd shoot film .... though I've been able to get pretty close the look with my Pentax and CCD sensor, in my opinion.

The Monochrom does appear to have more acuity than the M6/TX combo. Tri-X was never known as a super sharp film, though. It does have a very pleasant starkness when properly processed, though.

When did graininess become pixelation? Film has no pixels. Must be a generational thing.

Thanks for the clarification, Murray, I meant graininess not pixelation. Agree with you on the starkness of the TX ... that's what I love about it. I shot lots of that and AGFA Pan.

Interesting discussion. Beautiful images from both sources.

A couple of things stick out for me. 1) 400 iso on film and digital really don't equate to the same thing from a grain/noise standpoint. (maybe because grain and noise aren't the same thing.) So I wonder how things would have looked with say 100iso.
2) The examples are from one very specific set of shooting conditions.

Good observations HW. That TX at 100 would be a noticeable difference, you're right.

You know I know the differences, but on here I talk more about pixels than grain, so I guess the term just stuck in the head. LOL One of those blonde moments. And I am not even blonde.