A Blind Sampling Of B&W Conversion Software For Digital Cameras

[Nh3]

Your counter-argument is incorrect (and my original is hardly absurd). By my logic, it's not that he would've taken a Canon or whatever to complete his project, it's that he could've taken whatever camera he wanted and produced equally impressive pictures. This is because he is a master of narrative, composition, lighting, exposure, and, most importantly, the overall conception of the photograph. Perhaps I wasn't clear with the point I was making: his photos are not great because they were shot on Tri-X and contain the specific characteristics of Tri-X. Nobody's are. That's like saying a particular Caravaggio is great because you think that particular shade of red in the painting is great or better than other shades of red in other paintings. All of that stuff has little or nothing to do with a great picture.

Alex Webb recently posted an essay of photos taken with an M8 during US election in some town in middle America. The photos were atrocious and compared to his work with Kodachrome the pictures looked bland and boring.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65004&highlight=webb

Now, lets see your example to substantiate your claims.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think that the most convincing one *could* be "Image A".

I do not like artificial "grain" at all.


Here's an actual Ilford Delta 3200 shot; also have in mind that the frame was taken once the film was expired for about a year, and not processed for another year after that. Scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 9000



Leica M6 + 50mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-asph E46 / Ilford Delta 3200

 

[Ted Witcher]

Alex Webb recently posted an essay of photos taken with an M8 during US election in some town in middle America. The photos were atrocious and compared to his work with Kodachrome the pictures looked bland and boring.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65004&highlight=webb

Now, lets see your example to substantiate your claims.

There's no way to "substantiate my claim," because it is a hypothetical. (And by the way, your post doesn't disprove my claim, either.) You obviously don't understand the point I'm making, so we'll just leave it there. Thanks.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I don't think great masters like Webb are that low and cynical to deliberately take "bland" pictures with people in them to show their disdain for middle America.

Edit: those photos taken by Webb are not bland photographically, its just the digital sensor is not Kodachrome to add that extra magic which has made other photos by Webb some of the best in the world.

It's not 'low and cynical', but expressing a viewpoint. See Robert Franks, The Americans (all shot on film, and mostly out of focus!

mike

 

[Nh3]

It's not 'low and cynical', but expressing a viewpoint. See Robert Franks, The Americans (all shot on film, and mostly out of focus!

mike

Ok, now that you brought Robert Frank in the discussion over photoshop plugins and crappy digital sensors, I simply give up.

In another thread of crappy digital b&w conversions Robert Frank was used once again to justify those pictures and there I give up as well.


Btw, the irony which most of you new to this thread have missed is that the guy who originally posted this thread has moved back to film and sold (?) his M8. lol

edit:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66760

 

[morback]

Hi,

I cannot help but wonder, why buy a plugin? All you need is already in photoshop per se. All you would need to do is a macro (is that the term? or is it "action"?) and you're set.

CS4 has an amazing black & white (not grayscale!) conversion (you can control how all the colors are going to be converted separately) and as for the grain you have at least two filters with many options.

Why shell out more money?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Why shell out more money?

Some people like options. Go figure.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Is "middle America" somewhere between Guatemala and Brazil?

 

[mcgrattan]

I agree with JeffGreen above. A looks like delta 3200 to me [and is the one I like most of these] and D looks like TMZ3200.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Hi,

I cannot help but wonder, why buy a plugin? All you need is already in photoshop per se. All you would need to do is a macro (is that the term? or is it "action"?) and you're set.

CS4 has an amazing black & white (not grayscale!) conversion (you can control how all the colors are going to be converted separately) and as for the grain you have at least two filters with many options.

Why shell out more money?

I think the idea with this plugins is that they aren't filters, per se; they "rebuild" the image out of "real" grain.

Personally, they look pretty good to me, esp. Exposure 2. But so do digital photos, scanned film, and wet prints.

I still don't understand why people get so damned bent out of shape about things like this. If you have $300, and such a plugin will let you get the look you want using a process that pleases you, then there's no possible argument against it, and nobody has the right to criticize you for it, unless you strut around saying your method is superior to everyone else's.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

And one more thing--there is one really, really compelling reason that these plugins interest me: their efforts to preserve the aesthetic of "lost" film stocks. Doubtless it isn't the same, but it's appealing nonetheless.

I don't own any of these but probably will, one day.

 

[morback]

I guess I must have written in a way that shows contempt or some other condescending tone. I did not mean to. I was just curious.

My experience with plugins so far has been that they don't add functions to photoshop. They just combine the existing filters & adjustments for you in a very comfortable and easy "one click" fashion.

I personally like the feel of personal touch and prefer to do it myself.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I guess I must have written in a way that shows contempt or some other condescending tone. I did not mean to. I was just curious.

My experience with plugins so far has been that they don't add functions to photoshop. They just combine the existing filters & adjustments for you in a very comfortable and easy "one click" fashion.

I personally like the feel of personal touch and prefer to do it myself.

No, that's not what these do--they're add-on programs that do their own separate processing. Most of them have standalone versions as well.