dfoo
Well-known
Fine. Let me restate: I cannot get prints from my inkjet using a real black and white inkset and good paper that are as good as the ones as I get in the darkroom. They simply do not look as good.
Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?
- Thread starter NickTrop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 245
- Views 22K
- Status
Fine. Let me restate: I cannot get prints from my inkjet using a real black and white inkset and good paper that are as good as the ones as I get in the darkroom. They simply do not look as good.
ampguy
Veteran
hi dfoo
hi dfoo
Just curious, have you tried an Epson R380 with only original Epson inks that come with it?
hi dfoo
Just curious, have you tried an Epson R380 with only original Epson inks that come with it?
ampguy
Veteran
pretty cat
pretty cat
Our grey tabby looks very similar to yours, a bit light blacks on the front paws, but similar face.
pretty cat
Our grey tabby looks very similar to yours, a bit light blacks on the front paws, but similar face.
dfoo
Well-known
Currently I've been using an Epson 1400 with the UT14 inkset. In the past I've printed with the color inksets and have never gotten a satisfactory B&W print (they all had color casts of one variety or another).
Ranchu
Veteran
Creatures with two legs, and creatures that can fly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram Not a difficult concept.
dfoo
Well-known
Seems to me that inkjet is pretty expensive too... The B&W inksets are not that expensive, but the paper... Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster is .83 a sheet (8.5x11). Kentmere FB 8x10 is .63 a sheet. God forbid if you use the Epson cartridges...
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
"Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?"
Ha. What a load.
It ain't about better- they are different. Digital has gotten much better than it was- but both are just a means to an end; which one to use is more about which one you are better and more comfortable with.
Which is better? Coming from a guy who is more comfortable with film, I'd say pursuing this question is a fool's errand, and beside the point.
Ha. What a load.
It ain't about better- they are different. Digital has gotten much better than it was- but both are just a means to an end; which one to use is more about which one you are better and more comfortable with.
Which is better? Coming from a guy who is more comfortable with film, I'd say pursuing this question is a fool's errand, and beside the point.
ampguy
Veteran
NickTrop
Veteran
Not a fools errand...
Digital advantages...
- How long does it take you to develop rolls and rolls of film?
- How long does it take you to make contact prints and select those for enlargement?
- How long does it take you to make an acceptable wet print?
- How long does it take you to scan?
- How many rolls do you have that are left undeveloped in rolls? Does adding to these rolls prohibit you from shooting more?
- Does the ever-increasing cost of the consumables - film, paper, chemicals, prohibit/constrain you from shooting as much as you'd like?
Given the minor quality differences - now with the latest prosumer cameras and the fact that bodies have fallen in price, I say digital now has the advantage for this reason - it has caught up in quality to be "close enough for government work" in small format and is a far more efficient workflow that allows you to shoot more free of contraints that would result in your shooting less.
Traditional - medium and large format (where dynamic range, tonality matter more)
Digital - small format "street photography". (where subject matter and being "prolific" matters more)
Digital advantages...
- How long does it take you to develop rolls and rolls of film?
- How long does it take you to make contact prints and select those for enlargement?
- How long does it take you to make an acceptable wet print?
- How long does it take you to scan?
- How many rolls do you have that are left undeveloped in rolls? Does adding to these rolls prohibit you from shooting more?
- Does the ever-increasing cost of the consumables - film, paper, chemicals, prohibit/constrain you from shooting as much as you'd like?
Given the minor quality differences - now with the latest prosumer cameras and the fact that bodies have fallen in price, I say digital now has the advantage for this reason - it has caught up in quality to be "close enough for government work" in small format and is a far more efficient workflow that allows you to shoot more free of contraints that would result in your shooting less.
Traditional - medium and large format (where dynamic range, tonality matter more)
Digital - small format "street photography". (where subject matter and being "prolific" matters more)
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
> Does the ever-increasing cost of the consumables - film, paper, chemicals, prohibit/constrain you from shooting as much as you'd like?
As I said I don't think inkjet is that cheap when compared with traditional. Digital cameras certainly are not. M8 is around $2k. I can buy an film M for less than $1k, and the extra 1k buys a whole lotta B&W film.
As I said I don't think inkjet is that cheap when compared with traditional. Digital cameras certainly are not. M8 is around $2k. I can buy an film M for less than $1k, and the extra 1k buys a whole lotta B&W film.
NickTrop
Veteran
Oh please, you don't need an "M8" to shoot. That's not the cost of a typical digital camera...
mathomas
Well-known
...
Digital
Arista 400
Digital
Portra 400NC
Digital
Arista 400
Digital
Arista 400
Cool! Enjoyed the comparisons. I've never gone to the trouble. I think the usual claims regarding each medium kind of play out here as expected. Looks like the shadows are a bit more defined in the film shots, but details can be a bit better on digital.
I shoot both, and love both for the qualities they offer.
dfoo
Well-known
I do if I want to use my Leica lenses (at anything close to their focal length).
NickTrop
Veteran
- Nice picture
- Differences are negligible
You could have flipped both - lied essentially, and nobody would challenge you.
aniMal
Well-known
Wouldn´t know about BW really, I started doing color mostly more than 10 years ago.
On the other hand, I still do some BW conversions, from diverse sources as a small Canon point and shoot, scanned colour film - and digital files from my M8 or others. As far as I can see, a conversion where I choose the weighting of the channels comes out just as fine - and often better - than what I used to get in the darkroom. The only caveat, is that I was never very good in the darkroom - and never very interested. I did get very, very accurate on developing negatives though, but the content of the image was always my prime concern, not the form.
I guess the real difference lies in how much weight you give the technical parts of it - and I am sure that someone who really knows PS can get almost anything out of a high quality digital file. The same goes for analog, but perhaps more work would be involved?
I don´t really care myself - I just go on using digital and film alike, often doing both simultaneously. Like this September, we are hitting the road for France and Portugal - and I will bring digital kit + a Sinar 4x5.
The single thing that digital has changed for me, is really that I have gotten into MF and LF filmwise... I never really cared too much about the smooth look of MF, but then I got an M8! I really, really enjoy the files I get - and it has become my new standard. Even the Sony 900 with Zeiss glass has a hard time beating the M8 files I get with just CV glass. So, filmwise I feel MF and 4x5 matches my digital stuff better.
Perhaps I should get more into BW with the Sinar, I am sure that would give some results that would be hard to beat with most digital gear... Especially when it comes to DR. On the other hand, with scenes that do not move, there is HDR as a possibility! Horrible, horrible stuff to traditionalists and purists - but hey, it can give wonderful files if applied correctly!
On the other hand, I still do some BW conversions, from diverse sources as a small Canon point and shoot, scanned colour film - and digital files from my M8 or others. As far as I can see, a conversion where I choose the weighting of the channels comes out just as fine - and often better - than what I used to get in the darkroom. The only caveat, is that I was never very good in the darkroom - and never very interested. I did get very, very accurate on developing negatives though, but the content of the image was always my prime concern, not the form.
I guess the real difference lies in how much weight you give the technical parts of it - and I am sure that someone who really knows PS can get almost anything out of a high quality digital file. The same goes for analog, but perhaps more work would be involved?
I don´t really care myself - I just go on using digital and film alike, often doing both simultaneously. Like this September, we are hitting the road for France and Portugal - and I will bring digital kit + a Sinar 4x5.
The single thing that digital has changed for me, is really that I have gotten into MF and LF filmwise... I never really cared too much about the smooth look of MF, but then I got an M8! I really, really enjoy the files I get - and it has become my new standard. Even the Sony 900 with Zeiss glass has a hard time beating the M8 files I get with just CV glass. So, filmwise I feel MF and 4x5 matches my digital stuff better.
Perhaps I should get more into BW with the Sinar, I am sure that would give some results that would be hard to beat with most digital gear... Especially when it comes to DR. On the other hand, with scenes that do not move, there is HDR as a possibility! Horrible, horrible stuff to traditionalists and purists - but hey, it can give wonderful files if applied correctly!
Ted Witcher
Established
Digital
Arista 400
Digital
Portra 400NC
Digital
Arista 400
Digital
Arista 400
Good work. These are all, for all practical purposes, nearly identical (at least at web resolution).
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
The problem here is that you've utterly missed all the reasons that matter to me: 1) I, like many others, am more proficient with film than with digital. 2) I prefer wet prints for their unique character- as in, with digital, once a file and printer are sufficiently tweaked, one push of a button will give an identical machine made print every time. OTOH- Each hand-made wet print is unique. 3) I ENJOY processing film and printing in the darkroom; whereas I find digital photography just more work at the computer- and I'm not interested at all in hours of comparisons between printers, papers, inks and profiles. I'd rather be out shooting, or in the dark making prints. I spend enough time in front of a computer.
If all you care about is the print on the wall, either one will get you there- and we have seen digital can be really be excellent these days. For me, a better question is- which one do you prefer? Ergo- for me, the question is... well... beside the point. I know full well that there are plenty of folks on either side of this 'debate', as there should be. Just trying to remind the discussion that there are other points to consider in this conversation.
Andrea-dsi
Black & White Evangelist
You can get real B&W prints DIRECTLY from Digital
You can get real B&W prints DIRECTLY from Digital
You don't have to use your inkjet printer. There are now labs that can make real black and white gelatin silver prints on Ilford Galerie paper DIRECTLY from digital files. Yup its a dream come true. The lab I have used (along with Larry Fink, and a lot of other famous photogs) is www.digitalsilverimaging.com
You can get real B&W prints DIRECTLY from Digital
You don't have to use your inkjet printer. There are now labs that can make real black and white gelatin silver prints on Ilford Galerie paper DIRECTLY from digital files. Yup its a dream come true. The lab I have used (along with Larry Fink, and a lot of other famous photogs) is www.digitalsilverimaging.com
ashrafazlan
Established
As an owner of an M8, M6, D700, Sigma DP1 and GRD..I can honestly say that the differences are small at best. The only thing that is apparent at first glance is tonality, and even then you can get digital files to look almost the same with some curve tweaks and slider changes on the color mixer.
What makes me enjoy film though, is not entirely because of IQ (I mean come on, the D700 pretty much smokes anything when it comes to high iso) but rather the entire process of shooting, developing and scanning (ok maybe not scanning 😛) film. Some hate it and find it tedious, and it certainly isn't cost effective for pro's..but for those who have the time or simply enjoy putting up with the workflow, there's simply nothing like it 🙂
What makes me enjoy film though, is not entirely because of IQ (I mean come on, the D700 pretty much smokes anything when it comes to high iso) but rather the entire process of shooting, developing and scanning (ok maybe not scanning 😛) film. Some hate it and find it tedious, and it certainly isn't cost effective for pro's..but for those who have the time or simply enjoy putting up with the workflow, there's simply nothing like it 🙂
dfoo
Well-known
Yes, you can also get heads that attach to your own enlarger to print B&W; except it is super expensive. Its also possible to use a hybrid approach and print on a transparency which is then contact printed on traditional paper.
- Status