How did you make peace with Digital B&W?

[gdi]

I know a lot of people have been comfortable dropping B&W film for digital, but I really can't get over digital's lack of dynamic range. I find I can live with the lack of/or odd digital "grain" in most cases, but the DR ruins it for me. (BTW, I own multiple digitals - Canon, Leica, Epson, micro 4/3 and the situation is similar. )

So how have you managed to make a full transition? Did you simply resign yourself to lower DR? Are you doing realistic/subtle hdr? Preserving highlights and then cranking up the shadows, then dealing with the noise/banding? Limiting your shooting to low DR situations?

Those are the only possibilities that come to mind - maybe I am missing something? (Yes, I know about the magic of Silver FX, but I have yet to see it expand DR.)

I know there is no silver bullet here and resignation to the differences may be the only reasonable option, but I would appreciate hearing how others deal with the situation.

Thanks

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm intrigued to know the answer too, because I haven't. I shoot digi colour and film mono. Not so much dynamic range as tonality.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gdi]

I agree with the lack of tonality as well, and welcome any comments on techniques to deal with it. But, for me, the inability to hold highlight detail is always the most noticeable and frustrating.

 

[dave lackey]

Like Roger, I shoot mostly color digital and B&W with the M3. Although, lately, I have found a sweet spot with color from the M3 with the Summarit and a couple of decent color films, so may be using less digital.

I spend as little time in PS as possible. I hate it.

 

[craygc]

I with others here ...B&W film tonality is unbeatable when done well. I dont even like colour neg conversions by comparison. However, as a caveat, this guy churns out some good looking B&W from his M9 K_iwi

 

[sepiareverb]

No B&W digital for me either. I love printing and silver prints too much.

For color I haven't looked back since switching to digital.

 

[Michael Tyler]

The same argument could be made for chromes, no? The highlights blow easily, but chromes have been a mainstay of photography throughout the 20th century. Shoot with it and you learn how to work with it. Digital is no different in that respect.

I started on film. I'm coming back to it for my personal work. I love film. Shot digital for years in my business though, and I've done countless experiments with black and white conversions. There are some astoundingly good black and digital images out there. Subject matter, lighting, and knowing your tools count far more than whether the camera has celluloid or silicon.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Digital B&W is what it is, for now anyway, like it and use it or not. For most people, not artists, if a B&W has blacks and whites that is good enough. It also helps if you have no vast B&W film experience in the ability to accept B&W digital, you have no baggage to drag along. Maybe it helps to think of it as B&W slide film and deal with it that way for exposure, preserve the highlights, and bring the shadows back in PP.

Bob

 

[gdi]

I with others here ...B&W film tonality is unbeatable when done well. I dont even like colour neg conversions by comparison. However, as a caveat, this guy churns out some good looking B&W from his M9 K_iwi

Those are nice shots - and ones that don't seem to suffer with the lack of range.

 

[gdi]

The same argument could be made for chromes, no? The highlights blow easily, but chromes have been a mainstay of photography throughout the 20th century. Shoot with it and you learn how to work with it. Digital is no different in that respect.

I started on film. I'm coming back to it for my personal work. I love film. Shot digital for years in my business though, and I've done countless experiments with black and white conversions. There are some astoundingly good black and digital images out there. Subject matter, lighting, and knowing your tools count far more than whether the camera has celluloid or silicon.

Yes, the big difference is with B&W vs film, I agree that digital color is great. Of course knowing the tools makes a big difference, but I can't see any techniques, other than those mentioned earlier, that can make up for the DR and tonality deficiencies.

 

[cosmonaut]

Lightroom and know how to shoot with a camera with low DR. I underexpose and bring up the darks in post. A blown highlight is gone forever and nothing uglier in my book. Know your camera and it limitations.

 

[gdi]

Lightroom and know how to shoot with a camera with low DR. I underexpose and bring up the darks in post. A blown highlight is gone forever and nothing uglier in my book. Know your camera and it limitations.

Yep, that's the technique I use most, but then shadows can be a problem.

I appreciate all the comments and I think maybe the only solution (given the state of the technology, as Nikon Bob said) is stick with film and digital or get into multi-exposure hdr. The M9 conveniently has bracketing so it should be fun to try.

At least there are still options!

Thanks

 

[cosmonaut]

A Cokin ND grad is a MUST unless you do HDR's. I ain't sold on them yet.

 

[CSG123]

I think digital b&w is just OK so I solved my problem by going back to film for that part of my work.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A Cokin ND grad is a MUST unless you do HDR's. I ain't sold on them yet.

Why not 'Gradient Filter' (or whatever it's called) in Lightroom?

Cheers,

R.

 

[gdi]

Why not 'Gradient Filter' (or whatever it's called) in Lightroom?

Cheers,

R.

I think what Cosmo is means to do is avoid blowing highlights to begin with, by reducing the overall range of the scene. It is a good idea for landscapes with a DSLR, but I imagine it would be tough to line up properly with an RF.

 

[f/14]

Peace was made by shifting film use mostly to medium format.
- And to the occational days of "slow" analog photography.
I held the tonality of film to be superior to digital until I switched the D3 to BW capture and started storing the NEF RAW files with BW metadata on top. The digital BW pictures produced in this way, when properly exposed to save the highlights and when "developed" in Nikon Capture shines in a way similar to modern Tri-X exposed at 160 ASA and developed in XTOL. (Seems today's Tri-x is about half the speed of the Tri-X of my High Scool days in the 1960's.) D3 mid-tones are fantastic. You may struggle with the deepest digital shadows sometimes, but chances are that on street shots and similar you would have had the same problem with film and would have printed those areas of the picture black in the analog darkroom anyway. At least with the somewhat limited tonality of 35mm film. The processor in the camera seems produce a level of digital BW that I have never been able to match with any controls in Photoshop. Channel mixer included. As for dynamic range; when was the last time you really used the entire dynamic range of film in a single shot ?
Still carry a rangefinder (Bessa with Leica lenses) with a few films when traveling light on business trips. Mostly to have a bag small enough to get computers and camera into the cabin on small turboprops. Would have paid more than today's price for a D3x if they made it rangefinder size.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I sort of do the same with a D700, shoot in colour NEF RAW so the highlights don't blow out, get the shot I want in colour with Capture NX2 and then convert to B&W in Capture NX2. I am really impressed with the B&W conversions in Capture NX2. As f/1.4 did say, some shots you could not hold the whole dynamic range even with film so it becomes a moot point anyway.

Bob

I should add that you can see what the results are doing it this way in my gallery http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557 . All the B&W except one are digital.

Bob

 

[acheyj]

PS with Curves !

ron

 

[Stuart John]

which one do you prefer top or bottom:


img166 by photogsjm, on Flickr


DSC_5076 by photogsjm, on Flickr