Advantages of Analog B&W 35mm Photography...

L

LeicaVirgin1

Established
Local time
2:52 PM
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
102
Dear Sir-

Mostly all my cameras are 35mm Leica M RF's, (yes, I own a M2 lever-rewind), and a few nikon reflexes, (original F, FM3a)... In the digital dept. I own a Canon 30D DSLR...

Is there an advantage to shooting traditional 35mm B&W as opposed to say FULL-FRAME digital... Like the M9? I know you are very experienced in both capture formats. Just wondering what your thoughts might be?

LV1
 
It generally looks nicer. This probably means it's easier to get to somethign I like for mono starting from film than digital, or haven't practiced enough. However, I also want the process I use represented in the final print and adding grain to digital images feels alien to me.

You can process digital files to make very good black and white, and there are lots of plugins to help (silver efex pro seems liked), but the danger of the processing path is that it's easy to fall into the habit of making caricatures, imho.

I use film and digital. Not a rant.
 
Another film/digital user. B+W can look good on screen -- but VERY SELDOM as good as a good silver halide print when you see it on the wall. Even when it is as good, it's usually different. As different from straight silver gelatine as bromoil, in many cases.

Cheers,

R.
 
I have used the digital rangefinders, RD1 and M8 and I have "played" with the M9. Cant say that I am an expert on digital by any standards. Tuulikki is the Digital user in the family - Lumix G1 that she yields with ferocious energy!
There are some reasons why I have stayed away from the digitals - mainly the fact that I love film - the fact that I am limited to 36-37 exposures/roll and better be right on the button as to exposures (at least most of the time). the other thing is that I know my way around film/processing and filing.
For black/white i still think film has an advantage - film has a depth to it, be it only a couple of microns, but it gives a 3D look. A sensor is a single layer and it reproduces as a 2 dimensional image - no depth. In color you can use the effect of color to hide it - but in black/white there is no escape.
One other factor - and it is a major one in my book, is simply storage and retrieval of images. Digital is pixels on a drive/disc - and as such is at risk for crashes, out dated storage system that cant be "read" in the future and more. I have negative files going back to the 60's and I can usually retrieve a negative in minutes. We are at risk of loosing a lot of what today might be mundane and "boring" stuff - but in the future will be essential historic information (the future being 20-30 years from now - or even longer). Film, in particular bl/w properly processed and stored, has a life span of 100's of year - with basic technology for reproducing it most likely still being available in 2050 or 2060.
I know all about the reformatting and renewing digital storage every 5 years - but how many of us are really doing that. Probably the same amount of "shooters" who properly stored and filed the color negatives shot in the 70's of family outings and occasions (weddings/birthdays/graduations etc). We have probably already lost one or two generations of "anthroprological l" data to digital capture already. Future generations will have to base their information on our time on either massaged news (stored properly) or museums with facilities and staff working on it. The point of view of the "average Joe or Jane" will be gone!
This said. if I had to go back and make a living with a camera - I would be fully pixilated for the commercial end - but there would be a M2 and some TriX (or whatever film is available) not to far from my hands.
Another thing, with a M camera I have a couple of things to master, focus, shutter speed and framing. Most digitals I have used or "played" with comes with a bewildering array of buttons, screens and "options". Also manuals are bigger than the latest block buster paper back - and is written by computer techs with vague ideas on photography! I just dont have the time to spend trying to decode what they are talking about.
Tom
 
Oh man, this should be good. :) If you are used to B&W wet darkroom prints, it is hard to get used to digital B&W. I just let my digital B&W be digital... I don't add grain or gimmick filters. It's different, but... like Roger said, it can look really good. Depends on what you are looking for and if you accept digital as a new, different medium.
 
jsrockit said:
Oh man, this should be good. :) If you are used to B&W wet darkroom prints, it is hard to get used to digital B&W. I just let my digital B&W be digital... I don't add grain or gimmick filters. It's different, but... like Roger said, it can look really good. Depends on what you are looking for and if you accept digital as a new, different medium.
Click to expand...


It will be good to stand back and watch from this point in, I think:)

I am completely in agreement with the bold bit - let it be what it is in each case. Then you will find the best of each.
 
I think that it depends on your process. If you're going to shoot black and white film and scan it you may just as well shoot digital and use Silver Efex Pro or similar to get the look you want before printing via an inkjet.

Starting analog and finishing analog with a wet print is obviously completely different ... and although I've never actually done it I aknowledge that it has it's own look that can't really be matched in any other way!
 
f6andBthere said:
I think that it depends on your process. If you're going to shoot black and white film and scan it you may just as well shoot digital and use Silver Efex Pro or similar to get the look you want before printing via an inkjet.

Starting analog and finishing analog with a wet print is obviously completely different ... and although I've never actually done it I aknowledge that it has it's own look that can't really be matched in any other way!
Click to expand...

If you shoot film and scan, you have the option of wet printing later. If you shoot digital, you don't have that option.
 
Nomad Z said:
If you shoot film and scan, you have the option of wet printing later. If you shoot digital, you don't have that option.
Click to expand...


There is the option to shoot digitally and create a digital negative then contact print ... that's something I've often considered.

Ron Reeder's website is quite interesting regarding this option.
 
Work = digital. Leisure = black and white film. Market demands full colour digital. But am starting to use black and white for some jobs now, must say its really time consuming. Am in the process of trawling my archives going back over 25 years and scanning my favourites, thats whats inspired me to dust down my Leicas and Nikon F3's and start using them again. Unfortunately still not got the hang of scanning traditional black and white negs.
 
I was/have never been satisfied with digital mono, have downloaded and tried trials of all the fancy plugins and they just don't have the feel of the wet print. Although it has to be said I like being in the darkroom and that is a great reason to carry on with traditional practice. I have no problem with digital colour though I do prefer Portra scanned in over my D90. A lot may be down to taste. there is another advantage of the darkroom, being a sufferer of chronic migraines a bit of time spent in the room helps relieve a lot of the pain.
 
Am also migraine sufferer, working in the darkroom under a red light with all those chemicals used to really kick them off. But then so does working endless hours on the computer!
 
Last edited:
Very very very well said, Tom.

I use digital for my daily work and am grateful for it. But photography...REAL photography, well -- that's film.

For all the reasons you laid out so well.
 
I have been having an ongoing discussion with Epson in regards to making an inkjet printer, dedicated to black/white. Five or six shades black/grey + a spot varnish etc. The problem is that most of the people working on the design and production of inkjet printers have little or no experience of seeing master prints done on fiber based paper by printers who know their craft.
They should have mandatory exposure (excuse the pun) to Ansel Adam, Wynn Bullock, Jean Loup Sieff etc - simply to establish what they should aim for! Just send them to Arizona and look at Eugene Smith's original prints from the Pittsburgh Story - difficult negatives and stunning prints.
The usual caveat from them is "Oh, but would anyone be interested in a monochrome printer?"
Trying to explain that for many of us - our files holds 100 000's negatives that we could print in the darkroom, but it would be nice to be able to get a high quality inkjet too - and the advantage of being able to mix a digital workflow with the advantage of spotting,contrast control etc prior to running it through the inkjet is certainly attractive.
 
Good point, managed to print a B&W exhibition using my Epson SP2100 some years back, prints were done from scanned negs A3+ size. Worked ok but very thirsty on the ink. My main problem is not having Digital ICE for traditional B&W negs.
 
Pablito said:
actually, you do. I think this is Salgado's method, whether you like his work or not...
Click to expand...

Even if you don't like his work aesthetically or conceptually, there is no doubt about its quality technically speaking. It's pretty much a standard setter.
 
Just think about this! The discovery of the Vivian Maier collection of negatives or the unearthing of the Mexican Suitcase (stored since 1939 until 1995 in an attic in Mexico City). If either of these collections had been on hard drives, disc's whatever - how much would have survived today?
When I am talking about the "lost pictures" - these are the things to come to my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom