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

f6andBthere said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not my experience either. Maybe I'm just plain stupid, but even on screen my b/w negative scans look better than my b/w-converted digital captures.

For color, I'm fine with digital, and it has the convenience advantage. But that advantage is gone for b/w until I find a very straight-forward conversion method yielding satisfying results. Otherwise my endless fiddling with the conversion will make up for the faster capture process...
 
Lss said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom A
I have been having an ongoing discussion with Epson in regards to making an inkjet printer, dedicated to black/white.


Please ask for an R-D2, too. :)
Click to expand...

I'm interested in the printer!

And heck, yeah, the R-D2 as well (of course with a dedicated monochrome sensor).
 
Anyone ever have digital files printed on the Ilford FB digital gelatin silver paper? Would seemingly give you the best of both worlds?
 
Besides all the comments about enjoying the process of film, I've seen terrific photos taken with the little Oly XA (that you can get for about $100) that blow the socks off of a $7000 M9 without the need for additional software and associated learning curve of said software.
 
ferider said:
I keep asking myself the same question since the X-Pro1 was announced .....

The thing I love most about film is waiting for and then seeing the results when I hang my negatives up to dry.

As simple as that.
Click to expand...

I must admit to still getting a kick out of pulling the film off the spiral and seeing images on the film
 
Tom A said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling people felt the same way about negatives and photos in general 100 years ago... longevity can never be predicted. 35mm became a standard. Jpeg and DNG are standards which will continue to be able to be read. Smart people have multiple back-ups and transfer old images to new HDs every few years as storage gets cheaper. A
 
semrich said:
Besides all the comments about enjoying the process of film, I've seen terrific photos taken with the little Oly XA (that you can get for about $100) that blow the socks off of a $7000 M9 without the need for additional software and associated learning curve of said software.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean, because we all know the M9 sucks compared to any film camera. This can be said of any camera versus any camera. :rolleyes:
 
raytoei@gmail.com said:
Nick, thanks for the link, i found this a bit puzzling from the page:

"Today, all of Sebastiao Salgado’s digital images are processed using DxO FilmPack before being transferred to film using a Kodak imager and baryta paper."

I think it was meant to read "...transferred to PRINT using ...." ?

raytoei
Click to expand...

I wonder if they do actually mean film as he talks of silver halide-digital, if there's no film or wet print, where does the silver halide come in, it would be an all digital process. I know Ilford developed an enlarger that would project a digital file onto conventional FB paper, have Kodak a system of exposing a digital file onto film for conventional darkroom printing. Just chewing the fat mind, I don't have another source other than what I read there.
 
I like the handcrafted nature of developing film and developing a print with wet chemistry in a makeshift darkroom. scanning a print onto computer file is about as digital as I'm gonna get, and that action reduces considerably, the satisfaction I get from holding the completed photograph in my hand.
 
Tom A said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tom,
I hope you're in talk with Canon also. To have a version of pigment with different shades of grey would truly be a boon for B&W photographers everywhere.

I lost my patience (and money) trying to work with Epson printers because they have stubbornly brush aside fundamental designs that make sense.

Such as: Non-user-replaceable heads. Why? if my expensive Epson printer has clogged head, why do I need a new printer? Canon (and HP, don't know if they are still in the market for pro printers) was able to alleviate this problem and still makes printers that is very high quality.
 
is it the print or the photograph that is most important?
many of us own books containing the work of great photographers. HCB's work is no less great in a book than it is when exhibited. i am not an ansel adams fan, but i do know he is considered a wonderful printer. i can see that whether his work is in a well-done book or magazine - or on the wall.
if a photograph does not have "it," it will not have "it" whether digital or silver, ink jet or wet, will it? hey, i'm just asking ...
 
paulfish4570 said:
is it the print or the photograph that is most important?
many of us own books containing the work of great photographers. HCB's work is no less great in a book than it is when exhibited. i am not an ansel adams fan, but i do know he is considered a wonderful printer. i can see that whether his work is in a well-done book or magazine - or on the wall.
if a photograph does not have "it," it will not have "it" whether digital or silver, ink jet or wet, will it? hey, i'm just asking ...
Click to expand...

Paul,
One of the most exciting way to display photos is via printing it big, matte and frame it.
Some photographs have a different impact when you see them big vs in a photo-book.

That's my take on it anyways.
 
shadowfox said:
Paul,
One of the most exciting way to display photos is via printing it big, matte and frame it.
Some photographs have a different impact when you see them big vs in a photo-book.

That's my take on it anyways.
Click to expand...
Dear Will,

True. Some are better, but others are not as good as a good reproduction in a book. Sad, but true.

Cheers,

R.
 
Response...

Response...

Thank you all for this very inteeresting stream/topic! Since the majority of my work is 35mm B&W. In addition, I just discovered how beautiful colour can be with Kodak's Portra 160, c-41 process...(I have been shooting digital for colour for a few years), I have a Leitz/Leica V35-AF enlarger with a 40mm f2.8 Focotar and a 50mm Rodenstock f2.8-APO enlarging lenses. I have not used them since I picked them all up over a year ago.

I have been using a EPSON 4880-PRO and have been happy; but my friend showed me an example off an old Omega Enlarger through and old 50mm Nikkor f4.0 50mm enlarging lens, (that was printed on Ilford Fiber-Base) and I was truly blown away throough the darkroom vent! Man, you all aren't kidding tonality!

Thanks again!

LV1
 
Tom A said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or how about those 70+-year-old pseudo-Ansel Adams negatives that were recently "discovered"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom