back alley
IMAGES
if i were that worried or envious...would my main camera be an ancient 6mp one off wonder?
back alley
IMAGES
that is disturbing...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Vincent.G
Well-known
A New 2012 Volkswagen Beetle pimped with chrome accessories is not going to be the same as the Classic Old 1938 Volkswagen Beetle. But both appeal to people with different tastes. Same goes for black and white photos from film or digital.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Joe, of course digital will look like film! Its just a little software programing away. Silver Efex is darn close; perfect to my eyes, but they're old eyes. How long do you think it will take the digital designers to add a menu "b&w film type" with sub-headings "Tri-X" or "Neopan 1600" or whatever? 
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
maddoc
... likes film again.
While above statements are clearly true, the mentioned techniques were not created to replace each other. In case of digital and film it is different, digital imaging technology was created to substitute film (for various reasons) and therefore it will always be compared to film.
craygc
Well-known
A large part of the problem is people using statements like "digital will never look like film". It comes out as a little bit of a loaded statement and encompasses all dimensions of an image. The primary issue that I think is at the back of people's minds when they make this type of statement is one revolving around tonality. I've seen and even achieved myself what I would consider very convincing digital conversions but from observation, the tonality is far from being achieved consistently. Under controlled lighting or a scene with a compressed brightness range, some great results can be achieved more easily.
I really don't know what the answer is but from the perspective of achieving great B&W tonality on a consistent basis, without very extensive processing, digital is not there yet and current post-processing software is not magically improving it either.
But I think it should be acknowledged that over a century of B&W film has set a benchmark for what great B&W tonality should/can look like. Yes, digital looks different on many dimensions in comparison but just because either you never had images with great tonality from film or you're now committed to digital and doing better, don't ignore the benchmark of what is GREAT B&W TONALITY...
I really don't know what the answer is but from the perspective of achieving great B&W tonality on a consistent basis, without very extensive processing, digital is not there yet and current post-processing software is not magically improving it either.
But I think it should be acknowledged that over a century of B&W film has set a benchmark for what great B&W tonality should/can look like. Yes, digital looks different on many dimensions in comparison but just because either you never had images with great tonality from film or you're now committed to digital and doing better, don't ignore the benchmark of what is GREAT B&W TONALITY...
Murchu
Well-known
Agreed, very pathetic. Having a philosophy pushed on me by a manufacturer, I find highly irritating. I recall when reading the manual for my Sony Ericsson phone years ago, how the phone had been programmed so as not to be able to disable the shutter sound, to prevent users being able to take candid images of others without their knowledge.
daveleo
what?
Well, I may not get digital to look like film, but I can get it to look like lots of other things (like VanGogh paintings !) at the push of a button . . .
And, if I could code in Python (I can't), I could write my own special effects scripts !
Try doing that with film
Yikes . . . . did I just throw gasoline on the fire . . . seriously, I was just being funny, guys. . .
And, if I could code in Python (I can't), I could write my own special effects scripts !
Try doing that with film
Yikes . . . . did I just throw gasoline on the fire . . . seriously, I was just being funny, guys. . .
Murchu
Well-known
Joe, of course digital will look like film! Its just a little software programing away. Silver Efex is darn close; perfect to my eyes, but they're old eyes. How long do you think it will take the digital designers to add a menu "b&w film type" with sub-headings "Tri-X" or "Neopan 1600" or whatever?
Well, if camera manufacturers were smart, they would build such functionality into their cameras. Imagine what it would be like to out of camera b&w's of the same level as you can get out of something like Silver Efex on your computer..
Jamie123
Veteran
Ok, now what if it gets harder and harder to find places that sell oranges because most have switched to selling only lemons, and the ones that do sell oranges keep raising their prices. And then you also need an expensive high end machine to peel oranges and it takes ages to do so while peeling lemons is a matter of seconds. And on top of that the people who sell lemons are trying to convince you that they are adequate replacements for oranges. And the companies that used to grow oranges are either going bankrupt or drastically reducing the variety of oranges.
Oh, and let's not forget that if you're in the business of selling juice clients are insisting on lemon juice even though your specialty might be orange juice.
If oranges are being replaced by lemons it's perfectly understandeable that people who love oranges are asking for an orange flavored lemon. Or at least a grapefruit.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
While this thread has been off the main page for a while I've thought about the digital black and white thing and realised what it is that bothers me a little about it ... and I realised this when I saw Leicashot's latest upload in his thread about his Monochrom and the image examples he's been posting.
Using the Leica Monochrom as an example, and you could say the same thing about the D800, you have a picture taking device that's producing resolution at levels that's not really needed IMO ... it's optical reportage and it turns a lot of interesting photos into meaningless maps of intricate detail. To make my point I've put Kristian's (very good) photo into this thread ... I hope he doesn't mind!
The level of detail in this image is phenominal ... but it's black and white and that's its only concession to abstraction. To me black and white imagery is somewhat about the abstract aspect of photography as a visual art because personally I see everything in colour and provided I've remembered to put my contacts in I see it clearly with all the available detail there before me. For myself, photographically, I don't want that level of detail for the same reason I don't want the colour and for this reason I find black and white digital confronting and bland ninety percent of the time. It's probably why I tend to use all my digital cameras at very high ISOs because I need that visual imperfection created by sensor noise to take that precise, clinical quality away.
This is just my personal take on it but for me it's real and it's the primary reason black and white digital can't replace, or match film ... for me!
Using the Leica Monochrom as an example, and you could say the same thing about the D800, you have a picture taking device that's producing resolution at levels that's not really needed IMO ... it's optical reportage and it turns a lot of interesting photos into meaningless maps of intricate detail. To make my point I've put Kristian's (very good) photo into this thread ... I hope he doesn't mind!
The level of detail in this image is phenominal ... but it's black and white and that's its only concession to abstraction. To me black and white imagery is somewhat about the abstract aspect of photography as a visual art because personally I see everything in colour and provided I've remembered to put my contacts in I see it clearly with all the available detail there before me. For myself, photographically, I don't want that level of detail for the same reason I don't want the colour and for this reason I find black and white digital confronting and bland ninety percent of the time. It's probably why I tend to use all my digital cameras at very high ISOs because I need that visual imperfection created by sensor noise to take that precise, clinical quality away.
This is just my personal take on it but for me it's real and it's the primary reason black and white digital can't replace, or match film ... for me!
Bill Clark
Veteran
Spent the day in my darkroom. Made contact sheets of each roll.
Was in L.A. for a week. Made 6 rolls of film with Delta 100.
Used a Leica M4 with a 50mm f2,5 Summarit lens. Only lens I used!
Developed film in Microdol X stock, 15 min. @ 68 degrees.
Fun!
Was in L.A. for a week. Made 6 rolls of film with Delta 100.
Used a Leica M4 with a 50mm f2,5 Summarit lens. Only lens I used!
Developed film in Microdol X stock, 15 min. @ 68 degrees.
Fun!
peterm1
Veteran
I think it was the great SF writer Arthur C. Clarke who wrote that "When an old and greatly respected scientist says that something is possible - you should believe him without question. When the same old and greatly respected scientist says something is impossible a better default position is to question him. Its probably prejudice and his set ways that are speaking and there is a good chance that he will eventually be proven wrong".
Not a bad principle. And not a bad thought to bring to this thread. I am always suspicious when someone writes. "XYZ is impossible it will never happen."
Anyway does it really matter? Digital has an aesthetic of its own and who says it has to look like analogue. (I never the less think it can be made to if there is enough incentive for sensor / software designers to go in this direction.)
Not a bad principle. And not a bad thought to bring to this thread. I am always suspicious when someone writes. "XYZ is impossible it will never happen."
Anyway does it really matter? Digital has an aesthetic of its own and who says it has to look like analogue. (I never the less think it can be made to if there is enough incentive for sensor / software designers to go in this direction.)
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Another image ... this time large format (4 x 5) TXP320. Although LF displays resolution at far higher levels than the smaller formats along with very little grain it still lacks the clinical precision and extreme detail that high quality digital posesses ... interestingly this is the same ISO (320) as Kristian's example I posted above and it was scanned with the budget V700 Epson flat bed. Post processing was virtually nil aside form a little sharpening and lifting the shadows slightly.
This has all the detail I'd ever want from an image and IMO it could never be mistaken for digital.
I'll stress again that my last couple of posts represent the way I feel about digital black and white and I totally respect how Joe and others may feel about it. No one is right or wrong here IMO but I do feel the need to express what the differences are for me and why I value them.
This has all the detail I'd ever want from an image and IMO it could never be mistaken for digital.
I'll stress again that my last couple of posts represent the way I feel about digital black and white and I totally respect how Joe and others may feel about it. No one is right or wrong here IMO but I do feel the need to express what the differences are for me and why I value them.
fstops
-
Another image ... this time large format (4 x 5) TXP320. Although LF displays resolution at far higher levels than the smaller formats along with very little grain it still lacks the clinical precision and extreme detail that high quality digital posesses ... interestingly this is the same ISO (320) as Kristian's example I posted above and it was scanned with the budget V700 Epson flat bed. Post processing was virtually nil aside form a little sharpening and lifting the shadows slightly.
This has all the detail I'd ever want from an image and IMO it could never be mistaken for digital.
I'll stress again that my last couple of posts represent the way I feel about digital black and white and I totally respect how Joe and others may feel about it. No one is right or wrong here IMO but I do feel the need to express what the differences are for me and why I value them.
The problem with using such examples is that one cannot help but point out - whats with the right eye of the man in the image? It looks strange. There should be some detail there -- the eyes are the first place people look at when they see a photograph... Sometimes its better to take a day off from this ludicrous film-digital-look debate and pay attention to basic photography.
There is no digital or film look, its the guy or the girl with the camera who decides what their film or digital should look, or in most cases don't know any better and produces the worst of both.
The image you present to people, tells those people about your skill level and aesthetic sense not if you used film or digital.
Vincent.G
Well-known
Keith, some times we all may get too caught up with how a photo looks like on a computer screen. The most important thing, in my humble opinion, is how the black and white photo looks on paper.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Vincent ... that's very true and opens up another can of worms with wet process verses ink jet!
But let's not go there and ruin a nice day!
Pablito
coco frío
Well the shot is not really in focus, not anywhere.
And you can't compare something shot with strobes with something shot with available light. Assuming the 1st shot was with strobes.