digital b&w will never look like film...

[Keith]

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.

It probably wasn't a good example to post then as it was taken in very low light with a ninety year old 16.5cm Zeiss lens so the depth of field was minimal at f4 and I'm happy to admit I blew the focus ... the edge of his cap is pretty sharp though! 😱

But that wasn't my point!

 

[Chris101]

digital b&w will never look like film...

Not only that, but also:

Film will never look like digital!​

We used to try to make film look as smooth and grainless as possible. I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 64 in the 80s on medium format film and enlarge it to 20x24 inch glossy Cibachromes in order to make a smooth and crisp photograph. Digital took it beyond the best we could do on that front, and so owned the "smooth and crispy" look forever more.

Now, when I shoot film, I shoot fast film, I underexpose, over develop and agitate like I'm Abby Hoffman. My pictures are about grain. If you stand far enough back, you can make out what appears to be some people, places and/or things.

I WANT film to look very different than what I can do with a digital camera and a computer. So I take it in a different direction.

 

[emraphoto]

'Some folks' being the software manufacturers who offer plugins to simulate numerous emulsions in post and camera manufacturers with in camera settings to mimmick velvia, provia etc! No one important! 😀

I've seen some black and white digital post processing lately that I really haven't liked. Reduced tonal range with bugger all shadow detail and extreme highlights and a crowd of admirers all chanting ... "Wow, that looks great!"

Huh! ... since when was that a characteristic of film? Unles you like Tri-X pushed to 3200 for your daily snaps!

i have also seen some digital post, under the guise of software names, that i really like. strangely enough, i can't seem to understand how the comparisons are made though... 'looks like tri-x is' something i hear a lot and said photograph doesn't look anything like the tri-x i know.

this photograph itself can be quite good but the insistence that it be comparable to, or measurable in relation to, often seems far from the case.

ultimately the comparison doesn't matter. a great photograph is a great photograph. the compulsion to validate it visa vie the likeness to film seems troubling. specifically when it is not even close.

rules, the internet is a double edged sword.

 

[emraphoto]

To me black and white imagery is somewhat about the abstract aspect of photography a
SNIP

Film and sensors aside..

When making a photo - we are taking a 3 dimensional view that is big and we turn it into a 2 dimensional view - that is a level of abstraction. If we then print the image smaller than the actual big view that was photographed, it is again a further abstraction. If all this was done with color we are 2 levels away from (photo) "reality". If we further take the color view of (photo) "reality" and use black and white materials to make our smaller, 2 dimensional image of "reality" we are 3 levels of abstraction away from the original view (scene or object photographed).

So, working in b+w photography we are (assuming a normal representation of reality was intended) creating a fairly abstract representation of "reality".

I credit Ralph Gibson for the above bit of visual photo theory.

I don't know how film vs digital sensors effect this - one might argue that (for better or worse), we who are most familiar with the look of a b+w film image of "abstract reality" find a digital representation of b+w abstract photo reality, yet a further abstract distance away from the original color scene. This also assumes that we can tell the difference between an image created on film or with a digital sensor. So far, I can easily see the difference - especially if it's in printed form. This last bit doesn't hold with Gibson's theory, but is a personal observation.

It might be said that a person who is only a custom to seeing digital imagery, might find a film sourced image a further abstraction away. What both have in common is that they "pretend" to represent a "level of reality" (photoshop and all that business aside). They are only abstract representations of what was photographed.

Sorry it took so many words to get this out..

it was the perfect amount of words and well said.

 

[rxmd]

Now, when I shoot film, I shoot fast film, I underexpose, over develop and agitate like I'm Abby Hoffman. My pictures are about grain. If you stand far enough back, you can make out what appears to be some people, places and/or things.

I WANT film to look very different than what I can do with a digital camera and a computer. So I take it in a different direction.

That would also negate the need for good gear. Less need for worrying about microcontrast or lens rendering. You can do that with a Zorki, no need for Apo-Asph Summicrons.

 

[emraphoto]

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!

some of us, we think, recognize the point

 

[Keith]

Ok ... I'll stick my neck out and post another image that makes me believe my own (possibly) foolhardy mantra! 😀

When shooting digital I've never made a blind stupid mistake that produced an image I liked ... I do it frequently with film!

 

[Jamie123]

When shooting digital I've never made a blind stupid mistake that produced an image I liked ... I do it frequently with film!

You probably make interesting mistakes with digital, too, but the problem is if you see them right away you don't have the necessary distance to recognize them as interesting.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

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..

It simply may be that they (the manufacturers/designers) don't yet see the need. They may not yet realize there is a sizable pent-up demand for such a thing. Is there? I don't have a clue about such things. 😱

 

[Keith]

You probably make interesting mistakes with digital, too, but the problem is if you see them right away you don't have the necessary distance to recognize them as interesting.

That's a good point Jamie ... just hit the delete button and move on without thinking about what may be there!

 

[Jamie123]

That's a good point Jamie ... just hit the delete button and move on without thinking about what may be there!

Yeah, because with digital we're often looking at the image with all the expectations we had just a second earlier before we hit the shutter. Anything that does not meet the expectations is then deemed a failure. With film often some time has gone by when we look at the images so our eye is not 'tainted' by the mindset we were in at the moment of capture.

In my experience this also applies to supposedly successful images. A while back I did a photoshoot with a few models and I had everything set the way I wanted. I was using a Phase One IQ160 back for the first time and I was amazed by how it captured the natural light exactly the way I imagined. Every shot was a 'wow' experience but the problem is that this made me complacent so I didn't make enough of an effort to get the expression I wanted from the model. When I looked at the images a few weeks later all the shots seemed 'good but not great'. Everything I planned for was there but I had just met, not surpassed my own expectations.

 

[johannielscom]

I wasn't aware of that ... pathetic and it makes me glad I don't own an apple product.

Keith,

it's only Apple that hold the patent, pretty soon they will start implementing it in devices that can disable camera's and wireless connectivity at pop concerts, exams rooms, hospitals, etc.

Once that catches on, other companies will buy a license to implement it in their devices too and many more wireless devices will be restricted in specific area's.

It will likely put a limit on the endless flood of images online and give some 'power' back to photographers that use a (film?) camera instead of a smart phone or tablet.
At the same time it might also disable devices owned by activists etc to communicate what their regime is up to...

 

[johannielscom]

Yeah, because with digital we're often looking at the image with all the expectations we had just a second earlier before we hit the shutter. Anything that does not meet the expectations is then deemed a failure. With film often some time has gone by when we look at the images so our eye is not 'tainted' by the mindset we were in at the moment of capture.

In my experience this also applies to supposedly successful images. A while back I did a photoshoot with a few models and I had everything set the way I wanted. I was using a Phase One IQ160 back for the first time and I was amazed by how it captured the natural light exactly the way I imagined. Every shot was a 'wow' experience but the problem is that this made me complacent so I didn't make enough of an effort to get the expression I wanted from the model. When I looked at the images a few weeks later all the shots seemed 'good but not great'. Everything I planned for was there but I had just met, not surpassed my own expectations.

This sums up one aspect of 'the trouble with digital' real good for me! The other one being that I do not take enough time to compose and think through since the result is instantly available and I tend to get into a 'rush' instead of a 'flow'...

 

[thegman]

...does it have to?

why are some folks obsessed with digital looking like film?
i like the ultra clean look of digital...

Agree, I shoot film almost exclusively, but I too like the very clean/crisp of digital black and white. Obviously film B&W has it's own appeal, but I have no desire to make one look like the other.

 

[thegman]

envy?
it's (small minded) comments like that that keep the argument going...

To be fair, "envy" simply means that someone covets what you have. The fact that there are so many software products and cameras which emulate black and white film, shows that there are many people who *do* envy black and white film and want it for themselves.

The fact that you started this thread in the first place shows that you yourself acknowledge that many people covet the look of black and white film when using digital.

You've only got to look at how many people apply PP to digital shots to make it look like film to know that it is envied in one way or another, look at Instagram, a billion dollar company based on making mobile phone shots look like film.

Don't misunderstand me, I completely agree with you that digital B&W can look great, maybe even better than film, but there absolutely is envy of the film look in the digital world. Even in Hollywood, the main thrust of digital at the moment is not to make it look great, it's to make it look like film.

 

[Pherdinand]

so funny, many people only read the title of the thread and step right into the middle of the discussion...

 

[Mcary]

That's a good point Jamie ... just hit the delete button and move on without thinking about what may be there!

One thing I've never understood is why some people will spend a thousand or even several thousand dollars on digital gear and then cheap out on memory cards. Forcing them to have delete images out in the field rather then being able to review them at a later point, and thereby seeing something they might have missed.
Even if its a crappy shot or a 100 crappy shot's its not a complete lose if reviewing the images helps one to see what then need to work on to improve.
BTW I also waste a lot of film when I'm shooting, not as much as digital, but that's mainly because of having to change rolls every 12, 24, 36 exposures, and not because I'm fixated on the price per roll. Basically if I still feel there a shots to take I'll take them doesn't matter if I'm shooting digital or film.

 

[Jamie123]

One thing I've never understood is why some people will spend a thousand or even several thousand dollars on digital gear and then cheap out on memory cards. Forcing them to have delete images out in the field rather then being able to review them at a later point, and thereby seeing something they might have missed.

I don't think that's the point really. I'm sure we all have plenty of memory cards. I have two 16gb cards which is a lot more than I need 90% of the time. I'm not forced to delete images in the field but sometimes I'm inclined to do so if I really don't like the shot I just took. But even if I leave it on the card, which I actually do most of the time, I still don't have enough distance when I review them back at home. And even if I then keep all of the shots on my harddrive, which, again, I actually do, I'm not likely to go back and review my rejects a month later.
Now I'm sure you'll say that it's entirely up to me to change that and of course in theory that's true but the fact of the matter is that the tools we use influence how we work.
Of course I can force myself to work across the grain but that requires a very conscious effort whereas with film it's often just a natural result of the circumstances.