Bill Pierce
Well-known
Because someone can’t make a good black-and-white print digitally or in a conventional wet darkroom doesn’t mean that good b&w inkjets or silver prints can’t be made. Silver has been around long enough that, if we see a bad print, we blame the printer, not the materials. Inkjet hasn’t been around as long and folks can still get away with saying, “It’s not my inability to make a good print, it’s the fault of the inkjet process.” As more and more good inkjet prints are circulated, as more and more good b&w images from digital camera appear on the internet, this excuse will disappear.
But, for me, right now, when somebody says digital b&w is awful, it’s just a statement about their own limitations.
But, for me, right now, when somebody says digital b&w is awful, it’s just a statement about their own limitations.
ChrisN
Striving
I was looking at it and thinking the lighting has given a great sense of depth - that can't be natural! It does look like a film set.
A very good pic, and the treatment given is very effective. Probably nothing like a film image, but with a charm of its own.
The one thing I dislike about SEP is the lack of an audit file (or sidecar file in Lightroom terms) to record the steps applied. The changes are applied directly to the file, and once you save the file there's no record of how you achieved it (unless you save the settings as a custom preset, and even then it can't save the local enhancements). For version 3 they really need to implement non-destructive editing.
Luna
Well-known
Very true, but they'll brush off this statement by saying that their limitations are not limitations, but rather ethics from their "aesthetic experience" with B&W film.
btgc
Veteran
Digital b&w afwul? It's rather expensive compared to 5-pack of film, I mean good digital camera and computer, let alone processing software. Lets assume 5 rolls of film would be what average person would expose during vacation, then review contacts and make some prints.
lewis44
Well-known
Silver Efex has quite a few adjustments.
I normally use the Neutral preset and then make my corrections to that. On the right side, in Silver Efex, I adjust Brightness, Contract and Structure, then go to Film Types and Adjust for Grain (Usually 500/Fine).
Below that is Sensitivity, which gives you sliders for color (Red, Yellow, Green, Cyan, Blue & Violet.)
That is where I make the most important adjustments. I don't have a preset for that, as each scene is different. I may then go back up to Contrast & Structure for a final Tweak.
The lens was probably a 50 Summilux or VC Nokton f1.5. These were shot about 3-4 years ago, so Im not quite sure which it was.
I was debating whether to get another R-D1 and went back to look at some of my old stuff and worked these images.
I did not have Silver Efex Pro then, so redoing them in B&W was Kinda' fun.
I find that landscapes with Real Blue Sky's and Cloud Structure are great to work with.
Glad you like the images.
semordnilap
Well-known
Bill,
I really like the Lightroom system you described a while back:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92977
I've found it makes for phenomenal conversions, at least from my M8 files.
Thanks!!!
I really like the Lightroom system you described a while back:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92977
I've found it makes for phenomenal conversions, at least from my M8 files.
Thanks!!!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
David_Manning
Well-known
My personal opinion is that b&w doesn't look the same without grain. Now, I know fine art b&w shot with large-format cameras are essentially grain-less, but my mind's recollection of b&w prints reflects visible grain structure.
Digital is convenient...which nobody will dispute...but sometimes I use digital for it's ease of use and then convert to reflect what I would have shot on film if I wasn't so lazy at that time (or had the time and/or money).
That being said, I shot this with a D700 and used Nik SilverEfex Pro for the conversion. It looks exactly as I hoped it would...like a landscape shot on 35mm Tri-X film. I enlarged it to 20x30, and it held up nicely, which I'm not confident Tri-X would have done in the end.
Just different tools I guess...
Digital is convenient...which nobody will dispute...but sometimes I use digital for it's ease of use and then convert to reflect what I would have shot on film if I wasn't so lazy at that time (or had the time and/or money).
That being said, I shot this with a D700 and used Nik SilverEfex Pro for the conversion. It looks exactly as I hoped it would...like a landscape shot on 35mm Tri-X film. I enlarged it to 20x30, and it held up nicely, which I'm not confident Tri-X would have done in the end.
Just different tools I guess...
astro8
Well-known
Love the images and thanks for the insight.
Dr Gaspar
Established
I was just about to say that... and then I read your post.
Looks like a tv set from the 60's, damn right.
Peter Klein
Well-known
Astro8, you are not cracked at all. I love Joshua Tree, have been there multiple times. And I've said the same thing for years. At any moment I expect Dr. Smith and the arm-waving robot to appear from behind the rock formations.
Panatomic-X in Microdol is as close to Monochrome Digital that I could get when shooting film.
I've never felt the need to add CGG (computer generated grain) to a digital image. It is as close to Pan-X as I can find.
I've never felt the need to add CGG (computer generated grain) to a digital image. It is as close to Pan-X as I can find.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Ronchnam
Established
Digital b&w
Digital b&w
I do use an epson R-D1, most of time in Raw + Jpg setting.
I also have a IMac computeur and I didn't succeeded opening any raw file through Epson PhotoRaw. Either I have uploaded them in Iphoto or directly from the Sd Card.
Could you help me ?
Regards
Digital b&w
Hi,
I do use an epson R-D1, most of time in Raw + Jpg setting.
I also have a IMac computeur and I didn't succeeded opening any raw file through Epson PhotoRaw. Either I have uploaded them in Iphoto or directly from the Sd Card.
Could you help me ?
Regards
Stuart John
Well-known
B&W film is the real thing nice as digital B&W can be often it's just a simulation.
APX100 in Rodinal
APX100 in Rodinal
Stuart John
Well-known
And a digital one , I used DXO film pack 3 TriX or HP5 can't remember which one.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
+1.
I think that a lot of people are confusing grain and tonal relationships with "acutance" and "detail." An 8 Mpix shot* from my old Olympus 4/3 DSLR with a pretty strong AA filter (and a very good lens) has at least comparable detail (that is, it resolves at least as much fine structure) as a similar shot on Tri-X taken with my M6 (and a very good lens).
In both cases resolved detail is, more often than not, limited by focus error and camera movement, not by the sensor's characteristics. A shot from my 12 megapixel Olympus is even better, and since that camera has in-body image stabilization, it's better still. Yet the pictures look different, unless some care is taken in post to make the digital output look like film. Thus, "detail," even fine detail, cannot explain the difference.
What it really comes down to is (1) the rendering of tonal relationships from scene to print (including spectral mapping), and (2) perceived acutance (versus acutance from edge effects) due to grain noise. Note that edge effects are easy to obtain in digital.
*This particular combination of camera and lens (E-500 and 12-60SWD) resolves well over 700 vertical cycles (= horizontal line pairs; measured casually by me; I'm certain it could do better in a well-controlled lab test) – almost exactly equivalent to 30 cycles/mm on FF 135 film. In the lab, using a 10 Mpix sensor with a weaker anti-aliasing filter, the same lens delivers more than 1400 vertical cycles at MTF-50, all the way across the frame. That corresponds to 58 cycles/mm on FF 135 format. Guess what the maximum MTF50 of Tri-X is, under highly optimized** laboratory conditions? The answer, from Kodak's own spec sheet: about 53 cycles/mm. So, no, "detail" is not the difference, and neither is acutance, at least in the commonly-accepted technical sense of that word.
**Note that this is the MTF of the film alone, not overdeveloped, etc., while the digital results are the MTF for the entire imaging system. When combined with a camera (that won't ever hold the film flat enough unless it's a Contax RTS III), a lens (that has various aberrations and probably isn't focused precisely anyway), a scanner or enlarger, etc., the Tri-X result for the overall imaging system will always be worse than the film's rated MTF.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Both shot the same evening, in my back yard.
Top: E-500, 12-60 SWD; bottom: M6, Neopan 400 (XTOL 1+1), 50mm Summicron-M.
Note: the only way to get the top image to look even remotely like 35mm film was to add grain and back the "clarity" slider off to –20 in Lightroom.
Last edited:
KEH
Well-known
Cathedral Grove on Vancouver Island - seriously old growth forest.
Lumix LX5, Silver Efex Pro 2
Cheers,
Kirk
segedi
RFicianado
Does anyone filter their digital shots on the lens? I've been thinking of trying a red or orange filter on my DSLR to see what difference it makes and if it's even doable.
Years ago, I sold a shot of a lily to some lily fanatics, nice older couple in Knoxville. Before they bought the print, they asked if the flower was real
The smoothness of the digital file converted to B&W made the flower look artificial. On other shots I added in some grain, made a big difference. As did fiddling with Curves.
I still prefer B&W film though. Just got some Efke developed an am anxious to see what it looks like on the scans (no darkroom so scanning it is!) And I don't have to apply PS filters to emulate a particular film, I just use it!
Years ago, I sold a shot of a lily to some lily fanatics, nice older couple in Knoxville. Before they bought the print, they asked if the flower was real
The smoothness of the digital file converted to B&W made the flower look artificial. On other shots I added in some grain, made a big difference. As did fiddling with Curves.
I still prefer B&W film though. Just got some Efke developed an am anxious to see what it looks like on the scans (no darkroom so scanning it is!) And I don't have to apply PS filters to emulate a particular film, I just use it!