Digital is dead?

Dave Jenkins said:
By far the best explanation I've heard for the use of that abominable term "capture" for making a photograph.
Click to expand...

Ah, but they are not making a photograph. They are capturing and image.

Interestingly enough, I got into a conversation about digital b&w v. darkroom b&w over at the University today (It's spring break and seemed like a good time to go to the library). I wound up explaining the difference as, "Good darkroom work takes some knowledge and lots of skill, while good digital work takes lots of knowledge, and little skill".

A question was, "What is the difference between a b&w digital photo, and a film one". I answered, on your monitor, not much. On an 8x10 or larger salon quality print on the wall, quit a lot.

BTW, my Hapo 66E started the conversation.
 
starless said:
But why film was B&W and looked like this in the first place, was due to the way it was made and the chemicals that were used in the process.
Click to expand...

film was B&W at the beginning, because that was better than complete B 😀

IMO that has nothing todo wether digital files could not be converted also B&W. for instance sometimes colors are distracting the image, and taking them away gets the message through better. I bet there are many other reasons todo it.
 
You can still buy Monochrome Digital Cameras. They are expensive.

With an 18-Megapixel M9 image, you get "about" the equivalent of a 6-Megapixel Monochrome sensor. Figure the Bayer-site makes about one monochrome pixel.

What was really hard was to do Color with a Monochrome Digital camera. Filter wheel interfaced to the camera, 3 separate exposures.
 
Monochrome Digital is almost dead. Not that long ago -10 years- you could buy a Digital camera in either color or monochrome. The Kodak DCS760M was the last integral camera available in monochrome. Phase I has brought back a monochrome camera back. People do nice work with color conversion. Having used a Monochrome Digital Camera, I've never bothered with converting color images to monochrome. Just do not like the workflow.
 
I read somewhere the color filters can be removed from the CCD Nikons, D200 and D40 and earlier (D80?). The filters are gelatin based, so water soluble. Canon's are plastic, so no go. I seem to remember someone was doing this as a service. Might be something you'd be into, Brian. Maybe a "water pik" and some hot distilled...

:angel:
 
I've read some online posts where Acetone was used to disolve off the dye layer of a CCD. At some point, i'll pick up an old digital camera and try it. My Monochrome DSLR still works. But running Win95B with Photoshop 3.0, and my own raw convertor... I wish Leica offered a Monochrome M9.
 
John Rountree said:
@Shadowfox "Those statements (underlined) are subjective personal opinions, correct?
Just want to make sure."

There is a bit of subjectivity in the statement. But, objectively, a silver print in the manner of Ansel Adams does have more contrast and dynamic range than any platinum print I have seen. Sorry, I missed the first underline. Yes, that is purely subjective and probably couldn't be interpreted any other way.
Click to expand...

John, one of the beauty of Platinum prints lies in its ability to render continuous tones. It does not necessarily mean wider dynamic range and it certainly does not compete in the arena of higher contrast.

My favorite example of excellent platinum prints is actually from a modern photographer JOsÉ MIGUEL FERREIRA, here is his website:
http://www.jmf-photo.net

Have a look, let me know what you think.
 
graywolf said:
Ah, but they are not making a photograph. They are capturing and image.

Interestingly enough, I got into a conversation about digital b&w v. darkroom b&w over at the University today (It's spring break and seemed like a good time to go to the library). I wound up explaining the difference as, "Good darkroom work takes some knowledge and lots of skill, while good digital work takes lots of knowledge, and little skill".

A question was, "What is the difference between a b&w digital photo, and a film one". I answered, on your monitor, not much. On an 8x10 or larger salon quality print on the wall, quit a lot.

BTW, my Hapo 66E started the conversation.
Click to expand...

Well that's cobblers. Digital manipulation done well requires a large amount of knowledge coupled with a large amount of skill. To say anything else is simply ridiculous.

As for what looks better, pointless question, we all like what we like. Same as arguing about music, I don't like what you like, you don't like what I like, and that's fine.
 
Digital sensors are inherently monochrome. A color mosaic filter is placed over the sensing elements of most color digital cameras, and over each sensor layer in a Foveon sensor. Kodak makes sensors for Monochrome work, still in production. Mostly used by the scientific industry.

This is from a Monochrome IR camera, almost 20 years old.

picture.php


picture.php


Phase 1 recently introduced a modern Monochrome/Infrared camera back for Medium format cameras.
 
It would take me years of sweat and toil in a dark room full of poisonous chemicals to learn to make prints even half as good as I can print at home on my inkjet printer.

I just don't see anything better about silver B&W prints from a negative and yes I've seen thousands of them on the walls of the London galleries over the last 20 years.

The emperor is as naked as the day he was born.

Why add grain? Change colours? Emulate film looks?

Bah, why not? You try to make pleasing looking images, whatever works in service of that goal is fine by me.
 
Neither available. When I got back the first results from the digital monochrome camera- wow, this is as smooth as Panatomic-X in Microdol. I never cared for grain. With film, or digital.
 
starless said:
The aesthetics of the B&W image are appealing to most of us because of our exposure to B/W photography.
Click to expand...

Are you high? 🙂

The asesthetics of B&W began when some hominid pulled a piece of charcoal out of the fire and drew with it.

Our fascination with B&W has NOTHING to do with film. It has everything to do with drawing.

No third party image can compete with a kid's stick figure-- that he/she drew, sorry.

Film is like when I drive my 240Z. It's alot of fun, but I'm not going to win a formula 1.

5429801999_bc41845c34_z.jpg


I do look incredibly cool though.😀
 
Last edited:
uhoh7, I have to disagree with you. I assure you that most people out there don't look at B&W photos and suddenly get all fuzzy about all those pictures they drew with a pencil when they were a kid. The aesthetics itself of the two art mediums don't have much effect on each other at all.

B&W photography is associated with all the famous photographs going back a number of decades ago. When you consider the pioneers in their area of photography, the masters and so on these are the people photographers today look towards and also who the average person has grown up with being shown these photos as examples of great photography, all of which was done in b&w.

B&W photography is associated with the classic 'old-world' style of photography, something is very romantic about it. Which is also why people have this "timeless" feeling about b&w images, for it is subconsciously associated with old pictures. So that's why it remains popular even with colour photography nowadays, because an image in b&w steals the idea of reality a little and becomes somewhat fantasy.
 
Neare said:
uhoh7, I have to disagree with you. I assure you that most people out there don't look at B&W photos and suddenly get all fuzzy about all those pictures they drew with a pencil when they were a kid.
Click to expand...

We don't remember the traumas of early childhood, but they effect us for a lifetime.

You imply the attraction to B&W is due to photography. I think it is far deeper than that.

But I don't deny there are lots of great B&W photos, old and new, film and digital, which are compelling for a variety of reasons.

5428758939_aaa0f5fbe1_z.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom