Has digital changed how you view B&W Photography?

In answer to the original question by the OP...

Yes! I view B&W Photography through a Leica M3! Far better character using the M3 and Summarit than using any of my digital Nikons.:)

Now, I have some very good results from the Nikons when I have converted to B&W with various methods, etc. But, it is not because it was a digital camera, it was because of the photographer. The look of those images, especially studio images, is totally different than with the M3 and film.

So, I now use both digital and film for different tasks giving very different results. I prefer using the M3 though.:rolleyes:
 
I have a few rolls of Neopan 1600 in the freezer - I like it.. but.. I tend to like it more for concerts or where there's some really contrasty situations - I've never tried it in a wedding situation - I could play though, because this is not a 'paid' gig and I'm tagging along to test my skills and practice.

Cheers,
Dave
 
Always willing to play at different speeds - this gives me a good option - I had heard rating it @ 800 or 1250 would be good - any particular developer?

Cheers,
Dave

P.S. Ben, don't mean to hijack your thread so my apologies.. :)
 
Hey, no apologies necessary. It's all good. I use XTol and the grain is noticeable, but not Rodinal-golfball size. It actually reminds me of a 1960's look -- kind of why I like it for weddings. It hints at being "classic" without tipping its hand too much.

Ben
 
Digital video and still is what I do for the day-job, and have for fifteen years, although I've been doing photography since 1965. Digital is sufficient to the expectations of my clients who all are digital screen oriented.

In my own time I use nothing but film and traditional B&W printing in my darkroom which I've maintained for forty years.

There is something different with a silver-gelatin print that is made with hand dodging, burning and (rarely) contrast masks. It shows the hand of the printer and a gentle forgiveness for a lack of absolute precision. I am not speaking of sloppy work. Not at all. What shows is not an imperfection, but something else I cannot name except to call it the variation of hand-work.
 
Dave, it looks like TMZ is back in stock. Try some of that at 1600 in XTOL 1:1. Pair it with Tri-X or TMY at 400. If you want some pictures that have more contrast and finer grain, shoot the Tri-X/TMY at 1600. Gives you 3 choices that you can get a lot done with. And of course, you can always shoot the TMZ at 3200 or higher if you get stuck.

With the exception of dynamic range, I think digital pretty much has it all over film. And to eke the dynamic range out of film in some situations, you definitely have to jump through more hoops than fiddling with a slider in Photoshop. That being said, I pretty much only shoot film. Not only is it 'good enough', I like the flaws. By flaws, I mean grain, the way the shadows do come out, the spectral sensitivity, etc. And for resolution, film has plenty enough for the print sizes I need. A 5DII blows 35mm TMZ out of the water here from a technical standpoint, but I just printed an 11x14 of a TMZ negative on Ilford WT FB (shot on a P&S) and I really can't think of what 21mp would have really added.

The same is true for color film (speaking of Portra mostly). Color accuracy is 'good enough' and the deviations I find pleasing for the most part.

Personally, after playing around with a lot of B&W conversions in photoshop, etc., I settled for just a simple channel mixer that is pretty close to the default value. It is nice to have the ability to use a color filter after the fact, but mixing and matching 'filters' selectively on different areas of the image looks a bit unnatural to me.

I guess when I think of a photo, I think of a film photo. It's what my childhood is recorded on. There's something classic about the look, since the look helped defined what a photo is.

The same is true about rock music. Rock music was created on Fender and Gibson guitars on Fender and Marshall tube amps. Technically, we've come a long way from those 50's/60's pieces of equipment, but that sound is PART of rock music, so it will always have a place in it.

Of course this is all my opinion.
 
dcsang said:
Since I use digital for weddings and events; it's become quite clear to me the only reason I do so is because this is what the clientele want. They want files, on CD/DVD to print. They want colour & B&W of the same image. They expect, at least that's the impression I get, noise free images.

The reason for this? They are savvy to the point that "uncle bob's" now have the same equipment that many "pro's" use. They know what can be done and what cannot.

This is one reason I'm actually considering moving back towards film. My first test wedding will be this weekend. My intent is to shoot mainly B&W (Tri-X and maybe some Delta 3200 or Tmax 3200 if I can get it) with a dash of colour (Fuji NPZ/NPH) thrown in.

Digital B&W, as I had mentioned in another thread here, while it is coming awfully close to film still lacks the randomness in the grain structure in my opinion. Digital noise is not random. There is, to me, a pattern in the digital noise. That said, an image without some grain can be, I don't know, lifeless..

I've become a lot more, due to digital, appreciative of grain structure and b&w film - although I grew up on the stuff - digital has made me value it more and more as time goes on..

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

Wonderful, Dave. Let us know how the client reacts. As we say in France, bonne chance et bon courage (good luck and good courage).

Addendum: remember that the respective true ISO speeds of Neopan, TMZ and Delta 3200 in Microphen are about 650, 1000 and 1250, and that they are all excellent with a 1/3 stop push: 800, 1250, 1600. Grain is in direct proportion to speed but tonality is a matter of preference. I'll take Delta 3200 at 1600 every time.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
bmasonoh said:
I would have to say yes in a way. I'm the opposite of many here. I've been shooting digital for a long time and just recently got back into film because digital b&w just didn't look authentic to me. There's just something unique about film grain and tonality that I could never achieve in a convincing fashion with digital despite all the software and plug-ins.
Click to expand...

What you said, except for me it was more that converting digital to B&W, which I have been doing more and more since I got an M8, is that doing the conversions "feels" inauthentic, even though the results can look pretty authentic (if you haven't, try Nik Silver Efex sometime).

Anyway, this nagging authenticity "problem" caused me to go out and buy an M2. I hadn't shot film in 12-15 years, and have been enjoying shooting only B&W in the M2 (and color in the M8), and am now moving toward doing my own dev/scans (mostly because I can't trust to shops to do a reliably good job).
 
Last edited:
mathomas said:
doing the conversions "feels" inauthentic, even though the results can look pretty authentic (if you haven't, try Nik Silver Efex sometime).
Click to expand...

I think this is really at the core of the issue. I completely agree that there is just something unnatural about taking a perfectly good color digital image and then beating it to heck to get it to look like Tri-X. It feels wrong. It took me a while to figure out how import files and to never look at my images in color. Even so, if the images out of Silver Efex did not look as good as they did I would be back to shooting film in a heartbeat.
 
i think of kodak BW400CN as a really nice film for weddings. ascough liked it back in his film days, i believe.

i agree with the observation that digital B&W conversions require more skill and experience than seems to be commonly acknowledged. you'll get what you put in. no different than wet printing, in that regard. if it's three clicks in PS and there's the B&W conversion, well, just don't expect much from the file.
 
mathomas said:
What you said, except for me it was more that converting digital to B&W, which I have been doing more and more since I got an M8, is that doing the conversions "feels" inauthentic), even though the results can look pretty authentic (if you haven't, try Nik Silver Efex sometime).

Anyway, this nagging authenticity "problem" caused me to go out and buy an M2. I hadn't shot film in 12-15 years, and have been enjoying shooting only B&W in the M2 (and color in the M8), and am now moving toward doing my own dev/scans (mostly because I can't trust to shops to do a reliably good job).
Click to expand...

Upon reflection, I completely agree. It's not that the digital b&w is any less valid... it just "feels" inauthentic (which suggests it has more to do with me than digital itself). And you're right about Silver Efex. For those wedding clients who want b&w (not that many), this is the software I use hands down. For me, the loading and developing of the film make it more meaningful to me (not to mention the beautiful tonality and grain).
 
I have a backlog of about 40 rolls of film right now in 35mm and 120. Part of the problem is that my Jobo processor is on the fritz and it's looking like I will have to scavenge parts (new pump) if I want to keep developing film that way. I knew I should have bought a back-up when studios were dumping them. Nevertheless, it looks like its back to tanks and reels for me. I really do like the way BW film renders the world, even when it is scanned. But I started the thread because I feel like using digital has altered my expectations somewhat.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I really do like the way BW film renders the world, even when it is scanned.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I don't have darkroom any more but I can still develop film and then I scan it. In many ways I get better results this way, particularly as it's so easy to tweak the shadow detail up a little bit (which I nearly always do). And you only have to spot once! However, I haven't yet found a paper that satisfies me in the way Agfa Multicontrast Classic used to.

The thing that I can't really get my head around with digital is that there is no physical original. To me, printing has always revolved around the interpretation of a negative and this remains true with scanning but with digital origination there's nothing there! I also feel more comfortable to have negatives as the ultimate backup. And I like film cameras better than digital cameras, which are really just computers with lenses and, like so much of the modern world, completely lacking in soul. Ah, the joys of getting old!
 
Not really, unless you count the fact that digital has shown me what I don't like in B&W. B&W deserves to be shot by film because w/ rare exceptions ( perhaps a portrait where a lack of subtle details and smoothed over look could be a occasionally seen as a benefit) digital does such an unerringly lousy job of it. Then there's the fact that you have to inkjet print your digital images, which again, are blown away by a good darkroom fiber print.

I sometimes wonder why this question is still coming up since the results are so obvious. Maybe it's because some people have a lot of financial and emotional investment in digital and need to feel they're dong the right thing. Walking into any good gallery and seeing some exceptional darkroom prints are all anyone needs to see what's up.
 
I sometimes wonder why this question is still coming up since the results are so obvious.
Click to expand...

Because it's not always so obvious. I've seen display prints from the aforementioned Jeff Ascough, for example, from both film and digital capture, and it can be tough to tell the difference.
 
bmasonoh said:
Upon reflection, I completely agree. It's not that the digital b&w is any less valid... it just "feels" inauthentic (which suggests it has more to do with me than digital itself). And you're right about Silver Efex. For those wedding clients who want b&w (not that many), this is the software I use hands down. For me, the loading and developing of the film make it more meaningful to me (not to mention the beautiful tonality and grain).
Click to expand...

perhaps there are two camps here. whilst i understand and admire the work that goes into a great darkroom print it doesn't add any authenticity for me. the authenticity comes from the content and the relationship the photographer has with the subject. given the choice i would always choose black and white film but sadly my choices are not that easy. with that being said the authenticty, for me, is a result of a lot of other things beyond the capture medium. the meaning comes from the time (sometimes years) and effort required to be there, with whatever camera and the trust needed to get what you need.

i am certainly not saying your thinking is wrong, that would be foolish. i also understand it and share some of the sentiment. i do believe that really great photographs contain an authenticity that goes beyond camera make, negative size or capture method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom