Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

[ederek]

Santtu Määttänen - thank you for the kind comment. That is a beautiful image you shared.

Essentially, yes. Same is true for prints. 35mm is small format. Street photography is not about sharpness, tonality, and these technical aspects - it seems to me, are often overemphasized. Rangefinder-syle is documentarian in nature - just get the friggin' shot. F5.6 and be there, I think used to be the motto. And it's about composition. The other stuff - tonality, hyper-sharpness, dynamic range is more important in studio stuff, landscape photography - large/medium format stuff.

...

If your goal is to be a street shooter, you would realize this, ditch your Leica, and get an $80 used Fuji Finepix F20. Leica and other RFs were the best for this style of photography from 1950 until fairly recently.

The fastest technology (shriek - autofocus!) and most discreet and smallest cameras (shriek! p-n-s for film! shriek! widdle digitals cameras!) that let you fire off shot after shot after shot that autofocus are best suited for this purpose - modern technology achieves this better than something that, essentially, hasn't changed since the 50's.

...

What are RF's good for now? General purpose film cameras. Shooting old school - for fun. Fondling, collecting... All good, valid reasons. Nothing wrong with this. They are charming - digitals are not. But tools shouldn't be chosen based on how "charming" they are.

NickTrop - maybe if you want GOOD images, but not for GREAT images.

And I disagree about autofocus - ridiculous delays - unless you press the shutter halfway first to pre-focus... oh wait, pre-focusing, isn't that a particular *strength* of the charming rangefinder? 🙄

"Rangefinder-syle is documentarian in nature" - hmmm, then why limit your level of documentation?? 😕

Here's an example set of 2 street shots I posted earlier today in the street thread, taken 10 feet apart (firing off shot after shot). Digital rangefinder, ISO 800, F8 or so, 1/250 of a sec, 35mm Biogon.

and then this gentleman, shot at exactly 2:22:14 pm in the afternoon (I set my rangefinder's time to gov atomic clock):

.

To the point of documentation... When reviewing the above photo on the computer at 1:1, I could read his watchface, and it read exactly 2:22. So, I learned that this person keeps his watch synchronized quite accurately to NIST time standards, a tidbit I found insightful.

Also, these two shots were taken without breaking stride, while walking with a group of 1/2 dozen friends.

This isn't about defending a system I've invested heavily in, both monetarily and with respect to practicing until it's starting to become second nature.

I've used a P&S and gotten some great street shots, including an entire trip to China.

But I don't aspire to just be good, when there are better options.. My elementary photographic skills limit me enough, no need for the tool to be another burden.

 

[NickTrop]

Whilst I haven't seen the images, I suspect you have very low standards.

I cited a source that provided a physical example in addition to an (arguably) professional opinion that said they look like "true black and white". I haven't used this service yet, and the proof is in the puddin'. However, they use Fuji Frontier printers (a bit better than a $200 inkjet) Fuji Crystal Archive paper, and anecdotally, as cited in the review "avoided making our black and white photo too yellow like some other services. The photo felt like a true black and white image and didn’t favor one color of the spectrum over the other, but the picture did seem a little dark". Based on this I expect they'll be acceptable. - we'll see. At $0.08 a pop, it's certainly worth trying. But, then again, I don't go in to this with any biases.

Your accusation that I have "low standards" is as typically silly as it is baseless.

 

[sara]

Nah, I'll stick to my black and white film thanks.

 

[NickTrop]

Santtu Määttänen - thank you for the kind comment. That is a beautiful image you shared. NickTrop - maybe if you want GOOD images, but not for GREAT images.

Is this not a great image? Does the fact it is a great image have anything to do with the equipment used? - Did it have anything to do with dynamic range, tonality, or sharpness? Most of use can't/don't walk around shooting dozens of rolls of film like HCB with a film camera, daily. - 100's of rolls, presumably, a week. This shot exists because HCB was skilled (of course) but also a prolific shooter. Prolific-ness - the ability to shoot a lot, which is a requirement for street photography, in addition to a camera that is discreet, and small enough to always be with you (pocketable) are simply way more important than "tonality", "sharpness", "noise", "grain", blah, blah, blah... all the stuff that's overemphasised here, for this kind of photography. The image in terms of these other factors only has to be "good enough". Digital cameras are, therefore much better tools for this kind of photograph. I have a camera - in the palm of my hand, that can fire off multiple shots per second, that has a flash, can even shoot macro, and that I can accurately focus without raising the camera to my eye and not have to worry about DoF, and I can shoot 100's of shots continuously w/o having to change rolls.

- Can't do that with any film Leica.

And - no, I'm not dissing rangefinders. - at all.

 

[Finder]

Digital cameras are, therefore much better tools for this kind of photograph. [...]

- Can't do that with any film Leica.

The irony is you are using an image from a film Leica to make your point.

 

[NickTrop]

The irony is you are using an image from a film Leica to make your point.

I guess it would have to be, since digitals didn't exist. - it's even a (shriek) Leica! You're - of course, missing the point. Nobody looks at this famous photo and oh's and ah's about its "tonality", "sharpness", or "dynamic range". They might for an Ansel Adams landscape, however. It's a great picture because of right place/right time - with a camera, cocked and ready to go. Technically, it's "acceptable".

Digital point and shooters inherently afford far more "right time/right place - cocked and ready to go"-ability than any film camera for this kind of photography. Their image quality is as good as it needs to be - certainly they're capable of producing an image as technically acceptable as the one above.

 

[Finder]

I guess it would have to be, since digitals didn't exist. - it's even a (shriek) Leica! You're - of course, missing the point. Nobody looks at this famous photo and oh's and ah's about its "tonality", "sharpness", or "dynamic range". They might for an Ansel Adams landscape, however. It's a great picture because of right place/right time - with a camera, cocked and ready to go. Technically, it's "acceptable".

Digital point and shooters inherently afford far more "right time/right place - cocked and ready to go"-ability than any film camera for this kind of photography with acceptable image quality.

Nick, I agree it is not the equipment, but you cannot have it both ways. You can't say X camera is better at something and then argue the equipment is not the point.

 

[NickTrop]

You're misstating my argument. Here's how/why:

Camera A "is better" at the things that are more important (that is, is a better tool) because it excels at the important components of that particular type of photography. Those components being:

1 Absolute discreetness
2. Complete portability
3. Ability to fire off many shots per second
4. Ability to shoot prolifically (100's of images) with minimal pauses
5. Ability to shoot under any condition

This wasn't the case until relatively recently when their performance above 200 ISO defeated them for this purpose, indoors (see criteria #5). That's not the case now.

In these critical areas, digital point-n-shoot cameras have it all over any other type of camera for "street photography" - including pricey Leicas. (A Leica with a Cron, however, with win the MTF contest - which nobody cares about.)

I never said "equipment doesn't matter". In fact, it absolutely matters. I'm saying tonality, dynamic range, sharpness, noise, grain - blah, blah, blah doesn't matter for this kind of photography. It just needs to be "good enough". If "tonality", "sharpness", and "dynamic range" are your thing - shoot landscapes with ultra large format, poke around with a light meter and spend days camping out somewhere to get "the best light" to optimize this stuff - or at minimum medium format where you're limited to a paultry 12 frames or whatever (but you have great dynamic range, sharpness, and tonality). I have my little Fuji on me now. It's on me, realistically, 50% of the time - ready to shoot. That's not the case with any non-professional photographer - to have a camera with them most of their waking life, ready to shoot 100's of exposures if need be. If I wanted to I can fire off 200 pictures right here, right now - or any time I want. No film camera has this practical capability. Period. I never did this with any other camera I owned. I couldn't have done this with the "ultracompact" Konica Auto S3, a GSN, Iskra, my SLRs, certainly not my MF SLR - etc., etc., etc... I took more "street shots" in a 1/2 hour this weekend that I would have sometimes in a day with a RF, shot about 100 pictures and would have had to develop - or have developed 4-5 rolls of film and/or had prints made or scanned them - etc.

Nothing wrong with RF's - have 'em, owned a bunch of them, but if you're serious about "street photography" then you have to come to grips with the fact that these are no longer the best tool for this purpose. Rangefinders and traditional black and white development are great toys for adults - trying different developers, trying out different lenses - etc. experimenting like geeky kids do with chemistry sets. That's cool - nothing wrong with some geeky fun. But they're simply not the optimal tool for which they were initially purposed.

An expounded version of this post will get its own thread... Look for Rangefinders (and traditional film black and white development) - tools or toys? I say "toys".

 

[ElectroWNED]

- converted (XA + CVS color film... CS3 B&W filter + auto levels/contrast)

- XA + Ilford XP2... auto level/contrast

- 7MP digital point and shoot... CS3 B&W filter

🙄

 

[lewis44]

Shot this recently. G1, 45 Planar and BW400CN. Scanned and then adjusted in Photoshop and a final tweak using Nik Silver Efex Pro.
I guess I did a little bit of everything, but like the results.

 

[ederek]

Is this not a great image? Does the fact it is a great image have anything to do with the equipment used? - Did it have anything to do with dynamic range, tonality, or sharpness?

Absolutely it is a great image. Not to bring in superlatives, but could it have been even better?? 🙄

Most of use can't/don't walk around shooting dozens of rolls of film like HCB with a film camera, daily. - 100's of rolls, presumably, a week. This shot exists because HCB was skilled (of course) but also a prolific shooter. Prolific-ness - the ability to shoot a lot, which is a requirement for street photography, in addition to a camera that is discreet, and small enough to always be with you (pocketable) are simply way more important than "tonality", "sharpness", "noise", "grain", blah, blah, blah... all the stuff that's overemphasised here, for this kind of photography.

True, I can't afford to shoot film that prolifically. Nor do I have the time. Didn't have the energy to develop my backlog, so dropped off 17 rolls of film last week, but that's not the norm (not to Cosco, but to a skilled B&W processor / printer in the area).

BUT, I have carried my digital-M every day since acquiring it 4 months ago, averaging 167 shots or 4 1/2 rolls / day. Pocketable is nice, but not a requirement to always have with you. For the 1st month or two I also carried an LX3 (for macro's, benefit of flash, etc.), but it got so little use I've stopped and only carry the digital rangefinder.

The image in terms of these other factors only has to be "good enough". Digital cameras are, therefore much better tools for this kind of photograph. I have a camera - in the palm of my hand, that can fire off multiple shots per second, that has a flash, can even shoot macro, and that I can accurately focus without raising the camera to my eye and not have to worry about DoF, and I can shoot 100's of shots continuously w/o having to change rolls.

A digital rangefinder can do all of that (except don't bother with flash, but it's still an option). The resolution of a 100% crop is as good as a macro in many cases. It can be scale focused (perhaps faster than a P&S).

Why make it EITHER/OR when you can have BOTH? 😕

The Cyclist reaching the Appalachian Gap summit I posted earlier today isn't a great image - there is the reflection of the car's front defroster vents (shot through the windshield).

I can get pretty good shots through the window of the train:

Then, a few days later, going over the same bridge, it was absolutely pouring out, just dumping 😱:

That prompted me to get off the train, and because I had my camera with me, was able to catch a situation in which the rainwater had fallen so quickly, the drain here had turned into a fountain:

- Can't do that with any film Leica.

And - no, I'm not dissing rangefinders. - at all.

I don't think you are, but you are putting digital P&S as a better solution than a digital rangefinder, and in my experience, this is not the case. 😉

 

[Michael Markey]

Digital point and shooters inherently afford far more "right time/right place - cocked and ready to go"-ability than any film camera for this kind of photography. Their image quality is as good as it needs to be - certainly they're capable of producing an image as technically acceptable as the one above.

I`d have to agree with this.
When I came back to photography I bought a Pany point and shoot and used it in this very manner.
I didn`t like the shutter lag and if the conditions weren`t perfect it was soon out of its comfort zone.
I bought a couple of M bodies and rarely use it now.
Picture quality is a separate issue and a much more contentious one.
But if you want a descrete camera and are an advocate of multiple shots it seems to me that a PS is ideal.
Leica seem to think so.
They compare the XI in their adverts with the Barnick Leica .

 

[dfoo]

...
Your accusation that I have "low standards" is as typically silly as it is baseless.

Disagree - and I'm sure they're fine:

You are sure what is fine? The fuji frontier black and white prints that I received? I've never seen a print from a frontier that looks like a real black and white print.

 

[dfoo]

Is this not a great image? ...

Actually, that image is interesting precisely because it isn't a good representative of the original image. Look at the compression artifacts and such. A real print of the actual image is better in every single respect (just like an inkjet vs frontier vs real black and white silver print).

 

[NickTrop]

I`d have to agree with this.
When I came back to photography I bought a Pany point and shoot and used it in this very manner...But if you want a descrete camera and are an advocate of multiple shots it seems to me that a PS is ideal.
Leica seem to think so.
They compare the XI in their adverts with the Barnick Leica.

Now there's a concession (by Leica) if ever there was one.

 

[NickTrop]

Actually, that image is interesting precisely because it isn't a good representative of the original image. Look at the compression artifacts and such. A real print of the actual image is better in every single respect (just like an inkjet vs frontier vs real black and white silver print).

Some look "at" (or is it "for") "compression artifacts". Others look just at the picture.

 

[NickTrop]

You are sure what is fine? The fuji frontier black and white prints that I received? I've never seen a print from a frontier that looks like a real black and white print.

As I said, we'll see. The article seems to think so, rates them the best in terms of true black and white. Again - look at the sample of the digital file and the scanned print and read the text. The example looks okay to me. I'm willing to throw $10 or so to the wind to give them a shot based on this.

But - then again, I'm looking at the picture as a whole, not zero-ing in on things like "compression artifacts". I hope I never look at photos that way - no offense.

 

[dfoo]

The example looks very bad to me. Firstly, it looks nothing like the original image that was submitted, secondly it is very contrasty and the shadows and highlights seem to me all wiped out.

 

[mfogiel]

The 17 or 19 stops of DR of Tmax is actually quite irrelevant. Tmax films have a particularly linear response to exposure, so if you overexpose by 3 stops and underdevelop heavily in a very compensating development, you could claim to get even 20 stops of DR, but this in practice would be quite useless, because this DR would not be translatable on photographic paper or scan, and the result would be tonally completely lifeless. I even read that one guy shot a solar eclipse this way with APX 100, and he claims to have obtained a DR oof 27 stops. In real life Tri X will excel at delivering the widest DR with satisfactory tonality, however again, I have the Fuji S3 Pro, and I can assure you that the difference between a Tri X shot and a Fuji shot is VERY substantial in favour of Tri X, so the presumed 11.5 stops for Tri X against 10 stops for Fuji do not tell the truth.
I think this discussion is leading to the only possible conclusion: that everybody should find their own level of what they are happy with quality wise, and concentrate on shooting... In B&W photography I will stick with film till digital will overtake it, but I am not going to go back to vinyl records and turntables, although I think the sound could be superior, and listening to CD's leaves me in peace of mind...

 

[NickTrop]

The example looks very bad to me. Firstly, it looks nothing like the original image that was submitted, secondly it is very contrasty and the shadows and highlights seem to me all wiped out.

Please don't tell me you look at this particular photo and are concerned with "shadow detail" and "highlights". Wow. This photo would work on a postage stamp. It would work in monochrome.