Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

Status
Not open for further replies.
subjectivity.

Converting digitally to b&w feels fake to me. A masterfully printed photograph takes the cake any day, but each to his own. Whatever moves one to take pretty pictures.
 
Whip 'em out, everybody... You know what I'm talking about.

I'm going to say what has become my standard response to these type of threads: "Shoot what you like until it's broken or unavailable. Then shoot something else that you like. Repeat as necessary."
 
joeyjoe said:
to the OP - what film were you using in your F20? I think if you want smooth and grainless images, then yeah - it's probably about the same. If you want grain and texture - no, digital "fakes" haven't caught up yet.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% adding: For photos where the shadows are opened up, such as sunlit photos on the beach, then yes, the two 'black and whites" are comparable (aside from the icky plasticky look of digital skin tones). But in any situation where digital "grain" (noise) is competing against film grain, film looks better.


/
 
Admittedly not the latest in digital sensor technology, my R-D1 falls short of TMX film with respects to dynamic range. I also think tonality is better when i comes to TMX. I say this because the R-D1 comes along as my proofing tool when shooting film on my DIY 4x5/6x12 P+S, and I can make direct comparisons.

Compare these two:
R-D1:

EPSN3846_rff.jpg


TMX (6x12 effective neg size)

4706926370_7609a97428_b.jpg


Both taken at the same time. The settings from the R-D1 transfered to the P+S. Note the highlights and shadows especially
 
Nick; I must say, I enjoy your "attitude".

I work with both Film and Digital capture. My film is scanned these days. The two media have a very different look and "both are good tools" for a pro or amateur photographer. My question is.. (and I know I may be disturbing the "digital religious" here..) If digital is SO much better than film.. why does anyone want it to look like film? I don't get it..what's the deal?

BTW I shoot color Raw and keep everything in color until I drag the color out after making any adjustments .. for both Raw capture and film scans.

And.. Fuji S5 with dual sensor adobe Raw out makes great b+w files (Raw color + PS processing = b+w out.. shot to be converted to b+w by plan).. it's not film. It's digital. The bandwidth is better than most digital, but not as good as any popular b+w film. It has it's own look.. why is this bad? If you want film.. shoot film.
 
Last edited:
Ezzie said:
Admittedly not the latest in digital sensor technology, my R-D1 falls short of TMX film with respects to dynamic range. I also think tonality is better when i comes to TMX. I say this because the R-D1 comes along as my proofing tool when shooting film on my DIY 4x5/6x12 P+S, and I can make direct comparisons.

Compare these two:
R-D1:

EPSN3846_rff.jpg


TMX (6x12 effective neg size)

4706926370_7609a97428_b.jpg


Both taken at the same time. The settings from the R-D1 transfered to the P+S. Note the highlights and shadows especially
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for making your little Epson weep, but I like the TMX far more.

No digital in my bag anymore.
 
PKR said:
Nick; I must say, I enjoy your "attitude".

I work with both Film and Digital capture. My film is scanned these days. The two media have a very different look and "both are good tools" for a pro or amateur photographer. My question is.. (and I know I may be disturbing the "digital religious" here..) If digital is SO much better than film.. why does anyone want it to look like film? I don't get it..what's the deal?
Click to expand...

Thank you. Actually - I like both. I come from the "traditional" (spelled right this time) side, made many of the same "pro film" arguments in the past - passionately so... But in looking at some digitals and comparing them with film - I dunno. I don't see that much difference. It's certainly easier.

As for having them look like film... My take might be a bit different than most. I think that Kodak, Fuji, Ilford - etc. went through a lot of trial and error not to mention R&D to get a "look" for their films that are suitable for certain subjects. We are also - even on a subconscious level, used to these looks over the years. So, if I'm shooting a color environmental portrait, I might dial in one of the low contrast Portras. A colorful landscape - Velvia.

So -the "film look" is a shortcut. The film producers have done all the work for me... I use various film looks to quickly get a look that I think works best - rather than wonking around in Photoshop... At the end of the day, these film brands - Velvia, Tri-X, Portra (whatever) and just input parameters that can be emulated digitally. (Shriek!!! Sacrilege!!! I know, I know...)

The beauty/real practical benefit of this is:

1. I can try different types of film stocks after the fact and use what I think works best... even cross process.
2. I can shoot color in low light and set white balance and not get a color cast or lose stops due to having to use a color correction filter.

Was the real reason that so many photographers/enthusiasts chose to shoot black and white was for reason #2, - a constraint rather than a purely aesthetic choice? Again - realize I'm talking strictly small format here... The differences are obvious beyond small format.
 
Last edited:
Some digi B+W is very good - but it's rarely the same as film, and even then, you have to ask what sort of film, and how it was exposed, processed and printed. The overlap - where you can't tell how it was done - is undoubtedly growing, but there are still many pictures that all; but scream 'DIGITAL' or 'WET PRINTED FILM'.

Of course, straining any pictures through a monitor, or a scanner for that matter, makes it harder to distinguish the unique and sometimes subtle 'look' of any medium.

Cheers,

R.
 
NickTrop said:
What if I told you they were film - and you were the first person to take the bait?
Click to expand...

Whether they are or are not digital, they look like digital. They have blown highlights and are super contrasty. Sorry.
Edit: they also show the clay-like skin look that digital usually produces.
 
Last edited:
filmfan said:
Whether they are or are not digital, they look like digital. They have blown highlights and are super contrasty. Sorry.
Edit: they also show the clay-like skin look that digital usually produces.
Click to expand...

But AREN'T they digital ? You're looking at them at your monitor, so they are scanned, hence digital ...

Is it possible at all to judge the merits of film when it is scanned ?

Doesn't the scanning process have the same limitations (or even more) than a digital camera ?

BTW, I do like those first pictures .... I can understand the OP's question.

Stefan.
 
Hi,

I'm not interested so much in the film/digital debate...There is not much point to it anymore. Digital is fantastic and becoming the look of modern times. Film cameras, lenses, and film itself all produce results that look like old pictures to my eyes. Say you took a picture of man in a suit with a digital and with film...To generalize, the film one would look 10 years older or more to me.

I use film still, as well as digital. I have to say, I find the way that my black and white film draws with light and renders subjects to be different than digital. I find it really beautiful. I like the thingness of holding film and handling the workflow, though it is certainly less convenient to a professional digital one...Specifically, I like working with my Leica for many reasons and I can't afford the digital one right now. Long live film!

I hope you find this perspective useful.

Ian
 
gliderbee said:
Doesn't the scanning process have the same limitations (or even more) than a digital camera ?
Click to expand...

Maybe not when using a 14 or 16 bit scanner, but when you end up with an 8bit jpg as posted here, there are the same limitations, and all depends what histogram mods, white balance, etc. you applied when shooting/scanning. The overall dynamic range is exactly this, 8bit.

Nick, photo #3 looks really strange. Looks like digital "Leica glow" 🙂 What happened ?
 
The most obvious "visual" difference for me is the grain look vs. the "smoothing algorithm" found in most (all I know of) digital processors. It's an obvious difference that any of us who are visual folks can see easily. That being said, they are just different. At times I don't like the smoothing effect.. but then I have the choice to shoot film or live with it. I also like the wet darkroom, but they are no longer within the law here (for pros ..with a business license, okay for students and amateurs) locally. The inspectors are here all the time..
 
filmfan, the modern dslr's have better resolution and dynamic range than film. I's a fact now, but that doesn't account for how they get used.

Digital is wonderful! Especially in area of lowlight photography. Our eyes don't see with grain after all. I know that most of the people who come to RFF are using film by the very nature of rangefinder cameras...but I'm not arguing which is better...there is really no standard to say that one is better than the other anymore.

They produce different results in different ways, hence they are equal in terms of tools. Use them for their unique properties and ways of working for artistic expression.
 
NickTrop said:
So -the "film look" is a shortcut. The film producers have done all the work for me... I use various film looks to quickly get a look that I think works best - rather than wonking around in Photoshop... At the end of the day, these film brands - Velvia, Tri-X, Portra (whatever) and just input parameters that can be emulated digitally. (Shriek!!! Sacrilege!!! I know, I know...)

The beauty/real practical benefit of this is:

1. I can try different types of film stocks after the fact and use what I think works best... even cross process.
2. I can shoot color in low light and set white balance and not get a color cast or lose stops due to having to use a color correction filter.
Click to expand...

I think you're overstating this quite a bit. I've tried Exposure and all it does is add contrast (I don't want that) with different curves and casts/saturation with photo filter/huesat, and different grains. If it gives you what you're looking for rock on, it's good software, but it's not 'the same' as film, imo.
 
Nick,
I don't personally find one better than the other. I think digital makes for clean smooth images. I like that black and white film has it's own charms that people like.
It appears you like to analyze peoples responses for your amusement and to kill some time and posit your theories.
If nothing else these posts give some sort of mild entertainment value when a bunch of people take the film vs. digital taste test.
 
filmfan said:
Whether they are or are not digital, they look like digital. They have blown highlights and are super contrasty. Sorry.
Edit: they also show the clay-like skin look that digital usually produces.
Click to expand...

Your slightly hostile reaction is evidence that your perception of these samples is psychological and a placebo-ish effect on your part. Your devotion has affected your perception. It's okay... not judging. We all do this (though I've done this mostly with women I've dated, who looked better "at the time" and then thought "what was I thinking..." later on... as opposed to imaging technology choices...) If these prints came off your enlarger, you'd be happy with them. (I would be...) You would have gone through many dollars worth of expensive wasted paper to get there. You are looking for blown highlights and you are looking for "plastic-y skin tones" - and finding them, which is usually a function of over-aggressive noise reduction which wasn't used on these photos. If these photos were shot on film you wouldn't be looking for blown highlights and the skin tones would be smooth. You also would probably embarrass yourself if I spread out a bunch of prints - some digital, some traditional, and asked you to sort them out.

Again - not judging. We all do this when we're committed to an idea, technology, methodology that has been or is in the process of being supplanted by something new. What if I thought a lot of film prints look "muddy" and dull and grainy? I would find muddiness and dullnes and grain in all film prints. That's what I would be setting out to find in every photo that I thought was shot on film if I was trying to "make a case". I would be incapable of objectivity and instead be defending my choice of methodology or ideology - or both.
 
Last edited:
gliderbee raises a good point. I think you have to consider what the end product is. Are you shooting film and scanning to post images on RFF and Flickr - or are you making actual prints? B&W prints from digital look quite a bit different that traditional B&W prints from a negative. But as others have pointed out, different is not necessarily better or worse - just different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom