Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the record I never said I could spot the difference that easily.
But I feel my MS paint theory is totally plausible given the circumstances here. There is no cop out here.
 
PKR said:
I think this is of value or I wouldn't have taken the time to respond. Many of us are delivering files or prints to people who pay serious money for our work. A while back during a digital shoot, I went to use the head. The AD was in the stall on his cell phone talking to some one about a French Fashion Photographer who was shooting 8 x 10 film. This kid had never seen 8 x10 film. He thought it was amazing and worth the $6K/day for this guy. I would ask anyone here to compare a Creo scan of a properly exposed 8 x 10 chrome to any "camera generated" digital capture.. If you haven't seen this kind of thing you are in for a big smile.
Click to expand...

My main point here was that this 8x10 was new (to this kid) and "and a new vehicle" for this young AD who had only worked in digital. It wasn't a retro thing, it was a "new look" for him. And a trip to France to boot. Much of this imagery is "fashionable". Why can't things just be different? If they were the same, your vision would be limited to just one look.. like one kind of film. Isn't it better to have access to another media type, if you want one? I like Chinese food, but I like French cooking too.. maybe it's a gear-head thing I don't understand..
 
PKR said:
My main point here was that this 8x10 was new (to this kid) and "and a new vehicle" for this young AD who had only worked in digital. It wasn't a retro thing, it was a "new look" for him. And a trip to France to boot. Much of this imagery is "fashionable". Why can't things just be different? If they were the same, your vision would be limited to just one look.. like one kind of film. Isn't it better to have access to another media type, if you want one? I like Chinese food, but I like French cooking too.. maybe it's a gear-head thing I don't understand..
Click to expand...
I like film, 8x10 negs are amazing to see in person.
 
Ranchu said:
Both film.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to guess, albeit incorrectly. First one is film... Taken with a FSU body and a Leica Summar lens (both since sold) using Ekfa 25 developed in Rodinal. The second was taken with a 2 megapixel Panasonic Lumix FZ1 point and shoot and (I think) its in-camera black and white mode.

Geez... how come nobody ventured to guess???? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
Now - the first was shot with a coveted Leica Summar lens, in good light, with super high accutence developer with super slow "razor sharp" film at an optimal aperture - blah, blah, blah... (And, yes, I'm 1/2-way decent at developing and printing...) The second was shot with a lowly outdated 2 megapixel point-n-shoot in its inferior black and white mode. - though it also has a "Leica" lens cranked out by a Panasonic factory in Japan somewhere. Now, tell me about plastic-y skin tones and noise, and "mid-tones" and toe....

You guys can't even tell the difference... LOL! Frauds. (said with a smile...)

Exposed ;)
 
NickTrop said:
Now - the first was shot with a coveted Leica Summar lens, in good light, with super high accutence developer with super slow "razor sharp" film at an optimal aperture - blah, blah, blah... (And, yes, I'm 1/2-way decent at developing and printing...) The second was shot with a lowly outdated 2 megapixel point-n-shoot in its inferior black and white mode. - though it also has a "Leica" lens cranked out by a Panasonic factory in Japan somewhere. Now, tell me about plastic-y skin tones and noise, and "mid-tones" and toe....

You guys can't even tell the difference... LOL! Frauds. (said with a smile...)

Exposed ;)
Click to expand...


Possibly,
But 72 dpi on a small screen all end up looking about the same.
On a technicality these are all digital since the negs are scanned and then displayed on a screen.

Nick,
Since I'm not particularly into taking the internet serious , thanks for giving me a few minutes of useless escapism.

These still look like artfully crafted MS paint Bitmaps
 
Ranchu said:
Nonsense, they look digital. Hard shadows, hard highlights, and flat midtones. Do you forget that you're talking to people who have worked hard on their photography, and made this determination to their satisfaction?
Click to expand...

LOL!!!!!!!!! Mr. "Both Film" You wouldn't know which one is film or which one is digital unless I told you in advance. You can't even tell the distinctive look of a most distinctive Leica lens shot on slow 25 ISO film developed in Rodinal - about a "filmy" as it gets from a two megapixel digicam from 2004 and its in-camera black and white mode. - which is exactly why I chose both these photos...

Here's a rag to wipe the egg off your face. But I appreciate that you had the balls to venture a guess...
 
NickTrop said:
LOL!!!!!!!!! Mr. "Both Film" You wouldn't know which one is film or which one is digital unless I told you in advance. You can't even tell the distinctive look of a most distinctive Leica lens shot on slow film developed in Rodinal - about a "filmy" as it gets from a two megapixel digicam.

Here's a rag to wipe the egg off your face. But I appreciate that you had the balls to venture a guess...
Click to expand...

Does it really require balls to guess, its not as though we are playing Russian roulette here.
 
Ranchu said:
I don't believe you.
Click to expand...

Yep - a Panasonic Lumix FZ1 point and shoot from 2004 - 2 megapixels. I'm pretty sure this was in-camera black and white, as I don't think I had a proper photo editor at the time but it might have been PS'd. Doesn't matter.
 
NickTrop said:
LOL!!!!!!!!! Mr. "Both Film" You wouldn't know which one is film or which one is digital unless I told you in advance. You can't even tell the distinctive look of a most distinctive Leica lens shot on slow film developed in Rodinal - about a "filmy" as it gets from a two megapixel digicam.

Here's a rag to wipe the egg off your face. But I appreciate that you had the balls to venture a guess...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the rag if I'm wrong, but I still don't believe you, and I'll stand by my assessment of the original pics. Thing is, Nick, you can do this "My digi is as good as film!" routine all you like, but it's just not.

Keep hopin, though.

:cool:
 
NickTrop said:
Here ya go... Which one is film? Which one is digital? Or are they both film? or are they both digital? Betchya can't tell. And even if you can, does it matter?

n1150326236_30088843_377.jpg


n1150326236_30058651_9071.jpg
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell on this laptop monitor..but..the kid on the porch digital, water fountain film..Just a guess. I was impressed with the quality of the b+w of the fountain on this old toshiba LT monitor.. nice work whatever the media!
 
Thanks, PKR. But (see previous posts) the first was shot with a Leica Summar using Ekfa 25 developed in Rodinal. So the kid on the porch is film. The second - the kid at the water fountain is digital - shot with a 2004, 2 megapixel Panasonic Lumix FZ1 point and shoot using its (I'm almost certain) in-camera black and white mode.
 
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...


Well ... that's a step up from the 'plastic looking' label that seems to haunt digital! :p

Incidentally I can take a raw file from my D700 and produce a black and white conversion that pleases me perfectly and the only thing missing will be film grain. That's no biggy for me because I actually prefer medium format for this specific reason ... the image is not (generally) being dominated by the grain.

Some people seem to treat grain as some sort of photographic badge of honour and produce high key images with grain in totally innapropriate amounts IMO.
 
NickTrop said:
Thanks, PKR. But (see previous posts) the first was shot with a Leica Summar using Ekfa 25 developed in Rodinal. So the kid on the porch is film. The second - the kid at the water fountain is digital - shot with a 2004, 2 megapixel Panasonic Lumix FZ1 point and shoot using its (I'm almost certain) in-camera black and white mode.
Click to expand...

Really nice work on the digital image. I don't know if you do this for a living but you have a talent with PS .. better than my work. i send stuff to a PS pro for anything "serious". Really very good!!

p.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom