Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

[Ranchu]

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.

I like your style, PKR.

 

[Steve M.]

I've never seen one of these threads that didn't sound a bit like it was coming from the pulpit, but web images on a monitor? How does that relate to the print? I have had no luck printing digital images that were converted to B&W, and even the film images I've scanned and ink jet printed are a far second to a proper enlarger print. I don't like digital B&W. Compared to film it looks pretty bad (printed). Especially when you get to medium format.

 

[johannielscom]

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?

Sorry, won't play.

I'm not that interested in shooting stuff like this myself.

When it comes to the stuff Ezzie posted (which I like a lot!), I'd take the TMX over the Epson RF.

And: I just like shooting old-school gear with nice film, developer&fixer and the whole shabang. No plastic digital cam is gonna beat that. Ever.


A boy and his dog by buzzardkid, on Flickr

Leica M3, Summar 50/2.0 @ 4.0, Tmax400. And it's so much nicer in print.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Can we try this again? But, with downloadable 300dpi files. Something at the size/resolution that one might print. A 3" wide web image is a good way to disguise a lot of things.

 

[PKR]

I like your style, PKR.

Well as Elvis says, Thank you.. thankyouverymuch..
p

 

[wgerrard]

...web images on a monitor? How does that relate to the print?

I've said as much elsewhere, but no one I know cares about prints. They deal with information, with art, on the web. (Get used to it.) They'd rather look at 1000 ordinary images on Flickr than one outstanding print.

I'm not asserting that prints are not, at this time, the best way to bring out the most in an image. But, I am saying that fewer and fewer people care about that. It isn't a matter of which approach produces the measurably better image. It's a matter of how people want to deal with images.

BTW, the whole thing about people posting images and arguing that film and prints are better -- and doing it on a freakin' web site -- is more than a bit ironic.

More BTW: I can't tell the difference between any of the pix that Nick posted. They all work for me.

 

[PKR]

I've never seen one of these threads that didn't sound a bit like it was coming from the pulpit, but web images on a monitor? How does that relate to the print? I have had no luck printing digital images that were converted to B&W, and even the film images I've scanned and ink jet printed are a far second to a proper enlarger print. I don't like digital B&W. Compared to film it looks pretty bad (printed). Especially when you get to medium format.

It's been my experience, that it's just as hard to adjust a file for a good print as it is to (and even harder, cuz you don't know the monitor if it not in front of you) adjust for public (web) viewing. They are completely different and to do it correctly you need to know your craft and it helps if you have a bit of talent and taste.

 

[John Robertson]

perhaps on a monitor but not as a print properly mounted and framed!!

 

[btgc]

Had some funny minutes going through this thread...it's valid if we consider technical picture as measure of process. I also would struggle to guess what is what. Doesn't matters. Problem are those old cameras with old lenses, providing instant release and few, easy to set controls. They make me using film. For me most of digital cameras just don't have right appeal and right ergonomics. Also, wirling 5sec. per minute is another way to have my own time, it's not worse than watching 3D movie about flying worms or refreshing windguru.com to know that proper weather is coming.

 

[ederek]

Thanks for this thread, it is helpful. Plenty of entertainment as well

For the record, I shoot both digital and film (though more digital than film), rangefinder and slr. I like to shoot film, but can't really "afford to" eek all the time. Last night I picked up my first roll of medium format - 12 frames with a Hassy 500cm & 80mm zeiss.

I'm not particularly interested in "the debate", but in understanding the aesthetics elements of images, for both types.

filmfan - Comments like "grossly digital" are useless in understanding 'why' an image is deemed better or more aesthetically pleasing, or in 'what way'. Your followup with "blown highlights", "super contrasty" and "clay-like skin" are a bit more helpful. I understand you may not care about being helpful, just sharing from my perspective as a fellow community member.

mfogiel - thanks for the 'reference image'. Still learning what to refer to, but it's interesting that there was clear consensus to your statement and it wasn't disputed, noted. Enjoy your posts and would appreciate more input on how to critically view an image.

I read most of these film / digital threads to better understand the aesthetic elements we aspire to in our images (composition and subject completely aside), such as:
* Dynamic Range
- keeping highlights
- providing shadow detail
- tonality
- flat mid-tones

* Resolution (not rated as so important)
- film: format and emulsion properties (lens to some extent)
- digital: megapixels
- sharpness

* Contrast
- curves

* Processing
- film processing chemicals & technique
- photoshop & other tools & technique

* Digitization
- scanned film, and at what bit-level
- digital capture: raw vs. in-camera BW

* Display method
- 8-bit web image
- wet print
- digital print (various)

* Authenticity
- film = real
- digital = fake

* Artifacts
- film grain
- digital noise

I understand there are other major factors such as up-front and ongoing costs with both film and digital, differing levels of convenience, the form factor and size of our tools, the view through the finder, focusing ability, etc. etc. etc.

RFF is an important schoolground for me, so thanks everyone.

 

[NickTrop]

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.

Thanks, again. I taught Photoshop (years ago) in addition to After Effects, Adobe Premier, Quark, In Design, Dreamweaver, Adobe Director, and Flash. I'm not all that talented a PS'er imo. I have my preferred method/workflow which I call the "NickTrop Method"(tm) - it works for me and it's fast. Actually - I don't remember if the 2nd photo was PS'ed or done in-camera. It's an old photo - 2005'er so?

 

[NickTrop]

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

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.

Agree in full. Spot on. My point exactly... Small format 35mm? Meh - digital is as good or nearly as good, looks about the same, and it's easier and it's more flexible. Medium format and large format black and whites? That's another matter entirely. And I completely agree with you about grain too - another reason to shoot larger formats. I started developing and printing 6X6 negs first, then moved to 35mm. I was shocked, initially, at the level of grain 35mm had - even lower speed films, compared to the big negs. I don't "miss the grain" with digital black and white. It's noise and I have no emotional attachment to it nor do I think it "adds". About all you can say is it's not as "noisy" as digital noise. However, digital noise you can manage to a greater extent than grain. The only thing grain adds to a photo is a sense of nostalgia...

 

[NickTrop]

OK, so this is a 35mm Tri X in D76

Oh - and by the way, great shot. Forgot to mention...

 

[mfunnell]

As always, Nick's latest enthusiasm is entertaining if nothing else. I don't really have an investment in any part of his or others' arguments:

I shoot both film and digital.

When I'm at home and in a position to develop my own (an all too rare occurrence of late) I develop my B&W negatives, scan them, then produce inkjet pints. I'm not set up to wet print and am unlikely to do that.

I have found that for me my results are better printing from scans of B&W film (or even colour film with B&W conversion after the scan) than converting from digital originals. This is almost certainly due to limitations of my own technique in Photoshop. I did a fair bit of work trying to improve my PS results - with some success but not enough that I persisted. Why work that hard when I could get superior results (almost) straight off the scanner?

My results are generally the opposite with colour - too much work to get colour scans "right" compared with working from digital originals.

Because of this I usually (but don't always) use digital for colour and almost exclusevly use film for black and white? Why? Laziness, convenience and (most likely) limitations of my own technique(s) in Photoshop. Perhaps I'll work on the latter if I find the time and the inclination. Until then I quite like using my film cameras anyway and they give me results I prefer with B&W film, digitally printed. That's enough excuse for me.

...Mike

 

[Pico]

Who can tell? Your images are put to a digital medium - our monitors.

But to answer - I have not seen digital prints that have the same character as silver prints.

Suck it up. Learn up.

 

[Keith]

When the dynamic range of sensors improves, and it surely will, the argument's over in many ways!

Then what will we fight about?

 

[aad]

I was going to "pull a Nick" and put up some pix-but I think I'll just say that grayscale converted Reala or Provia looks just about like those digital shots, even off a drugstore scan that was made while I had a cup o' coffee.

If you don't like grain/texture, then best not shoot 35mm traditional B&W.

 

[-doomed-]

When the dynamic range of sensors improves, and it surely will, the argument's over in many ways!

Then what will we fight about?

Nicks sweet MSpaint skills.

 

[filmfan]

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.

It's too bad that you are simply incorrect. They photos do look digital. Plain and simple-- whether due to their original medium of capture or due to post-processing.
I have a lot of experience testing placebos in my psych lab, so what you hoped to prove to me was actually very old stuff that I learned back in freshman year of college. Sorry (again). Maybe go back to school? Your argument actually reminds me of a lot of young philosophy students who do their first night's reading assignment and believe they can convince anyone of anything, even when the evidence is right in front of them illustrating the opposite. I am not judging either, we all make mistakes.

Edit: I believe you are taking my user-name into account more than you should. Although I am a fan of film, I also shoot digital.

 

[-doomed-]

There are too many variables to make this test entirely valid.