Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keith said:
When the dynamic range of sensors improves, and it surely will, the argument's over in many ways!

Then what will we fight about? :D
Click to expand...


Remember, a sensor is a linear device. Film is a logarithmic device. There is a huge difference in native bandwidth between the two. Fuji used a split sensor to try to cover part of the range (I have an S5). It works, but there is a long way to go. Foveon has the best chance in my opinion. Do the math.. it's a very tough problem. When you devote real estate to bandwidth, you give up resolution. And if you think about it. A 12MP sensor (RGGB) is really a 4 MP sensor. Fun stuff.
 
I think the word 'fake' in this thread title is a little provocative ... it attracts the bashers like flies to honey! :p
 
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...

I would have guessed both film, not because of a quality difference I can see (see my previous post here), but because of the shallow DOF. How did you obtain that with a small P&S ?

Stefan.
 
Coming back on topic. I have decided to shoot film only, after I have decided I wanted to shoot only B&W. The main reason is the tonality, especially of the highlights. If you are not of the same opinion, there is nothing wrong with this, in fact there are many "looks" that people might want to obtain even in B&W. Digital, on the high end, gives better resolution, especially at higher ISO values, and if my main style would be to shoot Tri X pushed to EI 3200 , I would probably shoot digital too:

485272580_63cdc045df_b.jpg


This was shot with a Nikon d40 at ISO 1600, and I do not think it would be any better looking if shot on film.
On the other hand, lower ontrast subjects in need of good highlight separation benefit from use of film:
3706560446_2abbfda3eb_b.jpg


and the same is true when a very wide dynamic range is being called for:

3696320529_986265e4ea_b.jpg


Moreover, some subjects simply can benefit from the presence of grain to appear more natural:

4860059105_e917b4733c_b.jpg


Finally, film can deliver more specific and different results than digital, simply because there are still many varieties of it, not to mention different developers. With digital the options are more limited.
 
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...

first one is film, second one is digital.

did i win? what's the prize?
 
Chris101 said:
Fake digital B&W looks like BW400CN to me.
Click to expand...

BW400CN gives excellent results once you understand its characteristics.

neighbors-pier.jpg

120 size BW400CN (Mamiya 645 with 45mm lens)

plaza-7-14-06-num3.jpg

35mm BW400CN (Olympus OM-4T and 35mm f2 Zuiko)

Digital BW can be excellent too.

tax-sign.jpg

Kodak DCS 14n and 50mm f1.4 AF-Nikkor

monroeville-flag1-bw.jpg

Kodak DCS 14n and 50mm f1.4 AF-Nikkor

cerrillos-hotel.jpg

Kodak DCS 14n. I forget the lens, but probably the 50mm f1.4 AF-Nikkor
 
Ted, I can't honestly tell. Most people would say it looks like film, because ofthe tonality, but a person who knew what they were doing could take a digital color image and make that quality of BW from it. I've also seen plenty of scanned film that looks crappy, with flat lifeless tonality (which most people claim is the hallmark of digital BW) because the photographer didn't know how to work with scans. My point in saying that and in showing the photos I showed in my posts above, is that in the hands of a capable worker either film or digital came give equally impressive results. I'm guessing your motive was the same in posting the photo and will guess its digital, so you can gloat that it isn't film once the fanatics declare that digital sucks and can't possibly have given that image. Am I right? :D
 
Hi Chris

Hi Chris

It's Reala 100 C41 taken in a Hexar AF, developed in the bathroom with D76, then scanned on a $39 scanner to greyscale.

I understand what you're saying, but showing a digital b/w that looks like film is too easy. I don't even use photoshop, but I have picasa, which has a film grain button that you can press multiple times, and get a tri-x grainy photo from almost anything.

I'm sure the tri-x/film folks will find the last part hard to believe, so I would urge them to try Picasa and the film grain effect for themselves.

I'm don't think either medium is "better" but there are times when you find yourself in the dark without 1600/3200 film, but with digital, you can still get great (b/w) images with say an RD1 or M8, or even the F30 p&s, in my experience.

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Ted, I can't honestly tell. Most people would say it looks like film, because ofthe tonality, but a person who knew what they were doing could take a digital color image and make that quality of BW from it. I've also seen plenty of scanned film that looks crappy, with flat lifeless tonality (which most people claim is the hallmark of digital BW) because the photographer didn't know how to work with scans. My point in saying that and in showing the photos I showed in my posts above, is that in the hands of a capable worker either film or digital came give equally impressive results. I'm guessing your motive was the same in posting the photo and will guess its digital, so you can gloat that it isn't film once the fanatics declare that digital sucks and can't possibly have given that image. Am I right? :D
Click to expand...
 
ampguy said:
It's Reala 100 C41 taken in a Hexar AF, developed in the bathroom with D76, then scanned on a $39 scanner to greyscale.

I understand what you're saying, but showing a digital b/w that looks like film is too easy. I don't even use photoshop, but I have picasa, which has a film grain button that you can press multiple times, and get a tri-x grainy photo from almost anything.

I'm sure the tri-x/film folks will find the last part hard to believe, so I would urge them to try Picasa and the film grain effect for themselves.

I'm don't think either medium is "better" but there are times when you find yourself in the dark without 1600/3200 film, but with digital, you can still get great (b/w) images with say an RD1 or M8, or even the F30 p&s, in my experience.
Click to expand...

Ohh, ok. I have found that scanned color film has a lot of the same look when converted to BW that digital camera pics do, except, of course, the grain. I think a lot of what people don't like is not the look of digital, its the look of color converted poorly to BW by people who don't do it with enough contrast. Your shot looks great.

Here's one of my color neg to BW conversions.

ortiz-mountains3.jpg

Mamiya 645, 150mm f3.5 lens, Fuji 160NC film expired about a year!
 
I think Chris C has summed it up...depends often as not on the skill of the photographer.
I use film but preferred the second in the original post.
I still tend to dislike a lot of digital colour which is too vivid for my taste.
Not always though.
Perhaps our eyes are adjusting over time or perhaps it has something to do with this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance :)
 
I will go for the picture, composition everytime and not care. But there is no black on an LCD screen, just like there is no wihite on a CRT. LCD's are getting better but my Kindle does better with B&W.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom