Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Rather like I did with this one, red/orange filter simulation. R-D1 w/28 Ultron
Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?
- Thread starter NickTrop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 245
- Views 22K
- Status
Rather like I did with this one, red/orange filter simulation. R-D1 w/28 Ultron
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Rather like I did with this one, red/orange filter simulation. R-D1 w/28 Ultron
Yeah! That is one nice thing about shooting digital. No filters to mess with and you can change your mind about the filtration several times till it looks right with only a single shot.
NickTrop
Veteran
But you're missing the point, me thinks. "Quality" has two prongs - if you will. On the one hand there's the overally quality of the product. Leica cameras are said to have high quality. However, a process that is prone to defect has "quality" issues. The wet process process has a very high incidence of process errors and anomalies that digital does not have. I "live with" the water marks or a scratch on the neg. I have no other choice. (Or I used those silly retouch markers...) This is not the case with digital.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I'm a digital user these days, but I never had an issue with dirty negatives at all... and as long as you follow a few simple directions, processing film is virtually fool proof as well. With film, it is generally user error to blame if something goes wrong. On the flip side, I've had SD Cards die on me...when I did nothing wrong. Not to mention, sensors get dirty as well.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I think this:
One can make digital look like B+W film. But, the more important questions are:
1. Can you simulate a 'film look' that you like? There are a lot of film shots shown in this thread that i would NOT want to emulate. Everyone does it differently, and there's a certain amount of grain and a certain kind of tonality that each person prefers. I've been working on a sim that's closer to Rodinal+Tri-X (Ellen von Unwerth, Ralph Gibson, etc.), where there ARE blown highlights and filled in shadows.
I also like a sort of 'half' Lith look, where it's not necessary to end up with the dynamic range people accuse digital of not having.
2. After the image has been 'worked on,' can you look upon it with satisfaction, and not think that you cheated or faked it? That is my chief issue at the moment. It's getting better, though, as my memory is not so good, and if i leave a picture alone for a while, i can sometimes forget what i used to make it. But, if i do remember (or check), i hate that i think of a simulation as a fake. I have a prejudice against digital, even though i love the immediate feedback.
I also think many people process images 'incorrectly.' At least, i used to. I would take a digital image, make corrections and adjustments, and THEN apply a film grain simulator. But, if it had been a scan, the grain would be baked in and would also be subjected to all the processing. So, now i start with a very flat RAW image, apply grain, and then work on it. The grain seems much more integrated. I also use multiple layers of different grain. What happens is that the out of focus areas react differently than in focus areas. Areas that get different amounts of light react differently.... It's not a quick and easy process, but it gets me closer to 'authentic.'
One can make digital look like B+W film. But, the more important questions are:
1. Can you simulate a 'film look' that you like? There are a lot of film shots shown in this thread that i would NOT want to emulate. Everyone does it differently, and there's a certain amount of grain and a certain kind of tonality that each person prefers. I've been working on a sim that's closer to Rodinal+Tri-X (Ellen von Unwerth, Ralph Gibson, etc.), where there ARE blown highlights and filled in shadows.
I also like a sort of 'half' Lith look, where it's not necessary to end up with the dynamic range people accuse digital of not having.
2. After the image has been 'worked on,' can you look upon it with satisfaction, and not think that you cheated or faked it? That is my chief issue at the moment. It's getting better, though, as my memory is not so good, and if i leave a picture alone for a while, i can sometimes forget what i used to make it. But, if i do remember (or check), i hate that i think of a simulation as a fake. I have a prejudice against digital, even though i love the immediate feedback.
I also think many people process images 'incorrectly.' At least, i used to. I would take a digital image, make corrections and adjustments, and THEN apply a film grain simulator. But, if it had been a scan, the grain would be baked in and would also be subjected to all the processing. So, now i start with a very flat RAW image, apply grain, and then work on it. The grain seems much more integrated. I also use multiple layers of different grain. What happens is that the out of focus areas react differently than in focus areas. Areas that get different amounts of light react differently.... It's not a quick and easy process, but it gets me closer to 'authentic.'
NickTrop
Veteran
Mmmmmm - I dunno. Totally YMMV. I think saying it's fool-proof is an overstatement, however. While the vast majority of my negs came out fine (Realistically? 90-95%), I've had the occassional issue with scratchs, dust, bromide streaks (Diafine), uneven development... etc. And one instance where I got no negs - not sure what happened that time. Printing is a whole 'nother matter. - I recall going through a lot of paper to get things right - and paper is pretty pricey.
This is why I didn't do 35mm prints all that often... Medium format there is a real discernable/obvious difference, and fewer negatives and fewer rolls makes printing more managable to me.
The quality difference - if any exists at all, and I might argue digital might even be better to my eye (again - this thread poses this as a question) makes digital black and white far more practical in small format. Again - medium and large format is not what I'm talking about here.
NickTrop
Veteran
Mmmmmm - I dunno. Totally YMMV. I think saying it's fool-proof is an overstatement, however. While the vast majority of my negs came out fine (Realistically? 90-95%), I've had the occassional issue with scratchs, dust, bromide streaks (Diafine), uneven development... etc. And one instance where I got no negs - not sure what happened that time. Printing is a whole 'nother matter. - I recall going through a lot of paper to get things right - and paper is pretty pricey.
This is why I didn't do 35mm prints all that often... Medium format there is a real discernable/obvious difference, and fewer negatives and fewer rolls makes printing more managable to me.
The quality difference - if any exists at all, and I might argue digital might even be better to my eye (again - this thread poses this as a question) makes digital black and white far more practical in small format. Again - medium and large format is not what I'm talking about here.
- And for scanning? You're ending up with a digital file anyway. Do you really see that much of a quality difference for all this effort - processing your negs, then scanning? Most DIY'ers don't have all that high quality of scanner - flatbed usually. And the best those do is "acceptable". I don't see this being worth the effort when results are compared to a decent PS'd black and white.
The only rationalizion is - and it's valid, is you simply like the traditional techniques... You like the skill and the craft of doing it this way. But it make little to no practical sense and there is no aesthetic value-added for traditional wet processing small format negatives, especially if you wind up scanning them.
Last edited:
mathomas
Well-known
I'll jump in with a small mix of shots - both digital and film-based b&w. Personally I like both and can't wait to have a new digital body on hand so I have that tool back in my arsenal. Oh, and I'm not telling which shots are which, though you can follow the links to flickr...
Untitled by David R Munson, on Flickr
Val/Crowd by David R Munson, on Flickr
Untitled by David R Munson, on Flickr
Untitled by David R Munson, on Flickr
Untitled by David R Munson, on Flickr
Untitled by David R Munson, on Flickr
Proving my point about my own skills (or lack thereof) at guessing the technology, I correctly identified the digital ones as digital, but also misidentified a couple of film shots as digital (though I guessed they could possibly be MF film). I wonder if any of us, given a large enough sample size, could do better than chance?
Might be interesting to build a "hot or not" style web site to gather statistics on this topic.
Ranchu
Veteran
This is not true, you're simply trying to dismiss the aesthetic superiority of film as habit on the part of people who prefer it. You choose your compromises, I'll choose mine.
The very first time I used a real scanner, the Coolscan, I brought it over to my Dad's to scan some of his old negs. The first one, a bw pic of an abandoned old truck, popped up and my jaw dropped. The tonality was perfect, pic sharp as hell. His photo looked great.
That never happens to me with digital, the first thought when I see the pic is - what do I have to do to make this look better?
That says it all for me.
Ranchu
Veteran
Perhaps you're referring to me. I admit I can't tell with a lot of these later pics people have posted, but just because you can make a digital pic look like some iteration of a film pic, that doesn't make film and digital the same. There is no substitute for enough DR to cover the scene. If your camera has enough, no problems. If it doesn't, which happens a lot, film is better.
Last edited:
Tegla
Member
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?
I have never seen so entertaining thread about A/D. What i see here are not real photographs, these are just visual representation of a binary code 1010101. It i not a photo!!!!!!!!!!! You are not showing good examples. You need to show photos, not visual of binary code 🙂
I'm tired of that digital/film blah, blah....
Go out and shoot some nice pics, if you don't like film, who cares...
Last edited:
PKR
Veteran
TareqPhoto
The Survivor
I never see one film shot on the net, because all of them turned into digital once they scanned and posted on the net, so where is the film then?
Kidding, i don't care about all this thread because simply i and many there shooting with both, so why think about "film or digital" debate?!!!
Shoot with whatever and enjoy, this is the fun!
Kidding, i don't care about all this thread because simply i and many there shooting with both, so why think about "film or digital" debate?!!!
Shoot with whatever and enjoy, this is the fun!
P
Pico
Guest
Of course you do not know. Forgetting the silly innuendo regarding "fake", then what you presented were digital images. Do you print silver-gelatin? Answer it for yourself. What you posted are blown-out, poor-range images with a little blast-all fill flash in a couple. If that's what you like, then the answer is that digital is good enough if you believe those images are good enough.
Last edited by a moderator:
NickTrop
Veteran
For the record, I never:
1. Said I hated film
2. Intended for this to be a FvD debate thread...
Again, I asked the question - has fake digital black and white gotten so good, that it doesn't make sense to use real black and white film? Are youse into photography - or "photography through pain"? - harder =/= better, necessarily. My answer is - yes, I think it has, and there are definite advantages to doing it this way... It makes sense to fake it w SW for small format (35mm) but there is a huge leap in larger formats, so medium and large format by all means film (like you have a choice, anyways...)
I will be posting some digital street photography with my newly discovered killer street photography tool - the cheap fuji F20 (look for another "controversial" post on this - sure to upset the purists, on how this cheap soccermom silver point and shoot blows away all rangefinders including Leicas with expensive lenses as a street photography tool, if one is willing to put aside biases and practice new shooting techniques and styles... You will see more "keeper" street photos taken in 20 minutes today [literally] than one might acquire in an entire day's worth of shooting with a film camera or Leica... This is if you really want to shoot stuff - not fondle or admire equiment...) on this thread later this week after I add fake black and white to it.
1. Said I hated film
2. Intended for this to be a FvD debate thread...
Again, I asked the question - has fake digital black and white gotten so good, that it doesn't make sense to use real black and white film? Are youse into photography - or "photography through pain"? - harder =/= better, necessarily. My answer is - yes, I think it has, and there are definite advantages to doing it this way... It makes sense to fake it w SW for small format (35mm) but there is a huge leap in larger formats, so medium and large format by all means film (like you have a choice, anyways...)
I will be posting some digital street photography with my newly discovered killer street photography tool - the cheap fuji F20 (look for another "controversial" post on this - sure to upset the purists, on how this cheap soccermom silver point and shoot blows away all rangefinders including Leicas with expensive lenses as a street photography tool, if one is willing to put aside biases and practice new shooting techniques and styles... You will see more "keeper" street photos taken in 20 minutes today [literally] than one might acquire in an entire day's worth of shooting with a film camera or Leica... This is if you really want to shoot stuff - not fondle or admire equiment...) on this thread later this week after I add fake black and white to it.
Last edited:
P
Pico
Guest
We cannot answer your question for you.
B&W film is as 'fake' as B&W digital, which actually means there is no issue as 'fake', except perhaps to you.
B&W film is as 'fake' as B&W digital, which actually means there is no issue as 'fake', except perhaps to you.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I don't think digital conversions are there yet.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Oh can I share some?
NickTrop
Veteran
They're there if you're willing to live without grain. The grain, actually, will fool 99.999% of people including photographers if they don't know in advance that it's fake... If they know it's fake in advance, they're scoff and say it doesn't look real. C'mon - apart from grain film, film emulation would be easy to program in PS.
Realistic grain sim would be difficult, me thinks but I turn grain options off. Adding grain to digital black and white is silly.
- Status