Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I expect that an experienced printer will get the edge with B&W negatives, but this is just my feeling and I could be wrong. Images taken with Ilford XP2 and Kodak C-41 show up very nicely in scans. Simil;ar to my feelings regarding CV lenses, having C-41 B&W film is far better than not having such an option.
 
raid said:
I expect that an experienced printer will get the edge with B&W negatives, but this is just my feeling and I could be wrong. Images taken with Ilford XP2 and Kodak C-41 show up very nicely in scans.
Click to expand...

Yes - I can agree with this. But the rest of us? They do - actually love those films. And I'm glad you brought this up. Remember when XP2 and C-41 weren't real black and white films? They don't look the same - blah, blah, blah. Same argument from the purists now applied to digital. Guess what? I like the look of the C41 stuff - especially the Kodak on color paper. It's nice. Who would argue now that that's not "real" black and white? Same trend with digital black and white...
 
NickTrop said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not the only thing. Try linear curve, blown highlights and blocked shadows in the same photo (outdoors), even as hard as I've tried I can't repeat the color sensitivities of films with digital. I bet I've tied harder than you to do it, and I don't really think I seen anything in this thread that changes my mind. But more power to you if you can produce something that you like, then I'm happy for you, I just couldn't come close.
 
Perhaps I am missing the point, but I don't understand the relevance of "efficiency" and "practicality" when it comes to this debate. Were I a professional, earning my living from my photography, then yes, it would make perfect sense to work in a practical and efficient way. Time is money.

As an amateur, practicality is not a priority for me. Pleasure is. As far as efficiency goes, I can scan and adjust a good negative in about the same amount of time it takes me to photoshop a colour digital image into acceptable (to me) black and white picture.

At this stage in my development, my enjoyment comes from seeing how the decisions I made when I took the photograph (composition, aperture, shutter speed, filtration, lens choice, film stock, etc.) translate into a (nearly) final image. I suppose I could re-create this experience in digital by consciously planning to add a black and white treatment in Photoshop (etc.) while I am shooting. However, that seems to add an extra layer of abstraction, and since the final results are so close as we have seen in this thread, the extra steps involved don't seem worth the trouble.

But finally, the over-riding issue for me are the lenses. I cannot afford a M9, and so have no way to shoot a Summicron 50/2 DR and have it function as a 50mm in digital. If I had a M9, then the option to shoot digital colour for b&w would be a much more appealing prospect.
 
Sure, for small sized prints and web images, digital B&W is great. For 11x14 and larger, it's hard to match the look of a good double weight, fiber based, enlarger print. I do bothe - digital printing on an epson 7800 priinter, and darkroom printing with componon lenses and ilford paper. They both look really good. I like the darkroom prints better.

While I can print a pure digital picture on the epson, I need to start with a film negative to print on the enlarger. (I have messed with 'digital negatives'. - 1) it is limited to contact printing, and 2) the resolution of the print is severly limited. This may improve in the future.)

So to get the very best prints I can, film is required. To get acceptable prints, fdbw is good enough.
 
I used to scoff at digital b&w conversions for a long time. Then I read Michael Freemans "The Complete Guide to Black & White Digital Photography" and got a good idea of what I could do to make my own conversions look like I wanted by manipulating the color channels just like using filters in front of b&w film (not just generic one-click conversions). As time has passed and I've experimented I more and more start to enjoy making them and to see what images will work this way. Results can be quite acceptable.

At now I'm at the stage where I consider it a substantial tool in the box, and especially valuable when shooting b&w film is unrealistic if I don't want to process it myself. I'd still have to get it scanned and well, then I don't see the point. I'm too young and too far gone to ever become a darkroom person. It's an interesting and fascinating technology and in one way I envy you guys that grew up with it and learned it properly. Sad perhaps as I'm sure I'd enjoy it, yet you make your own cup 'o tea.

Now, small-resolution Internet-versions are one thing, printing digital B&W is another thing - it can be a royal PITA. Thought I'd add this because it haven't been mentioned. The (cheap) printers I've used have all either put a green or purple hue to the images (not an issue with color prints), which requires experimenting and corrections to avoid. This is a general issue with digital B&W printing widely documented on the Internetz, not a deal breaker, but something one ought to be aware of before venturing into this field. I hear the latest generations of the Epsons have got really good at B&W prints, gotta get me one of those some day.

Here's one of my own (pathetic) digi b&w attempts. Late night in Northern Norway, the blown out portion of the image just above the horizon is in fact the midnight sun.
lyngen_bw.jpg
 
Sindre, if you think correcting digital B&W color casting is a PITA, try it colorblind! It'll drive you nuts. Fortunately the higher end printers do not make the grayscale from mixing CMYK inks but have a number of different black/gray density inks.

This makes it bearable. The new 2880, 3880 and 7880 series are especially nice. Beware the 1900, which is a decent color 13 inch wide printer, but it does NOT support the photo-black inks.
 
icebear said:
Hello Sindre,

I like that shot. It must have been quite stunning looking at that scenery. Great capture of the moment. And btw I don't give a %§$ if it's digital or film in the first place.
Click to expand...

The light of the Arctic summer night is something you have to see, feel and experience for yourself to understand it. There's a somber, melancholic and quiet yet spectacular quality to it. I grew up there and now living in the relative south I miss the northern summers terribly. Hated the winters though 😉

Edit: Here's some snaps from the same area as the posted photo.

Mac
 
Last edited:
Chris101 said:
Sindre, if you think correcting digital B&W color casting is a PITA, try it colorblind! It'll drive you nuts. Fortunately the higher end printers do not make the grayscale from mixing CMYK inks but have a number of different black/gray density inks.

This makes it bearable. The new 2880, 3880 and 7880 series are especially nice. Beware the 1900, which is a decent color 13 inch wide printer, but it does NOT support the photo-black inks.
Click to expand...

I cannot even begin to fathom the quirks and difficulties colorblindness would add to this process, you are my hero for even trying! 😀

One of the higher end Epsons will surely find it's way to my desk, printing A3 in both color and BW is a wet dream. Regular A4 is just a tad to small for a really impressive wall-hanger. Now I just need to get a few more lenses first... 😉

Mac
 
M4cr0s said:
...printing digital B&W is another thing - it can be a royal PITA. Thought I'd add this because it haven't been mentioned. The (cheap) printers I've used have all either put a green or purple hue to the images (not an issue with color prints), which requires experimenting and corrections to avoid. This is a general issue with digital B&W printing widely documented on the Internetz, not a deal breaker, but something one ought to be aware of before venturing into this field. I hear the latest generations of the Epsons have got really good at B&W prints, gotta get me one of those some day.

Here's one of my own (pathetic) digi b&w attempts. Late night in Northern Norway, the blown out portion of the image just above the horizon is in fact the midnight sun.
lyngen_bw.jpg
Click to expand...

Beautiful picture - not "pathetic" at all. Yes - you're correct. Printing can be a pain. I've not had luck with the Epsons (clogs, jams, not reading 3rd party ink carts) I've had a little better luck with the HP printer I had until it started banding. I hate inkjet technology overall.
 
BTW, how can I reasonably print the digi files on my enlarger? 🙂 I have a good digi printer with real black and white ink sets, and anyone who thinks that the prints from that are as good as the ones that I get from my enlarger needs their eyes examined. They are different and, to me, not in a good way.
 
I doubt any film has an 18 stop DR, and if there is one that gets close, this must be Tri X. To come back to Nick's point though, I came back to photography after nearly a 30 years absence, and I bought into digital. When I could not get B&W images that were satisfying me, initially I thought it had to do with the lenses ( I was using Nikon glass), so I bought Zeiss ZF lenses. One day, I made a portrait of my daughter with the same lens in the same setting, one on digital, and one on film. Even though the film shot had some grain and looked less sharp, the difference in the tonality was shocking. The print from digital image was just lacking the "sparkle", it looked as if somebody immersed it into dirty water. If you tried to compensate for this by increasing the contrast, you would lose the detail in the highlights and shadows. In other words, there are not enough gradations of gray available in a digital image, to make it look as good as a film one, unless the tone range is heavily compressed from the beginning. This is why I still find it obvious, that digital B&W cannot compete with film, nonetheless it has many other advantages, and nonetheless it is getting slowly a little better wich each new generation of cameras. If you are a fan of Daido Moriyama style high contrast images, a digital P&S can be a perfect substitute, but if you want to obtain normal tonality, then film is still king, even in 35mm.
 
Polaroid Sprintscan 120 scanner 3.9d Depends on the film being scanned.
Tmax 400 film (0.58 CI) 3.4d 19.5 stops
Tmax 100 film (0.58 CI) 3.0d 17 stops
Tri-X 35mm film (0.58 CI) 2.4d 13.5 stops
Kodak DCS Pro 14n digital 69dB 11.5 stops
Fuji Finepix S3 digital camera -- 10 stops (estimated)
Tri-X 35mm film (0.75 CI) 2.4d 10.5 stops
Nikon D2x digital camera -- 9.5 stops (measured)
Typical LCD display 500:1 9 stops
Kodachrome 25, 64, 200 (1.4 gamma) 3.7d 8 stops
Ektachrome 100 (1.4 gamma) 3.4d 7.5 stops
Human eye (no iris change) 150:1 7 stops
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/dynamic.html

1. If everybody is so "DR" happy - why isn't everyone shooting TMAX? Few here - it seems do.

2. Why does anyone shoot slide?

3. The Fuji and the Tri-X are close.

And that's my point. It's close enough to tri-x not to matter for "street photography". Nobody looked at most of HCB's stuff and ooh'd and ahhh'd at the dynamic range. The Nikon D5000 gives about 9 stops of DR with "Active D Lighting" enabled:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/page18.asp I figure my little Fuji 7-8 stops - like slide. Scala perhaps? And not all subject matter requires that many stops of DR!
 
Last edited:
dfoo said:
BTW, how can I reasonably print the digi files on my enlarger? 🙂 I have a good digi printer with real black and white ink sets, and anyone who thinks that the prints from that are as good as the ones that I get from my enlarger needs their eyes examined. They are different and, to me, not in a good way.
Click to expand...

Mine look fine, and I have perfect vision. My experience is that most people who make statements like yours simply do not have the skills to edit photos on the computer, and instead of admitting that they don't have the knowledge (and working to acquire it), they simply bash that which they do not understand. It took me a lot of practice and a couple years time to get that good in Photoshop where my prints on the computer approached my darkroom prints, and more time still before I got where I am now where my digital editing of scanned negs exceeds my darkroom print quality.

I cannot count the number of times I've shut some zealot up by asking him to tell me which of a matched pair of prints was printed on the computer and which in the darkroom. They ALWAYS pick the inkjet print as the 'darkroom print' because it looks better. Always.
 
NickTrop said:
.......
Tmax 400 film (0.58 CI) 3.4d 19.5 stops
Tmax 100 film (0.58 CI) 3.0d 17 stops
.......
1. If everybody is so "DR" happy - why isn't everyone shooting TMAX? Few here - it seems do.

......!
Click to expand...

My example earlier was shot with TMAX, mostly guesswork, but also quite a lot of research into which film would retain highlight and shadow details best, when I started with film again. I use both TMY (400) and TMX (100)
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
It took me a lot of practice and a couple years time to get that good in Photoshop where my prints on the computer approached my darkroom prints, and more time still before I got where I am now where my digital editing of scanned negs exceeds my darkroom print quality.

I cannot count the number of times I've shut some zealot up by asking him to tell me which of a matched pair of prints was printed on the computer and which in the darkroom. They ALWAYS pick the inkjet print as the 'darkroom print' because it looks better. Always.
Click to expand...

Yep... I've done both. Both look good. Digital prints look sharper/cleaner and less prone to "mistakes" like dust on the negs etc. "A little" better tonality - perhaps, with wet prints. Both have their frustrations - with wet prints it's timing the exposure to get it perfect and going through sheet after sheet. None of that with inkjet - exposure is not an issue, but keeping the printers up and running has been the issue for me.
 
Last edited:
Just for fun

Just for fun

Just for fun a few months ago, I decided to see if, in my hands with my set of equipment, and for my purposes, film and digital output could be made similar for the average photo I might take. I liked the look of film but loved the convenience and cost of digital. Again, this was just for fun and to see if I could get my digital output to look like the films I liked to use, including the grain - I’m not out to debate the DR and merits of one medium over another as these “tests” were not meant to do that. What I did was carry around my D700 and M6 and take a shot side by side with the same focal length and exposure - Nikon 50mm f/1.4D vs 50mm f/2 Summicron. Films were Portra 400NC and Arista Premium 400. Output with Capture NX2/ACDsee.

Again, this exercise was just for fun so please take it as it is (I know there are way too many variables to make this a technically useful test, you can't tell anything on the computer screen etc.). In the end, I found that I could get pretty close to the look I liked on film and as I set up a batch process for each film type I liked, it took just a few seconds to go from RAW to “film” ouput. However, as I’m a mere hobbyist doing photography for fun, I found I actually missed the film process as others have mentioned, and the film equipment... except this week, I’m tired of processing film so digital it is. Until next week when I miss my film equipment...

Digital
p592835230-4.jpg


Arista 400
p552058659-4.jpg


Digital
p888836210-4.jpg


Portra 400NC
p625779181-4.jpg


Digital
p820840314-4.jpg


Arista 400
p1014340109-4.jpg


Digital
p722498706-4.jpg


Arista 400
p1050299652-4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom