NickTrop
Veteran
I dunno, Davey...
Fuji F20
Fuji F20
Fuji F20
Nikon D5000/35f1.8DX
Nikon D5000/35f1.8DX
Fuji F20

Fuji F20

Fuji F20

Nikon D5000/35f1.8DX

Nikon D5000/35f1.8DX

-doomed-
film is exciting
What is Tradional?
A new editing software similar to the developer rodinal?
A new editing software similar to the developer rodinal?
mfogiel
Veteran
Rolleiflex F, Planar 75/3.5, TXP, DD-X
So, now you have a reference shot.

So, now you have a reference shot.
NickTrop
Veteran
Good - thank you, mfogiel. Yeah - I can absolutely see a difference in MF even on the web. But I gotta tell ya, small format? I'm hard pressed... even with the photos I take with the 6.3 megapixel 1/1/7" sensor on the little F20.
Ranchu
Veteran
No way around less DR, makes the tonality very linear. Slides are a more appropriate goal than black and white film, IMO.
niels christopher
Established
Though I'am one of those digital "fakers" (I would'nt call it "fake", anyways), I consider "real" b/w filmshots to be more beautiful than digital captures. This might be caused by the natural grain & the higher dynamic range of film, I think.
NickTrop
Veteran
Though I'am one of those digital "fakers" (I would'nt call it "fake", anyways), I consider "real" b/w filmshots to be more beautiful than digital captures. This might be caused by the natural grain & the higher dynamic range of film, I think.
I used to agree with you, but I'm not seeing it of late in small format... I'm just not.
NickTrop
Veteran
On DR - not all subject matter/settings requires use all the available stops. Also, like sharpness, it's a bit overrated, perhaps? I can see Ansel Adams wanting to squeeze every stop of DR for his landscapes - but people shots/street stuff? Have you seen HCB's stuff? Did those photos have great DR?
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I don't think one or the other is "better", they're just different... sometimes a project lends itself to the look of film, sometimes digital... I don't think there has to be a taking of sides.. it's apples and different apples... someone asks you for an apple and any apple will do... but sometimes you really want a Granny Smith rather than a Red Delicious 
Spider67
Well-known
If I take film I don't have to tweak around on my computer to make the pics BW
NickTrop
Veteran
If I take film I don't have to tweak around on my computer to make the pics BW
Mmmmmmmmmm - I can "black and white" something in two seconds digitally. Are you really saying that this is more difficult (or more "fun" - somehow) than loading film into a Jobo, pouring in chemicals, rotating/agitating, fixing, stopping, washing, pouring in that other stuff, drying, and scanning?
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I'll second that... I have about 4 rolls in my fridge that have been waiting for development for weeks now because I haven't had time and/or been in the mood lately to soup and scan
NickTrop
Veteran
I don't think one or the other is "better", they're just different... sometimes a project lends itself to the look of film, sometimes digital... I don't think there has to be a taking of sides.. it's apples and different apples... someone asks you for an apple and any apple will do... but sometimes you really want a Granny Smith rather than a Red Delicious![]()
I would have agreed with you at one time. Now I think b&w is b&w. In fact, emulation sw increases your understanding - if anything. The differences among stocks of the same speed are fairly subtle.
joeyjoe
New rangefinder lover
to the OP - what film were you using in your F20? I think if you want smooth and grainless images, then yeah - it's probably about the same. If you want grain and texture - no, digital "fakes" haven't caught up yet.
Ranchu
Veteran
On DR - not all subject matter/settings requires use all the available stops. Also, like sharpness, it's a bit overrated, perhaps? I can see Ansel Adams wanting to squeeze every stop of DR for his landscapes - but people shots/street stuff? Have you seen HCB's stuff? Did those photos have great DR?
YMMV.
I'm willing to pay for, process and scan film to get the DR. Convenience and resolution, the only advantages of digital, are further down on my list of wants.
The HCB pic that I remember the most, so I guess my favorite, is a picture taken of the backs of 4 (?) people sitting on the grass with a shoreline and a small boat in front of them. It had a soft tonality.
This one, edit. Though I think I saw a less cropped, better printed version?
http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/09/theory-henri-cartier-bressons-last.html
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
to the OP - what film were you using in your F20? I think if you want smooth and grainless images, then yeah - it's probably about the same. If you want grain and texture - no, digital "fakes" haven't caught up yet.
Why is it that photogs will tout the "smooth nearly imperceptible grain structure" - implying they want grain minimized. Then turn around and tout the beauty of grain?
I never use fake grain. Pointless.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Most people would be hard pressed to see any difference between the two types of B&W images today. I can't so I use digital, if you can use film but neither are fake, just different.
Bob
Bob
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
GEEZ... don't let Danny Lyon see this!
mfogiel
Veteran
OK, so this is a 35mm Tri X in D76

bigeye
Well-known
Better? Let's just say it puts the "Black" and "White" back in B&W.
In web comparisons it might seem close, but most of the film scanners introduce some of the same problems that PP does to digital B&W. The actual prints are better. mfogiel's shots are likely even better on paper.
- Charlie
In web comparisons it might seem close, but most of the film scanners introduce some of the same problems that PP does to digital B&W. The actual prints are better. mfogiel's shots are likely even better on paper.
- Charlie
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.