Pherdinand
the snow must go on
"fake", "better", "traditional"
3 very weird, ambiguous terms in one title.
good luck with it
3 very weird, ambiguous terms in one title.
good luck with it
bigeye
Well-known
A good digital exposure can look better than an bad, scanned film exposure?
Not very convincing.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
No, not yet.
Dave
David R Munson
写真のオタク
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
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
skibeerr
Well-known
The difference can be seen better on print rather than on screen.
David R Munson
写真のオタク
Do you mean difference as in quality or difference as in "hey that looks like a digital capture?" Either way, kind of depends on the prints in question. Really good digital prints can be just as gorgeous as really good silver prints, IMO.
gavinlg
Veteran
Digital can make fantastic B&W photos.
Here's a member of our forum's blog:
http://nielschristopher.blogspot.com/
As far as I know all the pictures on it are taken with a nikon d700.
Here's a member of our forum's blog:
http://nielschristopher.blogspot.com/
As far as I know all the pictures on it are taken with a nikon d700.
Stuart John
Well-known
Here is a B&W image that I like alot. But what is it film or digital.
And another what about this one.
And another what about this one.
rdeleskie
Well-known
If you are shooting with a digital camera, purposely seeking out and composing images that will work in black and white, and are aware of the qualities of your sensor and working with them, then I see no reason why you cannot produce beautiful b&w pictures. Same goes with shooting colour film, intending to convert it to grayscale afterwards.
The only "fake" black and white pictures to me are banal shots made in colour, which are then converted to grayscale with the intent of artificially adding drama or interest.
I primarily shoot black and white film, and colour digital (although I do shoot some Portra, Velvia, etc.). I find that colour generally takes some mucking around with to get a pleasing image, regardless of how it was originally captured, and I find that digital gives me plenty of flexibility.
When I shoot black and white, my goal is to do as little digital post-production as possible. A very slight boost or reduction in contrast, perhaps some work on the highlights or shadows to compensate for a hasty or less-than-optimal exposure on my part. But really, I'd rather leave it alone.
However, the main reason I shoot black and white film is for the lens. I find the characteristics of the Summicron DR 50, the 90/4 Elmar and my 1934 Summar are most readily apparent in b&w. The only option for truly replicating these qualities in digital appears to be the M9 right now.
The only "fake" black and white pictures to me are banal shots made in colour, which are then converted to grayscale with the intent of artificially adding drama or interest.
I primarily shoot black and white film, and colour digital (although I do shoot some Portra, Velvia, etc.). I find that colour generally takes some mucking around with to get a pleasing image, regardless of how it was originally captured, and I find that digital gives me plenty of flexibility.
When I shoot black and white, my goal is to do as little digital post-production as possible. A very slight boost or reduction in contrast, perhaps some work on the highlights or shadows to compensate for a hasty or less-than-optimal exposure on my part. But really, I'd rather leave it alone.
However, the main reason I shoot black and white film is for the lens. I find the characteristics of the Summicron DR 50, the 90/4 Elmar and my 1934 Summar are most readily apparent in b&w. The only option for truly replicating these qualities in digital appears to be the M9 right now.
Just felt like putting in an image from a monochrome Digital camera.
I can do color with it. But I need to put a filter wheel in front of the lens and take 3 separate images, and combine in Photoshop. Not worth the effort.
I can do color with it. But I need to put a filter wheel in front of the lens and take 3 separate images, and combine in Photoshop. Not worth the effort.
mathomas
Well-known
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?
Interesting discussion here.
I know you've "exposed" which is which. I did pick the first as film (a "gestalt" reaction -- it just "looks like" my film results). The second I suspected was digital. So, I had it right in this case, but it could be pure statistics.
One thing I noted with interest, is you say you used Efke 25 in the porch photo. Interesting to me, because I've been shooting a lot of Efke 100. I wonder if my eyes have adjusted to that "look" (if there's a family resemblance).
Not claiming any special skills -- I'd expect to get it wrong 40-50% of the time. I shoot both digital and film happily. Photos on my zenfolio site are both digital and film scans.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
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?
Seriously!!!
I just read through this whole thread, every single post and not one person mentions the drying water marks on the top image( lower left corner, across the boys shirt). A dead give away it's film... or is it the "water mark" filter in photoshop, hmmmmmm.
Todd
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
BTW, I've had success producing good digital black and white prints (as far as I'm concerned), the trick is pleasing your own pallette, screw what everyone else likes
Todd
Todd
NickTrop
Veteran
LOL - wasn't someone (forget who) tauting their "keen trained eye"? Hell - I developed/printed/scanned this frame and didn't notice! But you bring up a good point....
- between issues with scratched negs, fogged film, issues loading the film, drying marks, dust on the neg, over/underdevelopment, bromide streaks, and getting the right exposure printing - paper after paper after paper????
Let's just say wet printing is verrrrry unforgiving with lots of opportuniy for error. - especially for amatuers like me.
Now, I know there will be those who jump in and say "...this stuff never happens to me. Blah, blah, blah." - to which I will reply [sarcasm]"Yeah, roight[/sarcasm] Neg gets screwed up for some reason - mysterious (as is the case sometimes) or otherwise... that's it, you're screwed.
To the contrary - digital is way more flexible compared to wet process and far, far, far less prone to problems getting a decent print that frankly plague the wet process. Results are far more predictable (wet process is pretty unpredictable) with precise control. Doesn't spoilage rates factor into the quality equation/debate? Doesn't this have a direct impact on the end product? Of course it does!
Last edited:
A good image, is a good image... technical stuff? No one but us gearheads care.
Range Loser
Established
Years ago when I used to use film/darkroom, I resorted to getting film shop processed just to get cleaner negs, then I covered them with crap while printing them!
I agree that digital is so much more convenient than film ever was, and to my eye, just as pleasing.
Also, why has no-one commented that the RD1 vs Film post is comparing a tiny sensor with 5"x4"? Seems a bit of a mis-match doesn't it?
I agree that digital is so much more convenient than film ever was, and to my eye, just as pleasing.
Also, why has no-one commented that the RD1 vs Film post is comparing a tiny sensor with 5"x4"? Seems a bit of a mis-match doesn't it?
FrankS
Registered User
Well, 6 pages of responses. I should have saved you all the bother by responding sooner.
"Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?"
No, they are just different.
Can we just use that as the standard answer to the tiresome film vs digital debate from now on, please?
"Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?"
No, they are just different.
Can we just use that as the standard answer to the tiresome film vs digital debate from now on, please?
ampguy
Veteran
Nice Chris
Nice Chris
looks like you used a filter for the sky?
Sometimes I like digital b/w, here's a M8 b/w capture @ ISO 160:
and here's the same image with film grain added:
Nice Chris
looks like you used a filter for the sky?
Sometimes I like digital b/w, here's a M8 b/w capture @ ISO 160:
and here's the same image with film grain added:
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.
Mamiya 645, 150mm f3.5 lens, Fuji 160NC film expired about a year!
skibeerr
Well-known
As Frank said they are different
I just don't like ink jet prints be it from digital or scanned film, lambda is a different thing.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
looks like you used a filter for the sky?
Sometimes I like digital b/w, here's a M8 b/w capture @ ISO 160:
and here's the same image with film grain added:
That's a beautiful landscape. The one with grain added does look like 35mm film, but I think I like the no-grain one better, it looks like medium format to me. I didn't use a filter on the lens, but when I converted the photo to BW, I adjusted the color channels to simulate use of a red filter on BW film and I also burned in the sky in Photoshop.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.