Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
How do you mean? What do I have to learn exactly?
You're not talking about histograms or anything wierd like that?
You're not talking about histograms or anything wierd like that?
HU: B&W -- film vs. digital
- Thread starter sircarl
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 158
- Views 9K
nemjo
Avatar Challenge
Perhaps there IS(are) a(few) difference(s) between digital and analogue media(s).
(As there are differences among different films!)
I'm not sure how it changes as both develop. (Both develop?)
In practice I see at least one advantage of digital to analogue - within a few seconds I can change one of the main important characteristics of the media. Sensitivity. And than back...
Ofcourse in some cases filters can help - but hey: it works in the two worlds both.
I think that in several great photograps dinamic range doesn't count.
In several other great photographs do. (You can change dinamic range to colour, resolution etc.)
The responsibility (and fortunately the possibiliry) of the photographer is to choose the appropriate tool for his/her project.
I do think: only the picture counts.
nemjo
(As there are differences among different films!)
I'm not sure how it changes as both develop. (Both develop?)
In practice I see at least one advantage of digital to analogue - within a few seconds I can change one of the main important characteristics of the media. Sensitivity. And than back...
Ofcourse in some cases filters can help - but hey: it works in the two worlds both.
I think that in several great photograps dinamic range doesn't count.
In several other great photographs do. (You can change dinamic range to colour, resolution etc.)
The responsibility (and fortunately the possibiliry) of the photographer is to choose the appropriate tool for his/her project.
I do think: only the picture counts.
nemjo
S
Socke
Guest
Kevin said:
Even weirder than that, bicubic interpolation, chanel mixer, color separation and so on.
I'm lucky, I know people working at a printer (digital and offset) who realy know their trade and they lend me equipment to calibrate my scanner, screen and printer as well as prints from minilabs with different papers, Fuji Crystal out of an Agfa minilab is different to Fuji Crystal out of a Fuji Frontier.
At the moment I'm testing out a lab working with Kodak Portra Metallic paper, if you get it right you are rewarded with fabulous prints.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Don't get me started - the Photoshop book alone is about 10.000 pages printed small .....Kevin said:
The Canon 10D manual took me a week to understand (well maybe that was the translation 😀 ) And it doesn't stop....
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Socke said:
Feck!
Socke said:
But I can deal with all that after I take a picture, right?
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
jaapv said:
Oh I have a big fat Photoshop 7 book already. But this is all post-process, something I have been doing with my scanned images already.
DxPhoto
Established
jaapv said:
Can you tell me if these pictures are not 'cleaner' than any digital color shots? And there are a lot of films other than Fujifilm
http://aegis2000.com/temp/streetgirls100.jpg
http://aegis2000.com/temp/nyc_x.jpg
http://aegis2000.com/temp/portrait100_x.jpg <this is a big image>
These are pictures I saw in other forums. They are film scanned into digital. Even so, they are at least not worse than the digital digital shots! You just need to scan them right. And they are color! Don't even mention B/W. Even my flatbed with default settings gives me better B/W scan results than my 20D (not to mention I will have to add those fake grain for digital shots in PS so I say forget it)
Digital has a long way to go........
The post in Mike's website made one mistake I think. Grain cannot be compared to noise. equivalent to film grain, it's the ugly ordered pixel arrays on CCD or CMOS.
Digital can only simulate the world by its sampling nature. So I say forget it. Wait for a few more years to see if they improve (a vital core improvement other than just increasing the # of pixels) the technology to fool our eyes enough so we won't tell(like digital music does).
Toby
On the alert
I think a lot of the problem for digital b&w is no one's really got the workflow right yet. Ask how to to do a B&W wet print and you'll get pretty much the same answer from everybody ask how to convert a raw file to a b&w one and you'll get a myriad of different answers, In lots of ways the technology of the cameras is and advancing faster than the skills and techniques of digital workflow I've also felt that digital has changed the creative aspect of photography I've not really seen as much that excites me in photography since digital became pre-eminent. Oh just for the hell of it I've attached 2 of my b&w digital images from my 20D I think they're OK but I'm sure you'll all correct me 😀
Attachments
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Socke said:
That is true. Leaving aside that we are talking about digital BW: Velvia wasn't engeneered neither for latitude not for "accurate colours", what ever this might be.
Velvia was made to project a 35mm slide on a screen 10X14ft and still have a saturated sharp presentation. It was invented to make MF obsolete for slide shows in some cases. I've seen travel report projections I could not believe, I had bet an arm or even a more important part of my body ( shiver !) that this was MF !!
So, who NEEDS Velvia at 400 ? Funny Schnickschnack ! There are some few cases where even I would think about taking digital but again, digital B&W looks simply Scheissndreggn , doesn't it ? :angel:
Regards,
Bertram
DxPhoto
Established
Toby said:
If it is a wet prints, I would add some pure green in the printing to bring out the detail in the white area. what are u going to do here?
Toby
On the alert
DxPhoto said:
I usually would split grade print - but more to the point there isn't even a standard way to convert colour digital files to B&W there are at least 3 different options in photoshop and each has their own acolytes. The process to get to your first B&W proof print is pretty much the same for everybody
ywenz
Veteran
Which one(s) are digital?
Last edited:
Andy K
Well-known
ywenz said:
Show me the prints and I'll tell you.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
All of them.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
jaapv said:
Jaap,
I cannot agree at this point, a D70 ot 20d isn't three generations back in my understanding and a Minolta D7 (the worst one for me) either. I've seen these straight white highlights combined with black empty holes filled with absolutely nothing even at shots made with a new 5D in contrasty environments !
So what does that mean in your understanding of the dynamic range ? Do these folks simply not know how to activate the full range of their cameras ? Or where does that come from ? It cannot be a solely prob of bad postprocessing I'd say?
Regards,
bertram
DxPhoto
Established
ywenz said:
at least show the 100% crops
Honus
carpe diem
ywenz said:
They're all digital. I'm looking at them on a computer 😀
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
I think he meant to ask which pics were originally taken with a digital camera. The answer would be all of them.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
ywenz said:Which one(s) are digital?
These are scans, hard to say. No prob to trim a scan on the digi look. At least they all look very digital and demonstrate perfectly what I do not like :angel:
Sorry 😱
Bertram
Toby
On the alert
ywenz said:
Similar threads
