HU: B&W -- film vs. digital

[jaapv]

I find it slightly surrealistic that we are comparing two totally different processses here, electronic and chemical, and apparently expect them to come up with exactly the same results. One would not expect an aquarel to be made with oil-paints or a saxophone to produce the same sound as a violin. Let's just accept that both techniques can produce great results without slipping into "what's best" mode.
Btw Bertram, your post had me delving into my bookshelves. It is a pity I cannot reproduce the look of the original sensor output here for copyright reasons, but I did not realise that the first, demosaicing step involved interpolation and the generating of the basic colour information as well. I still have my doubts about the better B&W performance of the Foveon sensor, as, but correct me if I am wrong, the system works by using a colour-shifting membrane and the analog charater of the pixels, so removing colour information would not multiply the number of them.

 

[Socke]

No wonder the government have to build new power stations! Does it have its own supply or is 240V enough?

the P45? It runs on ordinary batteries.

 

[varjag]

Nope. He put away his Leicas a year or two ago. Another thing that might startle you is that he shot regular old C41 process chromogenic film when he DID shoot film.

This is actually not that surprising, perhaps the majority of wedding photographers used C41 color. Slide film wasn't really there when you needed both detail on groom's black suit and tonal gradations on bride's white dress. And the clients were asking for prints anyway 🙂

 

[fgianni]

I did not say that, Socke did.

22mp doesn't even come close to large format. And I mean large format, not half plate or quarter plate, I mean big, beautiful 8x10 and larger negatives.

I think 22mp doesn't even compete with 645, let alone large format, however it is probably better than anything (colour) you can get in 35mm, and even better than most normal B&W films (excluding gigabit film or stuff like that).

By better I mean only from a resolution point of view of course.

 

[Socke]

I think 22mp doesn't even compete with 645, let alone large format, however it is probably better than anything (colour) you can get in 35mm, and even better than most normal B&W films (excluding gigabit film or stuff like that).

By better I mean only from a resolution point of view of course.

Zeiss on Contax 645 and Fuji on Hasselblad H1/H2 max out somewhere between 16 and 22 MPixel. They don't show much improvement from 22 up to 39, that's why M. Reichman bought the Linhof and Rodenstock lenses 🙂

 

[Bertram2]

I find it slightly surrealistic that we are comparing two totally different processses here, electronic and chemical, and apparently expect them to come up with exactly the same results. One would not expect an aquarel to be made with oil-paints or a saxophone to produce the same sound as a violin. Let's just accept that both techniques can produce great results without slipping into "what's best" mode.

No, sorry, digital does not produce great results in B&W photography. And there is no surrealism for me in expecting a certain result ? I know what I want, it had been good for me all my life and so it had been for millions of other photogs.
Rather realistic to expect a new medium to deliver the same result , what had been considered to be perfect for decades is not less perfect or less worth now because some guys found out how to make photos with a halfblind chip and a computer.

Either the new medium delivers the long grown B&W standard we have today or I sort it out. I won't cut down my esthetical expectations tho about how a good BW photo has to look. And I won't accept technical deficites either, just because the medium has limitations.

I once wrote in a Bio that I will try digital first when I will get something like a digital F80 or Bessa R2 for about 700 Euros which produces B&W photos like silver film does . This has been 3 years ago, as far as I can see we did not come much closer to this kind of camera, up 'til today..

My expectation is when B&W will be discovered one day as a niche in the digital market which is still not adressed with satifying products, maybe then the industry will intensify it's efforts to improve digital B&W. And who knows, maybe one day we will have something which really works ? But I' m afraid, to seduce me it must be clearly BETTER than B&W film to make me investing in a new medium! 🙂

Regards
Bertram
BTW it wasn't me speaking about the Foveon chip, somebody else did .

 

[jaapv]

Are you REALLY convinced superior B&W in digital is impossible, Bertram?
http://www.pixiport.com/

 

[varjag]

Great BW in digital is possible, but is far harder to achieve than great BW on film, and the light conditions permitting good BW on digital are fairly limited compared to silver.

 

[Socke]

It allways depends on ones definiton of "Great Results" and what parameters form those results. I can argue why it is good enough for me and another why it will never come close to being good enough for him.

Actualy I'm not only fine with that, I realy like it. Thus we have great potential for never ending discussions and I learn new views on the matter with every answer. I may not be convinced by any argument and others may not be by mine, but that's not important. Important is the exchange of views and information which changes my view and knowledge.

 

[jaapv]

Great BW in digital is possible, but is far harder to achieve than great BW on film, and the light conditions permitting good BW on digital are fairly limited compared to silver.

And it costs serious money.

 

[T_om]

To you maybe (it is interesting that I have only ever seen digital users say that 'only the photograph matters', not a criticism, just an observation). To many of us the photograph and how we make it also matters.

Only digital users? Really?

Baloney.

Ever heard of a guy named Garry Winograd? "Only the photograph matters" is practically a verbatim quote.

And there are several thousand more examples from photography luminaries, including St. Ansel.

Tom

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Maybe we should paraphrase-

Only the photographer matters.

 

[T_om]

This is actually not that surprising, perhaps the majority of wedding photographers used C41 color. Slide film wasn't really there when you needed both detail on groom's black suit and tonal gradations on bride's white dress. And the clients were asking for prints anyway 🙂

Eugene,

Chromogenic film IS true B&W, not a color to B&W conversion. It is merely processed in C41 chemistry.

Illford's XP-1 was the first about 20 years ago. Now there is XP2 and XP2 Super, Kodak T400CN and Kodak's Professional Porta 400BW for a few examples.

And yes, *Color* negative film was the mainstay of professional wedding photography for a very long time. Rapidly being replaced with digital now.

Tom

 

[varjag]

Ah, I somehow missed the "chromogenic" part in your post, sorry.

 

[T_om]

Maybe we should paraphrase-

Only the photographer matters.

Nope.

Again, quoting the gospel according to St. Ansel... he claimed he was happy to get one 'keeper' photograph a month. And he shot a hell of a lot more than one frame a month. Just because Ansel Adams pulled the trigger, it did not mean he hit the target every time.

The photographer does not matter, the process does not matter, the tools do not matter.

The only thing that matters is the end result... the photograph.

Tom

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

This could easily become a "chicken or egg" discussion.

I'll agree, it's about the result - a photograph. Preferably a good one.

Still, you have to have a photographer, and the photographer's experience and sensibilities.

 

[tkluck]

I have also seen arguments from the turn of the century about the merits of employing a draftsman vs. a photographer.
For good Black & White you can't beat India ink!
Witch, by the way, is still avalible in several formulations.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=India+ink&btnG=Search

 

[T_om]

I have also seen arguments from the turn of the century about the merits of employing a draftsman vs. a photographer.
For good Black & White you can't beat India ink!
Witch, by the way, is still avalible in several formulations.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=India+ink&btnG=Search

Ah yes, but is it stirred with hummingbird wings? If not, it is worthless. 😉

Tom

 

[Bertram2]

Are you REALLY convinced superior B&W in digital is impossible, Bertram?
http://www.pixiport.com/

That wasn't what I said, and I did not mean it either. I speak about the status quo only.
Don't know what the future brings. What I meant was digital should be better than silver film then, to give me a reason to change. I mean THAT would be real progress.

I went to the site you pointed out, watched Manns photos there and all I can say the guy works brilliantly around the deficites of digital B&W, related to his style they do not matter too much. My idea of B&W photography is different tho.

Regards,
Bertram

 

[__--]

That being said, most of my 50x60cm prints are from Tri-X negatives. And I love the grain. That is why I asked about resolution. What do 50x60cm b&w prints from 8mp files actually look like?

I'm not sure there is any point answering a question three months after it was asked but last week I made two prints from my Ricoh GR-D: one at at 23x31 inches (58x78 cm) and at 39x52 inches (100x133 cm). The prints look great, particularly as there are a lot of very dark and black tones that print richly and sumptuously on Luster paper with the K3 inks of the Epson 9800 printer. I don't worry much about how to rez up the files: I print using the ImagePrint RIP (ColorByte Software) and simpy let ImagePrint, which apparently sends files to the printer at 360 ppi, scale up the file, exactly the same as I've been doing with much scanned larger files from my Leica-M.

Interestingly, I had asked Ricoh technical support about making such large prints; and they responded that it would be difficult to print at larger than A4 size with the GR-D. But that is very much like people who say that they would never print larger than 8x10 or 11x14 inches from a 35mm negative. Tell that to Moriyama Daido, who now prints at 100x150 cm (40x60 inches) from Tri-X and Neopan 1600 negatives taken with the Ricoh GR1.

The attached picture was shot at ISO 800 and is the first one referred to above.

--Mitch/Bangkok