S
Socke
Guest
ywenz said:
Wow, I have to try this film! My experiences are with Delta3200 and that's grainy as hell.
HU: B&W -- film vs. digital
- Thread starter sircarl
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 158
- Views 9K
Wow, I have to try this film! My experiences are with Delta3200 and that's grainy as hell.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Toby said:
I agree, completely. For press photogs the whole thing is a non-issue, they would be nuts to still use film. And yes, flash and fill in flash compensates the digital deficites well for those guys.
The RF crowds approach is different tho, as you say. Maybe, to increase the dynamic range it would help to reduce the ISO spread, ,the usual 100 to 3200 is paid with a reduced dynamic range.
On the other hand don't we all like and favor these cameras exactly for lowlight environments ? A digital RF with a 100 -400 spread would not make much sense, this is P&S level.
The best digital photos btw I've seen were made with the DMR back btw, if Leica keeps on going in this direction with the DM this would be a real step forward.
bertram
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
ywenz said:Bertram: I had processed those digitals in that high contrast fashion. I can bring out much more info than what I've shown in my examples. I'll post a new version later tonight.
The Neopan one is actually 1600 + 1. Below is a slightly larger version. I believe I only adjusted the curves, no noise filters applied because I did not own Noise ninja at the time.
You must have a damn good scanner ! The Neopan scan (and dev !) is just brilliant.
Curious how the less contrasty digital verions will look ! Going to bed now too, 2 p.m. here, and no more beer left 🙁
bertram
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Socke said:
I once used it but forgot the data: Isn't it a true 1200 which needs push steps ?
Or do I mix that up with TMZ 3200 ? TMZ was better IMO, I used it for theater once.
Neopan is great, if correctly souped. Dies in a mass lab.
bertram
DxPhoto
Established
Socke said:
Hi, there is something called ISO in film world. Velvia 100 is only one kind of the films in thefilm world. You can try to push RHP400 2 stop and see the result. If you have not heard of RHP400, or ISO or ASA, try to google them.. You usually won';t find these stuff in your photoshop or dslr manual, or "digital photography for dummies"
lol, just kidding... 😀
ywenz
Veteran
okay, the lower contrast versons of the digital image.. amazing how much more info is hiding in that raw file.
T_om
Well-known
tetrisattack said:
That is exactly what Canon has done with their latest issue of their pro conversion utility, DPP (Digital Photo Professional).
The monochrome conversion directly from RAW is one of the best I have ever seen.
Jeff Ascough is a great B&W wedding photographer. Just recently (within the last year or so) he changed from shooting all his weddings with Leicas to Canon digital. He says the conversions via DPP is giving him better quality than ever.
Nothing counts except the final image. Film or digital, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Pick the one you are comfortable shooting and gives you the look you want.
Tom
T_om
Well-known
John Camp
Well-known
T_om said:
I 90% agree. But there things that count besides the final image -- some people just like the feel of shooting with other kinds of equipment. They don't necessarily shoot pictures that are better, or even as good, as they would with other equipment, they just like the process of *doing it* better. Which is pretty important.
I do, however, continue to believe that digital is every bit as good as film in almost every way, at the sensor/film level, and I'd add that there are now dozens of new papers to digitally print on, and more coming all the time -- I'm constantly reading raves about this or that paper, the different looks, the different feels, the different tones and surfaces. I think digital really pushes photography into a somewhat different art form than silver. Not better, necessarily, but certainly wider-ranging.
I think digital already is to film what film was to glass plates; and there are a few people around who still do good work with glass plates.
JC
wintoid
Back to film
This is not a religion. You don't have to choose just one (apart from financial constraints of course). Personally, I'm riding both horses.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No you don't start with an interpolated image, the argument was that you would remove the interpolation stap from the software..fgianni said:
Toby
On the alert
wintoid said:
You're going to get a visit from the RF inquisition....bet you weren't expecting that 😀
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
ywenz said:okay, the lower contrast versons of the digital image.. amazing how much more info is hiding in that raw file.
I see. a bit muddy or foggy now tho, lost the brilliance, would you allow me to load it down for some fiddeling with the curves ?
Bertram
S
Socke
Guest
Toby said:
Nobody expects the inquisition 😛
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
jaapv said:
Yes but only after removing the Colour Filter!
If you keep the Colour Filter you can't remove the interpolation step, it'll end up looking a mess.
Essentially:
1) Colour Filter on needs Interpolation even if you are only interested in monochrome, so if you leave the filter on you WILL start with an interpolated image
2) Colour filter physically removed but interpolation on gives little or no advantage for monochrome and will make colour look very funny
3) Colour filter removed and interpolation stage removed will probably have a big advantage for monochrome but will not be able to produce a colour image at all (since it is the interpolation stage that procuces the colour image)
I hope I managed to explain it clearly this time
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
T_om said:
Well, Tom, isn't this exactly what we are talking about here all the time ?
I've seen nobody in this thread rejecting digital technology because of any principle reasons, or did I miss something ? It was all about the look and who likes what..
Tho this is a different discussion which thank god was avoided 'til now by all who have contributed here, let me add that I would not ever agree to your statement above, which is btw quite principle itself: How to get there (to the final image) , I mean the whole process beginning with the choice of the camera,, does count for me indeed. It determines my whole relationship to photography.
Regards,
Bertram
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Thanks. You sure did; I did not realise that the colour filter needs interpolation in the software, as, obviously, the pixels, as such, do not record colour information.fgianni said:
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
T_om said:
I am under the impression that Ascough is a film-based wedding photographer. Where did you read that he uses digital for his weddings?
willie_901
Veteran
Conor wrote:
"but then I realized - the color filter array being what it is, you'd have to interpolate each photosite with its nearest neighbors to get a pixels that looked panchromatic, instead of like a checkerboard."
Using information about nearest neighbor pixels is used in medical image analysis software (MRI for instance). so, don't let this stop you.
willie
"but then I realized - the color filter array being what it is, you'd have to interpolate each photosite with its nearest neighbors to get a pixels that looked panchromatic, instead of like a checkerboard."
Using information about nearest neighbor pixels is used in medical image analysis software (MRI for instance). so, don't let this stop you.
willie
ywenz
Veteran
Bertram: be my guest.
Similar threads
