If faked B/W is OK do we still need real B/W?

[Bryan Lee]

Analog and digital will always be 2 seperate things but the lines between them are blurred more everyday and they can complement each other. As far as film goes some small offshore firm will always provide it as long as their is any market. What do you think will happen to the machines from kodak as they shut them down, They will sell them off and some small company may put them back into use. The biggest problem they have is chemical manufacturing regulations and and the costs involved. Offshore "China, Russia, Mexico" dont have any of these extra exspenses. I recently made the statement that it wasnt worth it to learn photoshop because it was to complecated and burdonsom. I will now take that back and say I was wrong. A few hours learning this can help with a final process and help explore ones creativity. All of these things are just tools and the mind is the most powerful processer behind their use.

Im just seeing some of the advangages, howabout a digitaly scanned and processed analog negative projected with a digital screen projector onto traditional developing paper. What would you call that?

 

[Socke]

I shoot, develop and scan B/W because I can do it 🙂

APX400, HP-5 and Tri-X in D-76/ID-11 or Amaloco AM74 are so forgiving that even I can't mess it up.

I'm honing my skills with FP4 developed in Neofin Blue so I can get the ultimate sharpness one time.

Environmental risks are not that big a problem, I store my used chemicals in two 5 litre containers and bring them to a local waste collection plant later. It doesn't even cost money for the limited quantities a hobby user has.

When I travel I shoot slide and B/W film in my Contax G2 and C-41 in my TVS. That's why I wanted a second G body so I can have one with slide and one with B/W all the time 🙂

And back to "faked" B/W, why would I convert bad "high res" scans which are around 1300x1800 pixels at best to B/W when I can do that with 2000x3000 pixels out of my Canon D60 without the need to buy film and pay a lab to develop and scan?

 

[Socke]

T
Would you want a real Ferrari or a cheap replica of a Ferrari? It looks like a Ferrari, but when you look close it is nowhere near as good as a Ferrari.

I'd want a Lotus Elise or a Caterham Super 7 🙂

The new Supersportscars have electronic fuel injection and ignition, Anti Skid Brakes and some sort of stability controll and fully automated gearboxes.

If you want to drive a car capable of 200mph or more you need lots of electronic helpers.
The car analogy to B/W is a '67 Corvete or Shelby Cobra.

Have a look at a Porsche 911 or Ferrari F360, electonic fuel injection and ignition, electronic gearbox, electronic brakes, electronic traction controll, electronic power steering, electronic stability controll ....

 

[Andy K]

Socke, you missed the analogy. A real Ferrari or an imitation? A real black and white photograph from black and white film or a desaturated imitation?

 

[Andy K]

I'd want a Lotus Elise or a Caterham Super 7 🙂

I would not want either, I'll go for an Ariel Atom.

 

[Socke]

No, I didn't miss it! Race a 1989 Porsche Turbo without any electronic assistance around the "Nordschleife" and try a 2003 model after that.

I know some who would tell you that a Ferrari F360 is just a fake for kids with rich parents but not a real sportscar.

 

[Andy K]

No, I didn't miss it! Race a 1989 Porsche Turbo without any electronic assistance around the "Nordschleife" and try a 2003 model after that.

I know some who would tell you that a Ferrari F360 is just a fake for kids with rich parents but not a real sportscar.

You have missed the analogy completely. You are comparing OLD real Porsche to NEW real Porsche. That is NOT the comparison I am making. I am NOT comparing film and digital, you are.

I am comparing REAL bw to desaturated colour.

 

[Socke]

Yes, a '89 Porsche turbo is real, a 2003 Porsche turbo is desaturated 🙂

A "sportscar" with aircondition?

 

[Andy K]

Maybe you missed this too.

I would not want either, I'll go for an Ariel Atom.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

TVR refuses to fit ABS and airbags to their cars.

 

[fgianni]

There is no such thing as a 'digital darkroom', it is a computer workstation. If you never tried a real darkroom it is time for you to try it.

Sorry Andy, but words are there just to communicate, people commonly uses the term:

"digital darkroom"

as a convenient way to refer to

"a computer workstation with a high resolution colour display, a photo editing software, a photo quality printer and optionally an high resolution film scanner"

And what makes terms like "digital darkroom" exist is people using them, not your wishes.

You may disagree with the way the term came into existance, but if you deny that it exist you are just deluding yourself.

 

[Andy K]

Sorry Andy, but words are there just to communicate, people commonly uses the term:

"digital darkroom"

as a convenient way to refer to

"a computer workstation with a high resolution colour display, a photo editing software, a photo quality printer and optionally an high resolution film scanner"

And what makes terms like "digital darkroom" exist is people using them, not your wishes.

You may disagree with the way the term came into existance, but if you deny that it exist you are just deluding yourself.

The people who think that using a computer is the same as using a darkroom are the ones who are deluding themselves.

 

[Bryan Lee]

Im sitting in my digital darkroom as I write, one side is lined with sinks with another wall of wires and computer gear with 2 sattleites conected and on the other a cabinit full of chemicals. In the middle is a dry work station with a LPL enlarger for medium format.

 

[fgianni]

Socke, you missed the analogy. A real Ferrari or an imitation? A real black and white photograph from black and white film or a desaturated imitation?

What makes you think it's an imitation?

When converting color pictures in photoshop but I do the conversion aming to a result that is pleasing to my eye, and not to imitate anything that can be achieved with film.

So unless you try to imitate something it can't be an imitation.

 

[fgianni]

The people who think that using a computer is the same as using a darkroom are the ones who are deluding themselves.

Did I write anywhere that using a digital darkroom is the same as using a wet darkroom?
There are some similarities that justify the use of the term, but no it's not the same, and I still to find someone that says so.

 

[jaap]

Hold a good real fibre based print in your hands and you know the answer!

 

[Nikon Bob]

If digital was here first and then, after many years, you were given the option of doing traditional B&W the arguements given here might be reversed by those involved. There are good reasons to use either of the options, or both, you now have. I am thankful to have an option in the matter and have made a choice but I will not argue with anyone or tell them my choice is superior to theirs. What works for one does not work for others for many different reasons. It is not a matter of needing one or the other but a choice you did not have before.

Bob

 

[Andy K]

What makes you think it's an imitation?

When converting color pictures in photoshop but I do the conversion aming to a result that is pleasing to my eye, and not to imitate anything that can be achieved with film.

So unless you try to imitate something it can't be an imitation.

The only way to make true black and white photographs is to start from true black and white film etc. If it comes from a colour image which was then desaturated, whether on a computer or using a darkroom, then it is an imitation of the original black and white film (or glass plate, tin type etc.) medium.

 

[lido]

I personally don't understand this purist vs non-purist discussion. In my mind, photography is a way for people to show others how they see the world, to capture moments for future generations to see, to express one's emotions and views. And who cares which way one chooses to achieve this final goal. It is the final result that counts, be it desaturated scan from colour neg, digital capture, B&W file, B&W C41....

Enjoy the process no matter which one you use and show the world how you see it.

 

[Goodyear]

Dark room is dead, so the B/W will be soon follow the trend, I have seen some pros use color film coverted to B/W, print on inkjet paper. They look very good.

It's interesting. Your reasons kind of mirror my own for using 'real BW', whatever that means.

I have given up processing my own film due to chemical harzad problem

Obviously I am using a PC as I write this, but it's worth bearing in mind that the electronic equipment that makes up the digital darkroom is not what you'd call harmless in ecological terms. Figure in the regular upgrade cycle that many users (especially, I presume, professionals) will give in to and you have a whole lot of highly toxic landfill. Before I started processing at home I checked with my local water authorty regarding safe use and dispopsal of the chemicals, and their impact - they told me not to worry unless I was planning on opening a high-volume line. I can be sure that there is more nasty, evil junk on and under my desk than I will dispose of in used fixer in the next decade.

C41 film is cheap

But in my experience silver-based BW emulsions are cheaper to buy (whether ready to use or in bulk - but especially in bulk which is how I tend to use it, with more eco benefit in that I reuse cassettes) and developing BW at home is much much cheaper than getting C41 done for me.

still easy to process

Especially if you pay a wage monkey with no interest in the cleanliness of your negs to develop it for you.

you can burn on cd in the same time.

I scan the ones I want to scan - it's no big deal for me to do so. And I get them back at much higher res.

Do we still need B/W film?

Do we need anything associated with photography? Not at all. Sure, it's useful and nice to have. 'Real BW' is nice to have. I wouldn't die without it - I may mourn its loss, but I'd vertainly get over it.