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

[david b]

This thread no longer has any value.

 

[Andy K]

This thread no longer has any value.

Very much agreed. I have no time for juvenile foolishness.

 

[Russ]

Digital is the wave of the future. More convenient and "superior" to film and traditional photographic processes in many ways. I'm not denying that. It's just not my way.

I concede however, that scanning a print and sharing it over the internet is also a very satisfying process. I am not anti-digital. I just like using film and printing wet even though it is not the most convenient process to do photography.

As I often do, I tend to agree with Frank on this issue. However, I recently did convert quite a few C/41 color negs to B/W, and the results were pretty good. But, not as good, or archival as burning B/W film to begin with. There's also a mindset that I get into, when loading the rig with Neopan 400, that just isn't there when burning color C-41. I tend to knock out better images, when using B/W film. Perhaps I take it more seriously. When I was introduced to photography (long ago) I had, and perhaps still have, the belief or consciousness, that color neg film was for casual, non-serious snapshhoting (back then, color neg stock wasn't all that good). All of my color work was done on slide film. Nowadays, I burn quite a lot of color neg stock, and it is a much better film these days. But there's nothing like knowing that you've got some nice B/W (Neopan 400 😀 ) film in the rig, and the deep yellow filter screwed on. I always seem to do my best work then....

Frank, what's that remark about digital being "superior" to film? We'll address that remark later...

Russ

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

oh yeah? which is digital and which is film? (no cheating please 🙂 )

#1 --> film
#2 --> digital

For you to say otherwise, is cheating. 😉

But this doesn't prove anything. You're not showing the whole workflow, or should I say, most importantly, you're not showing the original color scene, and that is what we're supposedly discussing, and seems to be getting lost here, into some pointless discussion of "film vs. digital".

The question is (I assume), if simulated B&W via other means other than using B&W film is OK, do we still need real B&W film? Which I think is as logical as saying that if any moron can earn millions of dollars, do we still need to go to school to "educate" ourselves?

 

[bmattock]

Bill Mattock-You know, it's likely I would agree with almost anything you may post, on most issues. But I think you're wrong on the end of film.

Not to get too far into it, but the movie industr still uses film and despite the push to digitize, it will be a while before they abandon it. On the chemical side, I would not be surprised to find an alternative method of film manufacture using new chemistry-too much demand, too many people looking for a demand to satisfy.

I would be thrilled to be wrong about this, believe me.

The movies industry uses thousands of miles less film than the consumer film market. They represent a small and shrinking percentage of film sales. Sorry, but they will be pushed kicking and screaming into digital, it is not they who will force the film industry to keep making film. The money is flowing the wrong way for that to happen.

On the chemistry side - man, that would be great, and I'd be all for it.

The only thing that gives me a negative (get it, 'negative'?) feeling about it is that we don't graduate too many chemistry majors anymore. Biochemical, maybe.

Oh, but I did start a thread on possible future alternative to silver-based B&W film - I was pooh-poohed. Get it? Pooh-pooed? It was e.coli-based light registration, get it? I swear, I slay myself.

Seriously, someone else mentioned that some third-world country may well let a new B&W factory be built in the future - and that is true. Demand would have to hit a certain peak, but I suppose it could happen. I'm not sure if I want to hope for that, though. Do you want to be part of the demand that creates another Bhopal? I'm not saying it would happen that way, just a concern if environmental corners were cut to make cheap B&W film in some country willing to look the other way.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[pesphoto]

wah, for these who mess with wet dark room chemicals, I bet if you have a basement, you never check the Radon level, you have no idea about MSDS means. you do not have family or you just do not care about their healthy.
Can you dump your monitor in a regular dumper? your trash man will not pick up. but you can dump your chemical to your home sink. The color converted BW quality to some people is good enough, if few purist nuts disagree, that's fine. We do not want a uniform voice. Only idiot Call other people idiot.

Really, youre taking this a bit too personally. Maybe try less coffee.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Very much agreed. I have no time for juvenile foolishness.

Andy, I am now in agreement with you. This may have place in a Junior High School debate class. I don't know why I got pulled in.

To infinity, and beyonder! :dance:

 

[bmattock]

This thread no longer has any value.

Certainly it would make no sense for a person who originally thought a fellow member was an idiot and said so would not find value in continuing to read and post to the thread.

As a friend of mine once noted when I complained about being surrounded by idiots - "If you've managed to let a group of idiots surround you...how smart does that make you?"

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Bertram2]

Do we still need B/W film?

Who is "WE" ?? 😕 Some do, some don't, I do.

bertram

 

[FrankS]

Russ, the last thing I want to do is to convince anyone that digital is in any way inferior to traditonal photographic materials and processes. I WANT lots of photographers to migrate completely to digital. I want the crowd to go that way, and just leave me (and some others with the same ideals) alone to do what we love to do, the way we love to do it.

 

[Russ]

Can you still find wet plate? guys move on

But wet plate, is more archival than digital. 😀 Just kidding guys.

Russ

 

[Russ]

Russ, the last thing I want to do is to convince anyone that digital is in any way inferior to traditonal photographic materials and processes. I WANT lots of photographers to migrate completely to digital. I want the crowd to go that way, and just leave me (and some others with the same ideals) alone to do what we love to do, the way we love to do it.

Frank

I know what you menat. I was just slingin' some sh.. your way. Teasing you. 😉

Russ

 

[Russ]

anyone change his mind because of anything written here?

joe

Yes Joe. I've decided to watch some Football, than go street shooting afterwards. B/W film of course 😀

Russ

 

[Dan Chang]

Dan, pleaase just let it go. Live and let live, okay?

Purist nut.

Frank it is just for you not for me

 

[nrb]

Final image is important, not the film you use to get there.

 

[Dan Chang]

Very much agreed. I have no time for juvenile foolishness.

Andy
I was bit upset by your comments. This is an open forum, members have right to express their opinons as long as not to again any rules. My chairman is a the famous and the rich, but he does not know how to make a powerpoint presentation and replay e-mail. I am not sure you have tried photoshop. I have more than 10 years wet dark room experience. If you want to mix your chemical in your house, that's your choice, even you drink it I do not care. Is real BW better than faked BW? maybe, but they are getting closer. at least after I scan my BW I can remove dusts scratch in the computer, I can burn dodge on the computer, if I do not like it, I can re-do it. Wet dark room? you can re do it too, but waste material.

 

[Bryan Lee]

wah, for these who mess with wet dark room chemicals, I bet if you have a basement, you never check the Radon level, you have no idea about MSDS means. you do not have family or you just do not care about their healthy.
Can you dump your monitor in a regular dumper? your trash man will not pick up. but you can dump your chemical to your home sink. The color converted BW quality to some people is good enough, if few purist nuts disagree, that's fine. We do not want a uniform voice. Only idiot Call other people idiot.

While you make some valid points and it is in general a good topic with plenty of fire I totaly disagree with the fantasy of green computers. It might have to go into a special dumpster but where does it go after that. India, Thailand, Mexico, where the poorest of the poor smash and burn them inside their hovels while their children watch and all expose themselves to nasty carcinigens trying to recover metals for a pittance. There is plenty of nasty information on the disposal of moniters alone muchless the rest of the gear that goes along with it. How about the huge batterys required in digital photogrphy verses manual shuttered analog cameras. For the purist zealots heres something for you.

In one of my other activities A argument raged on about traditional vs. non traditional and it was concluded any electric device used in the process of making said item excluded it from being traditional. Lets start first with light inside the enlarger, the powersource is regulated by computers before it gets to your darkroom and then most likely it runs through a power stabilizer and then into a fancy Enlarger Computer/Timer and only then into the acutual light source. I wont even bother with digital scales, tempature controls, anylizers and the rest of the gear.

At this point I dont have much interest in digital cameras outside of point and shoot for my family. I had to eat my words about other digital issues and have completely gone the other route and see digital as a tool or middle process for my images. I plan to try and keep the digital part in the office and continue to use film and print on paper using a projected light and chemical process but even that may not last forever. Anyone who uses anything more than pinhole or lense and cap photography onto glass plate negatives with the sun as a light source for contact prints has already adapted to new technique. How many computers does anyone think they use at Eastmon Kodak to prepare film, package and ditribute it?

 

[ywenz]

The question is (I assume), if simulated B&W via other means other than using B&W film is OK, do we still need real B&W film? Which I think is as logical as saying that if any moron can earn millions of dollars, do we still need to go to school to "educate" ourselves?

What is so cruicial about a formal education when you're savvy enough to make it out there and strike it rich? What's a degree gonna give you? nothing...

oh and you guessed wrong.. digital is the first one. you can save the pic and check the exif to confirm. My example was in response to the other guy's comment of digital being too clean. My example was shot at 3200iso and it is full of grain! (er.. noise)

I WANT lots of photographers to migrate completely to digital. I want the crowd to go that way, and just leave me (and some others with the same ideals) alone to do what we love to do, the way we love to do it.

Why do you say that? You want film to go away for good?

 

[peterc]

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

Going back to the original question, I'd say the operative word is "OK".
OK is fine for most instances, hence the popularity of C41 process films. However, my experience has been that those who want colour that is better than OK use slide films. And, while desaturation of C41 colour or the use of chromogenic B&W are options, those who want better than OK B&W must use B&W film.

Peter

 

[Socke]

After 24 exp Tura Pro 400, two pints Newcastle Brown Ale and haveing talked to two beautiful ladies I think I made my mind up.

First of all I need film to use my rangefinders and B/W is the most conveniant and cheapest fim for my purposes.