If you are shooting B&W ONLY and can only choose one, which one?

[Godfrey]

Could You post a comparison image?

Thanks.

A posted comparison image generally does no good when you're comparing a pair of prints. The dynamics of viewing a print are vastly different from the dynamics of looking at an image on a display, never mind how the image is changed by rendering it to an electronic representation.

A display image is at best an approximation of a print, and a print is at best a goal for a display image to achieve.

G

 

[Bill Clark]

A display image is at best an approximation of a print, and a print is at best a goal for a display image to achieve.

Agree.

Well put.

We have a job to do to get others to look at photographs the same way.

 

[icebear]

I don't have the possibilty to set up a wet darkroom.
No regular lab. consistantly satisfies my expectations on developing my film:
- no dust
- no scratches
- no fingerprints
No one can interpret my idea of the print from the negative as I would in the darkroom.
The MM and the digital darkroom (no home printing though) has put me back in control of my bw photography.
And I l o v e it 😀.
Besides that, the quality of the MM files by far exceeds anything I have ever achieved with film.
Changing ISO on the fly when you have been pushing TMY to 800 for concert shots just gives me a big grin 😀.

 

[shadowfox]

Film. Color or B&W, it doesn't matter.
I welcome the challenge of creating a good B&W darkroom print from a color negative. 🙂

Now, if someone can make it viable to do darkroom printing from a digital file, I may hesitate for a while.

 

[john neal]

A year or so ago I would have said film, but since I have tried the Monochrom, I don't think I will be so certain. In fact, I think the MM will be first choice.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

B&W film for me. I've had some good results from colour film scanned and converted in PP and digital files run through Nik Silver Efex Pro - but I still feel there's nothing better than B&W film.

 

[behyer]

Color capture.
When I shot film, my favorite formula was Tri-X at 200, and pulling the development time 20%. This gave me the longest tonal scale to start with, and then I could choose how contrasty to make it in the darkroom. Now, I shoot a color image digitally, and I get to choose how it's converted to B&W later. And I can even convert different parts of an image with different "filters."
Always, always, capture the most image information as possible. Then make the conversions. You can't go back and re-capture it later.

 

[JoeV]

Film. Color or B&W, it doesn't matter.
I welcome the challenge of creating a good B&W darkroom print from a color negative. 🙂

Now, if someone can make it viable to do darkroom printing from a digital file, I may hesitate for a while.

I've heard printing inkjet onto Pictorio transparency film as a viable way of producing digital negatives for contact printing onto silver paper.

~Joe

 

[kxl]

Now, if someone can make it viable to do darkroom printing from a digital file, I may hesitate for a while.

You could do this (Salgado method; from The Online Photographer):

1. Shoot with a digital camera
2. RAW demosaic (+ exposure correction, I suspect)
3. Process with DxO Film Pack for Kodak TriX 400 or TMax 3200 film simulation.
4. Print that image to a 35mm technical film internegative*** (so you have a real negative whose image simulates his favorite old films without adding grain).
5. Print the internegative to silver halide paper in Parisian darkroom using his regular printer.

*** Although I don't know where you'd find internegative film

 

[pmu]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been any progress in digital enlargers in the past few years... Or is De Vere still the only one?

 

[shortstop]

Durst lambda

 

[shortstop]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been any progress in digital enlargers in the past few years... Or is De Vere still the only one?

Durst lambda