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

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

  • Total voters
    423
Bruno Gracia said:
Could You post a comparison image?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Well put.

We have a job to do to get others to look at photographs the same way.
 
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 :D.
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 :D.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
shadowfox said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

~Joe
 
shadowfox said:
Now, if someone can make it viable to do darkroom printing from a digital file, I may hesitate for a while.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom