MM -image rendering

[froyd]

For those of you who came from film to digital Ms, particularly the MM, do you miss the different personalities of specific emulsions (say Delta vs FP4, BW400CN vs TMZ).

Do the digital sensors have what you would define as a neutral look? Are you generally happy with that look, or do you feel like third party software (e.g. Silver Effects) is a necessity?

PS- not trolling here, genuinely interested because not being familiar with digital I cannot wrap my head around the idea of being "stuck" with one sensor...

 

[jaapv]

The MM produces extremely malleable files, so basically you can tweak it into any look you fancy.

 

[lynnb]

...do you miss the different personalities of specific emulsions (say Delta vs FP4, BW400CN vs TMZ).

...Do the digital sensors have what you would define as a neutral look? Are you generally happy with that look, or do you feel like third party software (e.g. Silver Effects) is a necessity?

The idea of a RAW digital file is to be as neutral as possible, capturing the maximum amount of tonal information. That gives you maximum flexibility in post processing to get whatever look you want - including more than one interpretation of the original scene using different development software, plug-ins, and development settings. With film you make some of that decision pre-capture with choice of film and you can then adjust that look in processing. With digital, you might visualise a particular look pre-capture, but none of the parameters are locked in at the time of exposure. Development software including plug-ins are your artistic tools. You can use those tools to emulate film emulsions or you can use them to try something entirely different.

... I cannot wrap my head around the idea of being "stuck" with one sensor...

The only thing you're stuck with is the dynamic range of the sensor, its resolution, and its ISO range and noise characteristics. With RAW you have a lot of flexibility to play within those limits.

From what I've seen the MM has very wide DR, excellent resolution, good ISO range and low noise. Jaap's comment about the malleability of MM files is great news as it means you can push and pull the tonal curves in post processing without introducing unwanted digital artefacts, like loss of tonal smoothness and clipping in shadows and highlights.

 

[froyd]

[...] Development software including plug-ins are your artistic tools. You can use those tools to emulate film emulsions or you can use them to try something entirely different.

That sounds very interesting. If I went digital, I think at first I would treat it as a somewhat more convenient analogue of film. I.e. I would try to replicate the look of film to create images to match the aesthetic parameters I've grown accustomed to while using film.

However, I feel there something limiting about using digital to emulate a specific emulsion or film look (e.g. filed negative carriers). Seems to me that to "try something entirely different" is worth exploring. I guess HDR is part of that, something much more easily achieved with digital than film. There must be more, though without spilling over in the field of illustration.

What are some good examples of photographers using digital BW to create looks impossible or very hard to do with film?

I like the idea of treating digital either as a film replacement (with the ability to change ISO speeds on the fly) or a something more...but what exactly?

 

[lynnb]

Some samples. These were taken with a 5D (original) but the principles apply to any RAW digital capture. The MM has much better IQ than the 5D, though no colour channel information. I'm really not sure if I could have got these results using film and darkroom, although I may be corrected!

original. Reminded me of calligraphy.

after playing in LR and CS4 I got what I had visualised:

here's another that I don't know if I could have got the same result with film. With this one it was the repeating vertical stalks that got my attention, with an interesting b/g.

Note how in both these examples, RAW capture is very flat looking. RAW is like a blank canvas awaiting your processing interpretation/s.

original

intermediate step

final result

 

[froyd]

Thanks for the examples Lynn- your work is a delight to see in the gallery each week!

I would say that bot examples could duplicated in the darkroom, but not with nearly as much speed and ease (especially #1).

I print digitally, and find that the tweaks available on screen give me results that my darkroom skill would not match easily, if at all!

 

[Calzone]

That sounds very interesting. If I went digital, I think at first I would treat it as a somewhat more convenient analogue of film. I.e. I would try to replicate the look of film to create images to match the aesthetic parameters I've grown accustomed to while using film.

However, I feel there something limiting about using digital to emulate a specific emulsion or film look (e.g. filed negative carriers). Seems to me that to "try something entirely different" is worth exploring. I guess HDR is part of that, something much more easily achieved with digital than film. There must be more, though without spilling over in the field of illustration.

What are some good examples of photographers using digital BW to create looks impossible or very hard to do with film?

I like the idea of treating digital either as a film replacement (with the ability to change ISO speeds on the fly) or a something more...but what exactly?

I use to be a B&W film only die-hard, but now I own a Monochrom.

I look upon digital as a separate medium, to me it is what it is, and doing any comparisions to me seems like a waste of time. I find it entertaining though the heated debates, the film verses digital wars, and all the arguing that seems to make not a lot of sense. I see too much rigid thinking at work here that is limiting rather than the experimenting that is creative.

As a B&W only shooter the Monochrome is kind of my dream camera being small, uncomplicated (meaning not having all these unwanted or un-needed features) and being able to do things I can't in film like clean high ISO. Also know that I shoot a lot of medium format and the resolution from the MM provides that detailed look of a larger format. It is clean like Fuji Arcos, and I have to laugh that some people say they hate Arcos because it looks digital. LOL. I guess these same people dislike large format. LOL.

As far as examples that compares to digital in film photography, what I actually do is use a compensating developer (Diafine) to add dynamic contrast range with added high light and shadow detail that is a in a way HDR using film. BTW I intend on still shooting vast amounts of film and know that presently I don't scan.

Cal

 

[airfrogusmc]

I use to be a B&W film only die-hard, but now I own a Monochrom.

I look upon digital as a separate medium, to me it is what it is, and doing any comparisions to me seems like a waste of time. I find it entertaining though the heated debates, the film verses digital wars, and all the arguing that seems to make not a lot of sense. I see too much rigid thinking at work here that is limiting rather than the experimenting that is creative.

As a B&W only shooter the Monochrome is kind of my dream camera being small, uncomplicated (meaning not having all these unwanted or un-needed features) and being able to do things I can't in film like clean high ISO. Also know that I shoot a lot of medium format and the resolution from the MM provides that detailed look of a larger format. It is clean like Fuji Arcos, and I have to laugh that some people say they hate Arcos because it looks digital. LOL. I guess these same people dislike large format. LOL.

As far as examples that compares to digital in film photography, what I actually do is use a compensating developer (Diafine) to add dynamic contrast range with added high light and shadow detail that is a in a way HDR using film. BTW I intend on still shooting vast amounts of film and know that presently I don't scan.

Cal

Great post Cal and I totally agree.