Godfrey
somewhat colored
There is actually grain and texture throughout the guitar in the full resolution image, although some of it is motion blurred (he was playing it and moving some...).
G
Most Convincing Digital B&W?
- Thread starter Dektol Dan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 5K
There is actually grain and texture throughout the guitar in the full resolution image, although some of it is motion blurred (he was playing it and moving some...).
G
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Indeed it would. Scanning does that. But you can enhance grain further in post-processing if not careful, or indeed if you actually want too. A contrast boost is often enough for the the upper mid-tones, and a contrast reduction for the shadows. Sharpening and definition boost will increase the sense of grain allover.
nongfuspring
Well-known
Totally agree, and a great comparison.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but I'm very bad at organising my photos, and there have been some instances where I mistake SOOC fuji BW jpegs for acros at low magnification. What usually gives it away that a file is BW film rather than digital is the way my lenses render at wider apertures, stopped down it's much harder to differentiate.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
from the expereince with my own results, i tend to prefer scanned film (iso 100 class). i need to admit, that quite often, their typical flickr rendering doesn't show what makes me prefer them. this may be just an indications that my abilities in PP simply suck.
however, there are quite convincing B&W pics with pure digital origin -- as we can see in this thread, for example.
cheers,
s.
however, there are quite convincing B&W pics with pure digital origin -- as we can see in this thread, for example.
cheers,
s.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
For me the best digital black and white I've seen comes from the Sigma Merrills followed closely by the Leica MM.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
There are reasons many chose to shoot B&W and for many it's not an after thought. Adams and many of the zone system B&W photographers considered color barbaric because of the lack of control they had with color. The zone system is a way to capture (as Adams put it) what you see in your minds eye. Which is usually never the way the scene looks in reality.
So through a process of first seeing then control the zones through processing times, developers, developer dilutions, temperatures and other controls (all arrived at through a series of tests) you can control and place tones where you want them to be.
With color film, if you start changing temps and dev times, you start getting drastic color shifts which you can't control.
I think that many photographers see in B&W. A great B&W image isn't usually an after thought (I can't get this to work in color so I'll try it in B&W) it is a process that matches someones vision. B&W is not easier than color, just very different. One is not better than the other overall but one can be better than the other to each individual photographer. Just very different approaches to the medium.
If one sees and works in color so be it. The same with B&W. And some work in both. What is key is finding equipment that matches the way you see and work, whatever that might be. Film, digital, color, B&W, 135, medium or large format, find a tool that works for you.
If you prefer 135 format, FF digital rangefinder and a dedicated B&W camera then the choices are not very large. 2 I think. The original MM and the new MM.
So through a process of first seeing then control the zones through processing times, developers, developer dilutions, temperatures and other controls (all arrived at through a series of tests) you can control and place tones where you want them to be.
With color film, if you start changing temps and dev times, you start getting drastic color shifts which you can't control.
I think that many photographers see in B&W. A great B&W image isn't usually an after thought (I can't get this to work in color so I'll try it in B&W) it is a process that matches someones vision. B&W is not easier than color, just very different. One is not better than the other overall but one can be better than the other to each individual photographer. Just very different approaches to the medium.
If one sees and works in color so be it. The same with B&W. And some work in both. What is key is finding equipment that matches the way you see and work, whatever that might be. Film, digital, color, B&W, 135, medium or large format, find a tool that works for you.
If you prefer 135 format, FF digital rangefinder and a dedicated B&W camera then the choices are not very large. 2 I think. The original MM and the new MM.
MikeWebb
Established
I think that many photographers see in B&W. A great B&W image isn't usually an after thought (I can't get this to work in color so I'll try it in B&W) it is a process that matches someones vision. B&W is not easier than color, just very different. One is not better than the other overall but one can be better than the other to each individual photographer. Just very different approaches to the medium.
I agree that you need to be able to see a scene in B&W which was a skill I lost until recently where I was forced to work in B&W for a project and relearned and loved it.
I also agree that B&W isn't a second best recovery process although sometimes when you look at an image you realise it's strong enough to carry the conversion but I don't think that's the same thing.
I agree that you need to be able to see a scene in B&W which was a skill I lost until recently where I was forced to work in B&W for a project and relearned and loved it.
I also agree that B&W isn't a second best recovery process although sometimes when you look at an image you realise it's strong enough to carry the conversion but I don't think that's the same thing.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I totally agree Mike.
Similar threads
- Article
