Most Convincing Digital B&W?

[Dektol Dan]

Okay, most folks already have their take on this, so I guess I can kick this off with mine. Even with 'ever improving' technology I do not believe that newer always equals better, and I also believe that there will be digital camera 'classics'.

Most (but not all) digital B&W imagery is dependent on post processing, so with that in mind I spent an afternoon on this site and Flickr looking for B&W images that I thought looked the most like film. If you think that digital B&W is now its own unique imagery and film is just a past era, then this thread is not meant for you.

From best to common, here are my choices for most convincing B&W digital:

Leica MM
Leica M8
Tied: Leica X1, X2 group, Fuji X100 group, Leica M9
Tied: Sony Alpha Group, Leica 246

So what are your choices?

 

[RMPoole]

I'd say the postprocessing must be at least as important as the camera.

 

[Godfrey]

I'd say the postprocessing must be at least as important as the camera.

Yes, that.

By and large, until you get to extreme situations at the limits of a particular camera's capabilities, what you get from rendering monochrome from any digital camera is far more dependent on proper exposure and your use of image processing tools than the capabilities of the camera.

G

 

[mfogiel]

From what I have seen on the web, Leica Monochrom and Leica S2 have the most film like rendering, providing the DR does not exceed 4-5 stops. Maybe the new Phase 1 Achromatic would be interesting as well, but there are not many images around for the moment. When I went recently to Milan, Mr Watanabe who runs the New Old Camera shop told me, the new Monochrom will be better than the old one on many counts, but for him it looks "too grainless" even at higher iso's.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I'd also be curious to know what camera, in people's opinion, offers the best out-of-camera BW jpegs. That can be a fun way to shoot, if you know results will be pretty good. Fuji X?

 

[Pete B]

I've been surprised at how many times I've been impressed by a B+W image to then discover it was via an M8. It probably has something to do with the UV (or is it IR) sensitivity. The poor (or wise) man's Monochrom.
Pete

 

[micromontenegro]

In my experience, the M8 indeed.

 

[Dwig]

I'd say the postprocessing must be at least as important as the camera.

In my experience, post processing is vastly more important for quality prints than the camera.

 

[Dwig]

... I spent an afternoon on this site and Flickr looking for B&W images that I thought looked the most like film....

This seems like an odd approach. Anything you see on this site and on Flickr can't look like "film". Those images can only look like "film converted to digital".

I feel that the only way to really judge a film vs digital debate is to judge prints. The B&W "wet" prints that I have, both my own past work and that of a few other photographers, are my references for my newer digital work. I can't say that my digital B&W prints match the silver prints, but they are certainly very close, close enough that few would be able to reliably sort them by type.

 

[CliveC]

Can you also look at the Ricoh GXR M-mount (or even the A12 50mm or 28mm lensors) and give your verdict? I quite like the way it renders.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Yea, they looks spectacular! On Flickr 🙂

In terms of closer to b/w film it is M8 often.
Few times - M9.

Few digital cameras I have seen on Flickr which aren't "plastic-fantastic" are:

iPhone's b/w, don't know which version and app is in use for b/w.
Jan Dobrovsky has some sweet&cheese ones.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/paphylo/tags/iphone/

Boris Kireev files from Nikon CoolPix A doesn't hurt my eye as most of digital b/w.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rodinabob/sets/72157649066829219

And..."followed closely" by my $40 Panasonic 8MPs P&S JPEG1 files taken in camera B/W mode. Next to zero PP. But most likely it is biased! 🙂

 

[back alley]

rd1...can't believe no one has mentioned it.

 

[MikeWebb]

Isn't this all rather pointless as it depends what film you would target, what processing you'd apply to that film, what paper you'd print on and what effect you're going for.

I am reasonably impressed with the X100 and X-Pro but processed through Silver Efex Pro like here https://www.flickr.com/photos/mike_webb/sets/72157651784630862 but maybe I have missed the point.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I'd like to see links to specific images.

Personally, i don't believe a Monochrom has any advantage toward creating convincing B&W images unless perhaps you're going for a large format aesthetic, which i don't really care for. I like 120 and 135 film, which includes grain, and is almost never an exercise in representing the most/smoothest tonal gradations. I like some grit or bite in a photograph, and once you've put a grain sim on a file, you can do that with most cameras.

What people might be seeing is that a Monochrom user probably has a greater interest in- and incentive to demonstrate high quality results, and is probably more in tune with quality imaging than someone who buys a digital Rebel. And, he's given Silver Efex which is going to give better results than an amateurish, simple desaturation.

Really, though, i still haven't seen anything from a Monochrom or M-whatever that makes me want one. You can get the same or better results at under a quarter of the price.

 

[back alley]

digital that looks like film is not important to me.
i like b&w digital that looks digital.
digital is not film...i think that's pretty simple for most to understand.
they are different...like apples and raspberries...this incessant crap from folks like ned is just ****ing boring as hell.

 

[Corran]

Personally, i don't believe a Monochrom has any advantage toward creating convincing B&W images unless perhaps you're going for a large format aesthetic, which i don't really care for. I like 120 and 135 film, which includes grain, and is almost never an exercise in representing the most/smoothest tonal gradations.

The varied opinions about what one wants to see in a b&w image is probably the heart of this constant debate.

Personally I am sick and tired of the overly contrasty, grainy mush that a lot of people shoot with 35mm. I get the aesthetic but I don't like it. Shooting 400 speed film in daylight and pushing it to 800 is just inane, to me. But if that's what you want, it'll make a big difference in your post-processing of digital files.

Myself, I was shooting 100-speed 4x5 handheld this weekend! 😀

 

[RMPoole]

A lot of people speak highly of the VCSO presets, I quite like the tri-x simulations. Also as someone said silver efex pro is popular. But then I'm new to rangefinders and shot very little b&w when I did shoot film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

... Shooting 400 speed film in daylight and pushing it to 800 is just inane...

😱
I was told what Garry Winogrand was doing it. 😎

Right now I'm revisiting his archives:
http://ccp-emuseum.catnet.arizona.e...ate:flow=7630a048-cca6-4fb0-b310-a64363b1bc13

And it confirms one more time my own internal conclusion as bw film user.
BW prints scans are something I'm more pleased vs b/w film scans.

 

[Corran]

Remember, it's just an opinion. I've done it before on an overcast day, but not full sunlight. I'm thinking more about the Moriyama aesthetic, or close to that level of contrast, which I think is ugly. The Winogrand images you linked have a wonderful tonal scale, though I haven't seen any in person.

Prints vs. scans are certainly different. On that note, b&w film processing that I've dialed in which scans beautifully are often hard to print in the darkroom.

 

[Pioneer]

IMHO the only digital camera I have used that produces good black & white prints is the Monochrom. I rented it 3 times and then finally bought it.

I am working with it but I still am not totally happy with my prints in comparison to black and white film. However, I do feel that the limitation is my own, not the software or the hardware. I am confident that it can be done. Once I reach the point where I feel I am producing really good digital black and white prints I may finally be ready to move totally to digital...maybe.