mfogiel
Veteran
I have been observing over the years the excitement of photo enthusiasts about new models of digital cameras, however so far, there is no camera, that I regard as satisfactory enough, to make me abandon shooting B&W film. I would like to explain the reasons, and indicate what could be a tipping point for me to switch.
1) RESOLUTION
I am an occasional landscape shooter, and there is no doubt, that high resolution, rich micro detail and textures are helpful in producing great prints, however in practice, I am not printing that big, normally A3+ is my limit, and when I will change the printer, A2 is going to be the maximum that I'd go for.
Therefore, I believe, that if we speak about monochrome sensors, even 18MP are enough, although when I see my scans from 6x7 come out at 82MB, I wonder how the comparison would look like in practice. On this count however, I would say, digital is amply sufficient. I would also like to see a possibility to buy bigger sensor cameras with low pixel density, e.g. a 6x7 sensor camera with 36 or 48MP, as this would improve imaging and put less stress on lenses.
2) HIGH ISO CAPABILITY
There's no contest, digital wins easily here, although with today's sensors you have to dial in a substantial sensitivity reduction, to avoid blowing out the highlights, so in practical terms the advantage shrinks somewhat for outdoor photography.
3) TONALITY
This is the main problem of monochrome digital - I have tried to ask various "experts" what is it exactly, that makes it so difficult for digital sensors to mimic the film's shoulderlike response to brightness (similar to the response of the human eye ), but the answers were always unsatisfactory. I believe, that the bit depth should be substantially higher, and probably some logarithmic function should be incorporated at the level of camera microchip in the reproduced brightness curve. Most likely, this would generate both a major computing stress on the processor, as well as a major hike in memory usage, therefore I imagine it will take several years before this can be realized. As long as this is not resolved, digital B&W is not an option for me.
4) CAMERAS
I have recently bought a substantial number of lenses which I like. I believe, that we are moving to the point, where all digital cameras wll be mirrorless, and the sensor sizes will grow. I would welcome both a 35mm and a 645 or 6x7 mirrorless cameras with electronic VF and capacity to dial in correction profiles for any type of lens. This should finally do away with the PITA of inaccurate focus issues (both on RF and SLR). What I would also necessarily want to see, is a trend towards simplification and miniaturisation, in other words, I see no reason why a 35mm digital camera should be bigger or more complicated than a Leica M9, or a 6x7 camera than a Plaubel Makina. Currently, we are still missing bigger sensor mirrorless cameras, and from what I gather, the electronic viewfinders are still distant from the optical VF experience, so more progress needs to be made.
1) RESOLUTION
I am an occasional landscape shooter, and there is no doubt, that high resolution, rich micro detail and textures are helpful in producing great prints, however in practice, I am not printing that big, normally A3+ is my limit, and when I will change the printer, A2 is going to be the maximum that I'd go for.
Therefore, I believe, that if we speak about monochrome sensors, even 18MP are enough, although when I see my scans from 6x7 come out at 82MB, I wonder how the comparison would look like in practice. On this count however, I would say, digital is amply sufficient. I would also like to see a possibility to buy bigger sensor cameras with low pixel density, e.g. a 6x7 sensor camera with 36 or 48MP, as this would improve imaging and put less stress on lenses.
2) HIGH ISO CAPABILITY
There's no contest, digital wins easily here, although with today's sensors you have to dial in a substantial sensitivity reduction, to avoid blowing out the highlights, so in practical terms the advantage shrinks somewhat for outdoor photography.
3) TONALITY
This is the main problem of monochrome digital - I have tried to ask various "experts" what is it exactly, that makes it so difficult for digital sensors to mimic the film's shoulderlike response to brightness (similar to the response of the human eye ), but the answers were always unsatisfactory. I believe, that the bit depth should be substantially higher, and probably some logarithmic function should be incorporated at the level of camera microchip in the reproduced brightness curve. Most likely, this would generate both a major computing stress on the processor, as well as a major hike in memory usage, therefore I imagine it will take several years before this can be realized. As long as this is not resolved, digital B&W is not an option for me.
4) CAMERAS
I have recently bought a substantial number of lenses which I like. I believe, that we are moving to the point, where all digital cameras wll be mirrorless, and the sensor sizes will grow. I would welcome both a 35mm and a 645 or 6x7 mirrorless cameras with electronic VF and capacity to dial in correction profiles for any type of lens. This should finally do away with the PITA of inaccurate focus issues (both on RF and SLR). What I would also necessarily want to see, is a trend towards simplification and miniaturisation, in other words, I see no reason why a 35mm digital camera should be bigger or more complicated than a Leica M9, or a 6x7 camera than a Plaubel Makina. Currently, we are still missing bigger sensor mirrorless cameras, and from what I gather, the electronic viewfinders are still distant from the optical VF experience, so more progress needs to be made.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I was lucky enough to have tickets for my wife and I to see Joe Cornish at a show he did in Chelmsford the other evening. His favourite medium is 5x4 using Velvia. However, commercial constraints and deadlines require him to use a digital back. His tool of choice is a Phase One with 80MP. The "downside" is that it costs £30,000. The "upside" is that the resolution is phenominal (at low ISO) and the PP work is a relative doddle. He also uses a Nikon D800 for portability.
However, the impression I got is that the biggest benefit he sees in digital is using the likes of a Lumix LX5 and Canon G12 as a "notebook" (as he described it). The "notes" he takes help flesh out ideas and concepts which he might shoot later on 5x4 (film or digital).
I can't say I'm bothered whether cameras are (or go) mirrorless as I'm happy with rangefinders and SLRs as they stand. Additionally, I wouldn't necessarily agree that digital wins hands down when it comes to low light capabilitis as much depends on the sensor (the D3s is designed for low light but the £30,000 Phase One isn't. 3200 ISO B&W film or 1600 ISO pushed colour film can look gorgeous and the grain can be part of that beauty.
Personally, even if I had the money, I think I would still shoot film through a Hasselblad and scan it (as I don't have a darkroom any more).
The other thing is, I have a digital camera; a Nikon D700 which I like a great deal. However, despite its stunning and largely perfect RAW files, I still prefer film; even 35mm. Only if film becomes so scarce and/or prohibitively expensive would I swap one medium for the other, 100% as, for now at least, it's possible to have the best of both worlds.
However, the impression I got is that the biggest benefit he sees in digital is using the likes of a Lumix LX5 and Canon G12 as a "notebook" (as he described it). The "notes" he takes help flesh out ideas and concepts which he might shoot later on 5x4 (film or digital).
I can't say I'm bothered whether cameras are (or go) mirrorless as I'm happy with rangefinders and SLRs as they stand. Additionally, I wouldn't necessarily agree that digital wins hands down when it comes to low light capabilitis as much depends on the sensor (the D3s is designed for low light but the £30,000 Phase One isn't. 3200 ISO B&W film or 1600 ISO pushed colour film can look gorgeous and the grain can be part of that beauty.
Personally, even if I had the money, I think I would still shoot film through a Hasselblad and scan it (as I don't have a darkroom any more).
The other thing is, I have a digital camera; a Nikon D700 which I like a great deal. However, despite its stunning and largely perfect RAW files, I still prefer film; even 35mm. Only if film becomes so scarce and/or prohibitively expensive would I swap one medium for the other, 100% as, for now at least, it's possible to have the best of both worlds.
craygc
Well-known
From what I've seen as responses and examples over time is that you need to be someone who is very critical of, and attuned to, what you expect from "good" B&W images to be really critical of digital B&W. Overall, I certainly resonate with your views on the topic. Lately, I've been shooting digital B&W (or more accurately, digital colour and converting) only because young kids have been absorbing a lot of time. I feel I've come to a point where I can get quite convincing B&W results, but... and its that "but" that concerns me.
i) A number of shots just don't seem to let you convert to B&W and achieve good tonality, ii) those blown highlights are just unacceptable, and iii) personally, I find that digital smoothness usually needs some injection of grain to be convincing. I also don't buy the argument that - for B&W - digital is just different. Yes, it is different but that doesn't make it better or even as good. B&W is all about the tonality and the ability to achieve superb tonality has been mastered with film - as such I expect that quality as table stakes for moving to digital B&W.
I'm still currently shoot digital B&W due to no time to develop and scan but the more I do it, the more I yearn to get back to film. Digital certainly offers a level of convenience but unlike digital, achieving the desired tonality just seems to fall in to place much more naturally with B&W film.
i) A number of shots just don't seem to let you convert to B&W and achieve good tonality, ii) those blown highlights are just unacceptable, and iii) personally, I find that digital smoothness usually needs some injection of grain to be convincing. I also don't buy the argument that - for B&W - digital is just different. Yes, it is different but that doesn't make it better or even as good. B&W is all about the tonality and the ability to achieve superb tonality has been mastered with film - as such I expect that quality as table stakes for moving to digital B&W.
I'm still currently shoot digital B&W due to no time to develop and scan but the more I do it, the more I yearn to get back to film. Digital certainly offers a level of convenience but unlike digital, achieving the desired tonality just seems to fall in to place much more naturally with B&W film.
seanbonner
Established
I'm working on a post about this very topic right now, because until now I've been very film only, but the M Monochrom lured me over to the other side
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I use both, I guess the main reason that I still use film and often leave the D700 behind is I find it better to work with an iPhone and my Rolleiflex in tandem.
If they made a digital Rollei that worked exactly the same way as the film version, i.e no AF & large optical VF I would be tempted. Not that we will ever see that impractical camera, or if we did it would be so expensive as to rule it out.
If film disappeared I think I'd just shoot with a phone, probably do a lot less photography, just snaps of things that interested me.
If they made a digital Rollei that worked exactly the same way as the film version, i.e no AF & large optical VF I would be tempted. Not that we will ever see that impractical camera, or if we did it would be so expensive as to rule it out.
If film disappeared I think I'd just shoot with a phone, probably do a lot less photography, just snaps of things that interested me.
mikebell48
Newbie
I can't be bothered with the film V digital arguments over resolution etc. so my reasons for staying with film are pretty simple. Firstly I simply don't like digital cameras. I don't like the way they look, I don't like all the useless (for me) functions and I don't like the temptation to be upgrading every two or three years. Secondly I like the security of being able to physically file my negatives in folders.
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I've seen some traditional 4x5 film shooters do HDR-like digital pictures using 3 or 4 exposures to cover the dynamic range of a scene and then convert that to b&w. Looked pretty good to me.
As for my attempts, well, digital black and white just looks different.
As for my attempts, well, digital black and white just looks different.
miatab
Member
Why shouldn't digital B&W be legitimately different, without endless discussion or apology.? Neither is "real" unless you are Alexander the Great. acrylics painters don't apologize for their medium results being different to egg and tempura.
mrak
Member
Maybe the Leica M Monochrome would be something for you?