Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Another issue (I haven't read every post in this thread, so forgive me if this has been stated,) is learning curve, as in "Do I want to learn another workflow to achieve a satisfactory look from digital?"
By this I mean that I, for example, have honed my vision and work patterns for nearly forty years with film, and mostly with OM gear; hence things are sort of welded to me. Could I learn a digital workflow? Sure. Would it be advantageous if I were had paying assignments that had shorter delivery requirements? Absolutely.
But it is not necessary, and I've done the work over many years, and osmosis is a wonderfully luxurious process. Once at some sort of zenith, I would just like to enjoy that.
By this I mean that I, for example, have honed my vision and work patterns for nearly forty years with film, and mostly with OM gear; hence things are sort of welded to me. Could I learn a digital workflow? Sure. Would it be advantageous if I were had paying assignments that had shorter delivery requirements? Absolutely.
But it is not necessary, and I've done the work over many years, and osmosis is a wonderfully luxurious process. Once at some sort of zenith, I would just like to enjoy that.
dave lackey
Veteran
And that, my friends, is the best statement of why the process is so important to some of us...why film is the preferred medium... I really like this whole concept of reaching a zenith and enjoying it. There really is something about all the accumulated knowledge and wisdom that goes along with experience as one gets older.
As Paul McCartney once sang, "What's wrong with that?"...."I really want to know!".....:angel:
It's the ride not the destination that is important in life.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Sigh ... I already have what I want, using my analog workflow. How do you know I don't have an IPS monitor? I actually am starting to move to another look and style, but I pretty much know how to get there with my analog workflow.
This is NOT about being against digital, as I am pretty certain the look can be achieved that way as well. But I choose not to for a variety of reasons, one of which is that I am not "young" (at least in body) -- did you notice that I said I'd been using OMs for nearly forty years? So in the time I have left (which might be as short as the next 5 minutes or as long as another 30+ years) I choose certain tools and methods that are familiar and comfortable.
I don't see anything difficult about that, but maybe I haven't explained myself well enough.
This is NOT about being against digital, as I am pretty certain the look can be achieved that way as well. But I choose not to for a variety of reasons, one of which is that I am not "young" (at least in body) -- did you notice that I said I'd been using OMs for nearly forty years? So in the time I have left (which might be as short as the next 5 minutes or as long as another 30+ years) I choose certain tools and methods that are familiar and comfortable.
I don't see anything difficult about that, but maybe I haven't explained myself well enough.
nightfly
Well-known
mdarnton
Well-known
Yesterday, just as an exercise, I took my Nikon D300 out, switched it to monochrome, but shot RAW to see what I could get (I've had the camera for four years, and not done a bit of B&W with it). What an incredible disappointment! Blown highlights, empty shadows. Several situations I zone metered and discovered 12-stop ranges (the D300 will only cover about eight). I could only make really minimally-acceptable results from the shots, by my usual film standards.
I guess if I want to do this, I will need a Nex-7 or D800 (on either side of 14-stop ranges), for a start, but film covers this range so easily, I don't know why I'd want to use digital.
I guess if I want to do this, I will need a Nex-7 or D800 (on either side of 14-stop ranges), for a start, but film covers this range so easily, I don't know why I'd want to use digital.
Teuthida
Well-known
Yesterday, just as an exercise, I took my Nikon D300 out, switched it to monochrome, but shot RAW to see what I could get (I've had the camera for four years, and not done a bit of B&W with it). What an incredible disappointment! Blown highlights, empty shadows. Several situations I zone metered and discovered 12-stop ranges (the D300 will only cover about eight). I could only make really minimally-acceptable results from the shots, by my usual film standards.
I guess if I want to do this, I will need a Nex-7 or D800 (on either side of 14-stop ranges), for a start, but film covers this range so easily, I don't know why I'd want to use digital.
Of course you'd never blame the camera for your own shortcomings, would you.
A lot of mythology in this thread...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Wow That seems really out of line.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Indeed there is.
mdarnton
Well-known
In this case, no, I wouldn't. The data wasn't there, and I gave it a fair chance to show up. I know how to use a camera properly, I'm able to meter correctly, and I have a fair amount of experience in this type of thing. I also noted and respect that my D300 is far from current technology, but that I was speaking with regard to results from that specific camera. When I shoot a picture that I know would work on film, and see pixels piled up at both extreme ends of the histogram, I do not think you could have bailed things out in the way that film would.
Do you have a comment that's relevant?
mdarnton
Well-known
I see that some people have turned out respectable results under certain limited circumstances. I think that a lot of the B&W I've seen put forward in this thread in defense of digital B&W, and in others, is total crap, technically, and I am amused at the hostility my post seems to have brought out. Perhaps it was because I was able to draw on actual data and experience rather than pulling an opinion out of my behind?
awaw
Member
Color RAW gives you the versatility!
Color RAW gives you the versatility!
For me color RAW and Silver EFEX Pro does the job flawlessly.
Color RAW gives you the versatility!
For me color RAW and Silver EFEX Pro does the job flawlessly.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
To be clear on a couple of points ... I now do my editing on a 13" MacBook Air. It's not optimal, but the screen is better than what I was using before (24" HP that wasn't bad at all,) though I am considering what external monitor to acquire. (With the recent purchase of a new 4x5 and CF tripod setup, I'm not spending anything more right now ). I appreciate the tip on OLED and AMOLED; I didn't know those technologies were being used for larger displays. Cool!
Second, I have seen some really, really nice digital b&w, both at screen resolution and prints produced from an entirely digital workflow. It's just not how I prefer to work right now. In the future, who knows?
Peace, love and a good Cuban!
). I appreciate the tip on OLED and AMOLED; I didn't know those technologies were being used for larger displays. Cool!Second, I have seen some really, really nice digital b&w, both at screen resolution and prints produced from an entirely digital workflow. It's just not how I prefer to work right now. In the future, who knows?
Peace, love and a good Cuban!
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Wow. This isn't DPR, you know.
mdarnton
Well-known
It's a technical discussion, and that's all I am looking at in this instance. I guess I could point to someone who does excellent digital B&W IN MY OPINION, and one would be Dirk Steffen.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I don't care. I do negative B+W film, colour negative, instant B+W and colour, digital colour and all may end up as a B+W digital image, inkjet print or other. If it works, it works.
Ruling out digital B+W digital as "fake" or "plain ugly" is beside the point and rather narrow minded. I suppose even celluloid negative film is too clean for some, that's if you still swear by wet plates.
Ruling out digital B+W digital as "fake" or "plain ugly" is beside the point and rather narrow minded. I suppose even celluloid negative film is too clean for some, that's if you still swear by wet plates.
Jim Evidon
Jim
To be clear on a couple of points ... I now do my editing on a 13" MacBook Air. It's not optimal, but the screen is better than what I was using before (24" HP that wasn't bad at all,) though I am considering what external monitor to acquire. (With the recent purchase of a new 4x5 and CF tripod setup, I'm not spending anything more right now
Second, I have seen some really, really nice digital b&w, both at screen resolution and prints produced from an entirely digital workflow. It's just not how I prefer to work right now. In the future, who knows?
Peace, love and a good Cuban!
I bought a LaCie monitor and until I gave it to my graphic artist daughter who was in need of it, I was getting astounding color gamuts and very accurate prints. I don't know if that is necessary for B&W work, but if you need professional quality in your monitor, you can't go wrong. I am now using an iMac screen which is OK, but it does not have the color gamut or the adjustability of the LaCie. If, however, you wish to stick to your Mac screen, consider buying Color Eyes Display Pro (recommended for Macs by Brooks in Shutterbug mag.)calibrating software and a good compatible colorimeter. Their website will tell you what brand colorimeters will work with it. My printing has much improved since I started using it.
J. Borger
Well-known
George : your Digital B&W's are among the best i have seen in a long long time. Rich in tones. Not overly cooked and processed to death like they mostly are. Chapeau!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
http://www.blurb.com
Its a company that makes print on demand photo books. The quality is pretty good, its a relatively cheap way to self-publish a book, and you can buy just one if you want, so a lot of people use them to make portfolio books.