what's the big knock against digital b&w?
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 214
- Views 23K
damien.murphy
Damien
Interesting thread, and will be interested to follow it. My own feeling is there are some things that are not easily quantified, and taste is right up there at the top of that list.
I suppose as photographers, we should be better able than most to discern what it is we like in an image, but then again I imagine most people would rather spend time making images they like than spend time trying to figure out why they like what they like.
Personally I don't mind hearing highly intangible things as to why people like one or the other. It might drive the tangible-minded amongst us nuts, but then we are talking about an art, are we not.. 😉
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
The thing is, it is really easy to see the difference by just looking at a scanned raw file of a negative and any digital b&w. Part of the problem is that those that don't shoot film never see the high quality, large b&w files. They see stuff that is scaled down to suit websites and to their eyes looks pretty much the same as what they produce with silver efex pro (a program I like) or a PS conversion or whatever. One of my initial disappointments when I started sharing my b&w film stuff online was that what I was able to share online in no way matched the amazing details and tones of the files I was looking at on my computer.
I'm not really against digital b&w, I have a lot of fun with my GRD, but it is really two different worlds.
db
I'm not really against digital b&w, I have a lot of fun with my GRD, but it is really two different worlds.
db
nightfly
Well-known
Most digital black and white looks like the C-41 black and white films, a little too clean and gray to my eyes. It's fine I guess if you like that look.
Yes, you can process the hell out of digital files and get them to look like film but personally I'd rather shoot film and scan it gets me where I want to be and I don't find the process onerous.
But then I also like vinyl.
Yes, you can process the hell out of digital files and get them to look like film but personally I'd rather shoot film and scan it gets me where I want to be and I don't find the process onerous.
But then I also like vinyl.
celluloidprop
Well-known
It's a lot like the Leica magic - metaphysical properties that aren't evident until you're heavily invested (emotionally and/or financially).
I've seen a lot of silver prints with the same blown highlights/high contrast flaws as poorly made digital. Most people were not outstanding darkroom printers.
I've seen a lot of silver prints with the same blown highlights/high contrast flaws as poorly made digital. Most people were not outstanding darkroom printers.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
It really doesn't matter to me how something was created. A good image is a good image.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
True.. but try to quantify the term "good" - not so easy to do unilaterally 🙂
Cheers,
Dave
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
I know it when I see it. 😛 But seriously, would anyone really care how HCB (I chose him, because he's such an RFF favorite) made his images, if the end result was the same?
I choose film. I like it. Other people can like what they like. Big deal. 😀
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
True enough - that's what I mean though - it's like trying to argue over anchovies on pizza. I don't like them myself but I know lots of folks who do. I avoid them but I don't admonish anyone for liking them. It's a fruitless (or fishless depending on your point of view) thing to argue 🙂
Cheers,
Dave
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Why do some photogaphers dislike digital? Because it's not film.
One of my favorite threads along these lines (it was about a month or so ago) was posted by someone demonstrating a couple of different digital cameras. Then some film lover came on (someone who clearly hadn't read the opening thread very closely) and declared that it was so obvious which set of images had been shot with film. They were just so much better, he claimed.
But of course, both sets of images were digital.
We see what we want to see. And some photographers are determined to keep digital in its place as the ugly stepchild of photography.
One of my favorite threads along these lines (it was about a month or so ago) was posted by someone demonstrating a couple of different digital cameras. Then some film lover came on (someone who clearly hadn't read the opening thread very closely) and declared that it was so obvious which set of images had been shot with film. They were just so much better, he claimed.
But of course, both sets of images were digital.
We see what we want to see. And some photographers are determined to keep digital in its place as the ugly stepchild of photography.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I don't mean to pick on you here. But this is an argument I've seen a lot, but never understood.
Film photographers routinely use various film/chemistry/paper combos to create different looks (altering grain, contrast, etc.) in a final print.
But when digital photographers do the same thing (with computer programs) it's considered to be a bad thing, an indictment of this flawed media.
KM-25
Well-known
I just got back from getting my wife and I our morning Starbucks, I now have to pour through some 1,000 D800 images, get them out to clients and then bill them...
All of this is done on a computer, a fast one, but a computer no less. We buy things on a computer, we read news on a computer, watch movies, find out what friends are up to and post replies like this one on a computer...see the pattern?
I preface the following by saying that I have used digital for 20 years now, I know it well, we grew up together in a manner of speaking. And even though I have sold black and white prints from film scans, two hang on my wall...I prefer film and the darkroom...
My reasons are simple,
1. Unless for marketing purposes, it never has to see a computer.
2. As digital black and white gets better, that does not mean real black and white gets worse, it is already perfect.
3. It's a real artisan process, hand made in a world that is increasingly not.
4. A truly masterful black and white image made in the darkroom on a paper like Ilford Warmtone Fiber just glows in your hand, the tonal transitions are rich and complete.
5. The value of a great silver print made by a talented artist is typically on the rise in terms of gallery sales, this will not change.
6. It *really* is ok for digital to not be better than everything, just like "Garage Band" is not better than a real acoustic guitar.
All of this is done on a computer, a fast one, but a computer no less. We buy things on a computer, we read news on a computer, watch movies, find out what friends are up to and post replies like this one on a computer...see the pattern?
I preface the following by saying that I have used digital for 20 years now, I know it well, we grew up together in a manner of speaking. And even though I have sold black and white prints from film scans, two hang on my wall...I prefer film and the darkroom...
My reasons are simple,
1. Unless for marketing purposes, it never has to see a computer.
2. As digital black and white gets better, that does not mean real black and white gets worse, it is already perfect.
3. It's a real artisan process, hand made in a world that is increasingly not.
4. A truly masterful black and white image made in the darkroom on a paper like Ilford Warmtone Fiber just glows in your hand, the tonal transitions are rich and complete.
5. The value of a great silver print made by a talented artist is typically on the rise in terms of gallery sales, this will not change.
6. It *really* is ok for digital to not be better than everything, just like "Garage Band" is not better than a real acoustic guitar.
Let me tell you, I shot Ilford b/w film and I also processed digital through Silver FX, AlienSkin, etc. There is no practical difference. With the framed shot on the wall, no one cares what medium you used and no one can say it, if done properly.
Of course, take away the grain and your digital shot will be much cleaner. Thats all.
maddoc
... likes film again.
The sensor-based homogeneously distributed pixel-pattern with abrupt but well defined transitions is less natural to our perception than the irregular shaped and randomly distributed silver grains of film. So film-based images will always have a more "natural" look. (Just my two cents only ...)
nightfly
Well-known
There's your problem right there.
Kidding sort of. Never got on with Illford myself. Someone here once said something to the effect that HP-5 makes everything look like London on a rainy day.
Kidding sort of. Never got on with Illford myself. Someone here once said something to the effect that HP-5 makes everything look like London on a rainy day.
KM-25
Well-known
Mine is 880 square feet, no garage, second bedroom is an office for my wife and I to work in.
The darkroom is in a storage closet outside our front door, a total of 15 square feet of working space. The 16 x 20 print washer and film washer are stored in the linen closet next to the laundry baskets and vacuum cleaner. The shower head in our only bathroom has a diverter valve for both washers. The retractable close line in the shower is for film more than clothes. Above two file cabinets full of negatives in the office is a 250 pound Seal 500TX dry mount press. In the kitchen closet next to the water heater and above the cat litter box are chemistry and developing tanks.
I often print up to 16x20 and can even go as high as 20x24 from 35mm, Xpan, 6x6 and now 4x5 negs in this dinky apartment...the money we earn from it going into a savings account so we can buy a real home one day...we rent...
You just make it happen sir, end of story...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Succinct and right to the point.
Good B&W exists way prior to digital. The standard(s) are there.
So there is zero reason why people can't do good B&W photos *with* digital.
I posted many digital B&W conversions and I got almost as many question, "what film?" from people who know I shoot film also.
Having said that, it is shooting film that *taught* me what good B&W looks like. And... working (scanning or printing in the darkroom) with B&W film is *very* satisfying.
So I'll never give up B&W film, while I'll keep enjoying B&W digital also.
MIkhail
-
I would side with Chris Crawford on this one...
I have tried to explain this before and, well, I guess none of you guys read what I say or have me blocked or something - regardless, as Dolly Parton once sang, here I go again 😀 😀 😀 (the below is merely opinion and I have no science to "prove" it so take it for what it's worth... no monetary value 😀 😀 😀 )
Digital (regardless of B&W or colour) noise is far less random and is more structured/orderly than any grain within film. Film grain, regardless of ISO, tends to be more random in structure versus digital noise. Therefore, digital B&W, while just fine, will always look "different" (for lack of better wording) than film.
For example:
From the Olympus EP-2
From rebranded Superia converted to B&W
From Tri-X:
Cheers,
Dave
Very good examples. Although I hope you would process the first image further to give some highlights /shadows to that intersting face, just like you would dodge and burn during darkroom printing? That would make the distinction even more difficult, if one cares to compare.
Personally, I like the unpredictability (right word?) of film, random overexposure and things gone wrong like that. Digital is too clinically clean for me. But - it does not matter, we have to embrace the media or lag way behind...
135format
Established
There are a bundle of other considerations to think about and not only apparent image quality. For example display life of image. I'm not talking long term archival storage here(often kept in boxes in the dark) but rather life when hung on a wall.
Slver gelatin print is going to win this one hands down. Not because of fade resistance but because all those little ink droplets layered on the surface of an inkjet start dropping off due to the daily warming and cooling (expansion and contraction )combined with swings in humidity. Hell most people use the space on a wall above a radiator to hang their pictures. The worst place you could possibly use for any type of artwork but particularly bad for something like a pastel or inkjet print.
Our houses don't have archival museum conditions.
If you only display your work online then who cares either way.
Slver gelatin print is going to win this one hands down. Not because of fade resistance but because all those little ink droplets layered on the surface of an inkjet start dropping off due to the daily warming and cooling (expansion and contraction )combined with swings in humidity. Hell most people use the space on a wall above a radiator to hang their pictures. The worst place you could possibly use for any type of artwork but particularly bad for something like a pastel or inkjet print.
Our houses don't have archival museum conditions.
If you only display your work online then who cares either way.