what's the big knock against digital b&w?

PKR said:
I don't know what a blurb book is, but it sounds like something you see on a computer monitor.

Making a print that you can hold in your hands, that looks different under different lighting, etc. is a better (my view) and more traditional method.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is best to search before posting (i.e. blurb). I went to school for photography and have printed many different ways (cibachromes, c-prints, B&W, van dyke brown, cyanotypes, digital, etc.). I'm not a complete hack and understand the virtues of seeing a print. Made some 20x30" prints recently. My point is that blurb books are a cheap way to see work printed in bulk and instead of just looking at your computer screen. Honestly, I could care less if you don't like Flickr... (if that was a diss towards me).
 
I really like film, always will really like film, have a lot of film cameras and a lot of film still left in the freezer, but...

I have been shooting digital as of late due a complete lack of time to do much else if I want to shoot. Initially I didn't do a lot as I have always had a disdain for digital B&W in the main. Actually spent more time with Photoshop trying to work out what could be done with a file. I wasn't necessarily concerned with having a modern look but I needed "good" tonality - especially in skin tones.

What I'm finding is that there are lighting situations where digital struggles to provide convincing B&W. Primarily scenes with a high brightness range; they probable weren't any better for taking a film shot but the parts that couldn't be compressed probably just looked better than digital does.

I have played with Efex Pro 2 for quite a while now and primarily don't like it. Probably in the same way I don't like using LR for development - I dislike a global approach to processing an image. What I do like is the ability to add a touch of grain - around 460 - just to break that smoothness of digital. However, the best trick I've worked out is applying a slight reverse 'S' curve - similar to the attached image - a bit more or less depending on what works but always shallow; the midway point can also vary depending on where in the image Im working. It can be globally or locally applied but not something I can articulate as a recipe. But its been the single most important step I've found in converting digital with good tonality - opens up shadows and puts detail into the highlights, and is especially useful for skin tones. (BTW, as a caveat, I dislike B&W with high contrast and blocked up shadows) You will usually still need more darkening or lightening after but that part's reasonably straight forward.

I can certainly take criticism so here are some examples to pick on.
 

Attachments

  • curve.jpg
    curve.jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 0
PKR said:
No, I wasn't taking a shot at you..
As for prints, it's great that you're printing. It's actually unusual as few photograohers (anyone with a camera = a phorographer) print anything. In the film days, almost everyone printred their stuff.
Click to expand...

For myself, the final product is always a print. I guess that's a carryover from my B&W film days. I have a small "gallery" in a hallway at home. I have made it a point to swap out the prints at least every 3 months. It gives me a chance to continually evaluate my work as I walk by every day. And it's nice when visitors notice the prints and comment or ask questions.

And no knock here against digital B&W since all I shoot now is digital, but I am doing mostly color these days.
 
PKR said:
I think - it's more important that you like or dislike what you do and know why. Making prints of your work is a good thing. Sometimes I make small prints (5x7 on 8 x 10 paper) and hang them where I can easily see them. It's good (for me) to see if I like them over time.
Click to expand...

jsrockit said:
I agree...but do this with blurb books. I make a book of all of my favorite images for each month and it becomes apparent which ones work or not over time.
Click to expand...

Both good advices.
 
PKR said:
No, I wasn't taking a shot at you..
Click to expand...

Ok, sorry. We got off on the wrong foot then. My apologies.

In the film days, almost everyone printred their stuff.
Click to expand...

True, unless they were projecting slides. We've all been through the boring vacation slide show (well, if you are old enough that is).

Did you go to an art school or an academic school with a photo dept. ?
Click to expand...

I went to Mason Gross... which is the art school at Rutgers (Admittedly, not very prestigious). I learned most of my darkroom skills at a community college (which tend to concentrate on technical aspects). Between the two, I feel I got a good technical and conceptual starting point. That said, I do not make a living in photography. I only do personal work and have only been back into photography for about 3 years after taking 10 years off.
 
jsrockit said:
True, unless they were projecting slides. We've all been through the boring vacation slide show (well, if you are old enough that is)...
Click to expand...

It was the definition of hell. Slide show nights of that girl coming back from Alaska. Seeing five trays of slides on the table, and only one bottle of wine. I still wake up screaming at nights from the memory of slide show nights. Endless snow and flowers. And she had a lover there. No pictures of him of course... the only thing that would actually have been interesting. :/
 
It depends on where you point your camera, not whether it is digital or film. A perfectly exposed film photo of ferns and rocks is still a boring photo, to me. A digital photo of an elderly man hoeing his garden is not boring, to me. Note the "to me". Everybody's opinion is different. If your thing is pointing out all of the zones perfectly printed in the rock and fern photo, that's fine. My thing is people. I photographed them with film and have now moved to digital. Whatever works to get the photo. I point my camera at people, usually.
 
Knock, Knock who is there? Digital B/W Photography

"A perfectly exposed film photo of ferns and rocks is still a boring photo, to me. A digital photo of an elderly man hoeing his garden is not boring, to me."

Fully agree

Dominik
 
I like your passion, Mani, and as you say it is borne out of a lot of experience with digital processing, although am not sure your arguments shine through as well as they could.

In any case to pick up on two of your points, either for the purpose of clarification if you did not mean them in the way below, or perhaps to provide an opposing view if they were your intended point of view;

mani said:
But I can take a crap shot with my iPhone, pull it into Snapseed, crop it 1:1, run a couple of filters, and have a really stunning image in 15 seconds.
Click to expand...

I think its important to distinguish popular aesthetic from the quality of images here, and think you probably do it in your post. Snapseed/ Instagram/ Holga all give an image an immediate visual impact, but think in most cases think the aesthetic disguises any deficiencies in image content. In a lot of cases image content is not there with these images, but the asethetic is a hot one and is what draws people to these images, even if they're lacking in content. I think the worm will turn at some point, and any of these images depending on the aesthetic to prop them up will simply fall to the wayside. Such is the way of trends.

Many photographers will live with images, over a period of time, to evaluate them for this exact purpose. Images with style and no substance will simply fall away after the initial impact dies off, and that is why many photographers choose to evaluate images over prolonged periods of time.

mani said:
But my film images - even the failures - can have endless fascination because they are the result of real craft and real vision and real struggle and 'real light', however inadequate.
Click to expand...

I disagree here. Such images may mean something to you because you struggled to produce them, but ultimate quality is all that matters to viewers at the end of the day, so don't expect any mediocre images whose production was a struggle, to mean anything to anyone but you. Its either a good image or not, and 'honesty' of process will not make any image any better. Harsh, but true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom