DanOnRoute66
I now live in Des Moines
I like B&W and color film, although the digital version of B&W looks like a digital version of B&W. If you really want B&W, I say, shoot film.
Who buys into this?
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 51
- Views 5K
kshapero
South Florida Man
Hmmmm, another Zen Koan?
NLewis
Established
In part I think it is because people have become accustomed to extensive PP when shooting digital color. It usually looks rather blech out of the camera, so you have to tweak it. Sometimes this goes way beyond realistic or an accurate portrayal of what was in front of the camera. In general, color film looks better out of the camera than digital -- people still love the Portra or Velvia look -- but if you're going to tweak it anyway that advantage is not so great. Plus, with film you get only one look.
Also, color photography naturally lends itself to ideals of technical accuracy, while BW is of course nothing like nature (which is in color) so people are more accepting of a "film look." For example, people still like the grain of old Tri-X and even try to replicate it in digital, while I've never heard of anyone trying to replicate the grain of color film. As far as technical accuracy goes, digital has color film beat. The advantage of color film today, aside from some additional latitude, is really its "film" look, the character of the particular emulsion.
Also, color photography naturally lends itself to ideals of technical accuracy, while BW is of course nothing like nature (which is in color) so people are more accepting of a "film look." For example, people still like the grain of old Tri-X and even try to replicate it in digital, while I've never heard of anyone trying to replicate the grain of color film. As far as technical accuracy goes, digital has color film beat. The advantage of color film today, aside from some additional latitude, is really its "film" look, the character of the particular emulsion.
barnwulf
Well-known
I am seriously thinking of shooting my color shots digitally. Most all my shooting is with black and white flim. I like color negative film a lot and have used Ektar 100 and Portra 160 but I shoot far less color so a roll or color film sits in my camera for a few weeks at a time since I shoot 30 to 40 rolls or more of BW for each roll of color. Just a more practical solution for color for me. Jim
Last edited:
Stuart John
Well-known
I shoot B&W film mostly for B&W and digital mostly for color, that way I can avoid sending film to a lab to get it developed. If I could do C41 at home easily and RA4 color prints then I would likely shoot a lot more color filim.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Is that so? Don't know about E6, but I find C41 chemicals (I use the Tetenal C41 kit) quite inexpensive.
Huh? Why would that be?
C41 (colour) film is in fact far easier to scan than traditional B/W film, because modern scanner's automatic scratch/dust removal functions do only work with colour film (and probably slide film, I don't know that). This is so very convenient -- if you scan at all -- that I use B/W film that's based on C41 (Kodak BW400CN or Ilford XP2).
'Real' colour (negative) films like Kodak's Portra nowadays are even explicitely optimized for easy scanning. They scan indeed very easily and well.
___
I use film for both B/W (on C41 basis) and colour. My DSLR is for family stuff and for long tele use and all that jazz.
Last edited:
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I basically do that but use film for both...I get the color film developed and scanned...no prints...I haven't had color prints made in years...but I could have it done either digitally or chemically since I shoot film...
I rarely have the B&W film scanned but will print the old fashion way when I get in the mood...
I rarely have the B&W film scanned but will print the old fashion way when I get in the mood...
x-ray
Veteran
I'm still a big fan of B&W film and silver gelatin prints but handled right digital B&W prints can be excellent. The main difference in my view is the depth of tonality a silver gelatin prints gives vs a digital. the silver emulsion has depth vs the ink / pigments sitting more on the surfce of a digital print. I experimented by making a digital print directly from a digital file and also a digital neg from the same file that I contact printed on silver gelatin paper. The difference was as expected, the contact print on silver gelatin paper looked like a fine print made on film and the digital print was a digital looking print. Properly printed I like digital B&W prints but they're harder to make in my opinion than a fine silver gelatin print. I believe this will change with time and has changed quite a lot in just the past couple of years.
I personlly like color digital capture and digital pigment prints better than film either wet printed or digitally printed. I spent the majority of my commercial photo career shooting E3, E4 and E6 transparency film and dealing with processing. In the old days of process camera seps and later drum scans the prepress houses would hardly touch a color neg. Even today I don't like scanning color negs vs transparencies even on my own prepress scanner (Lanovia Quatro Fuji). Modern E6 films have only 4-6 stops of latitude and possibly 7 at the max. Latitude is about 1/2 stop + or -. Color temp and processing are critical which make for a very exacting experience. Digital DSLR's deliver about the same 6-7 stops (raw files) of contrast as E6 film but give more flexability in final results and no problems with color temp or processing temps. Exposure is much less critical with raw files. You simply have more controll. Also I personally like the look of digital pigment prints on some of the new papers like Canson Arches Platine.
B&W film has a great deal of flexability in contrast and the ability to manipulate it in process and in print. Using the right film and Pyro developer it's possible to get 14+ stops of contrast. Hands down film is the winner in B&W over 35mm DSLR's. If you compare medium and large format with medium format digital then the difference swings the other dirrection. My Hasselblad CFV39 back has a 12 stop dynamic range with no special treatment to files both in B&W and color. Resolution is equal or better to 4x5 film and the native uninterpolated print size is 18x24 inches at 300 dpi. Color is true 16 bit capture and again I like digital pigment prints on premium paper over wet for color.
Even with a 35mm DSLR I like the results from digital capture and digital pigment prints vs film. B&W slants to film until you get into the upper end digital capture and then it's a flip of the coin as to which is better.
For me it really comes down to personal taste and the kind of shooting you are doing and the expectations in the end.
I personlly like color digital capture and digital pigment prints better than film either wet printed or digitally printed. I spent the majority of my commercial photo career shooting E3, E4 and E6 transparency film and dealing with processing. In the old days of process camera seps and later drum scans the prepress houses would hardly touch a color neg. Even today I don't like scanning color negs vs transparencies even on my own prepress scanner (Lanovia Quatro Fuji). Modern E6 films have only 4-6 stops of latitude and possibly 7 at the max. Latitude is about 1/2 stop + or -. Color temp and processing are critical which make for a very exacting experience. Digital DSLR's deliver about the same 6-7 stops (raw files) of contrast as E6 film but give more flexability in final results and no problems with color temp or processing temps. Exposure is much less critical with raw files. You simply have more controll. Also I personally like the look of digital pigment prints on some of the new papers like Canson Arches Platine.
B&W film has a great deal of flexability in contrast and the ability to manipulate it in process and in print. Using the right film and Pyro developer it's possible to get 14+ stops of contrast. Hands down film is the winner in B&W over 35mm DSLR's. If you compare medium and large format with medium format digital then the difference swings the other dirrection. My Hasselblad CFV39 back has a 12 stop dynamic range with no special treatment to files both in B&W and color. Resolution is equal or better to 4x5 film and the native uninterpolated print size is 18x24 inches at 300 dpi. Color is true 16 bit capture and again I like digital pigment prints on premium paper over wet for color.
Even with a 35mm DSLR I like the results from digital capture and digital pigment prints vs film. B&W slants to film until you get into the upper end digital capture and then it's a flip of the coin as to which is better.
For me it really comes down to personal taste and the kind of shooting you are doing and the expectations in the end.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Preferences at RFF aside colour film is the market that digital has really ripped into and it did it instantly and when I look at all the colour photos in the few albums I have I'm not surprised ... they look god awful compared to what a decent digital camera can produce.
The funny thing is, the average consumer, who was the core of the colour film industry and was keeping all those one hour labs alive, cannot generally comprehend why we bother shooting black and white film. 😀
Film colour or digital colour ... I'm happy with either, and the same apllies to black and white.
The funny thing is, the average consumer, who was the core of the colour film industry and was keeping all those one hour labs alive, cannot generally comprehend why we bother shooting black and white film. 😀
Film colour or digital colour ... I'm happy with either, and the same apllies to black and white.
f/14
Established
Digital wins hands down for colour as I see it.
So, the question left is what to do for BW.
Until I started using the Nikon D3x, film looked like the one and only choice.
The decisive step in having a clearly digital to having an almost analog look in the pictures was going from the 12Mp D3 to the 3x.
With
- 25Mp and up to 13 stops of dynamic range for lower speeds,
- very low noise at 1600 ASA (at lower but acceptable dynamic range),
- the smaller pixels for some increased resolution
the difference to film seems minimal and today I am maybe slightly in favour of digital.
Still carry an M6 around with Tri-X in it, but more out of tradition and a feeling of duty.
Once you get the digital exposure right the internal camera processor delivers BW pictures that already at the monitor at the back of the camera looks much like the BW prints you envisage that could come out of the wet darkroom with 4x4 or 6x6 film. Exposure is extremely critical though. A 0.3 stop change can make all the difference, something that would not bother you at all with film.
If you want the film look from digital, say like Tri-X, the NIK Silver Efex will bring up the tonality curve of the Tri-X (or any other film) although the grain may not look as well as with film and XTOL.
Whether it brings all the fun and the meditation that goes into the slower processes of film development and darkroom work after midnight with some nice music in the background is another matter.
So, the question left is what to do for BW.
Until I started using the Nikon D3x, film looked like the one and only choice.
The decisive step in having a clearly digital to having an almost analog look in the pictures was going from the 12Mp D3 to the 3x.
With
- 25Mp and up to 13 stops of dynamic range for lower speeds,
- very low noise at 1600 ASA (at lower but acceptable dynamic range),
- the smaller pixels for some increased resolution
the difference to film seems minimal and today I am maybe slightly in favour of digital.
Still carry an M6 around with Tri-X in it, but more out of tradition and a feeling of duty.
Once you get the digital exposure right the internal camera processor delivers BW pictures that already at the monitor at the back of the camera looks much like the BW prints you envisage that could come out of the wet darkroom with 4x4 or 6x6 film. Exposure is extremely critical though. A 0.3 stop change can make all the difference, something that would not bother you at all with film.
If you want the film look from digital, say like Tri-X, the NIK Silver Efex will bring up the tonality curve of the Tri-X (or any other film) although the grain may not look as well as with film and XTOL.
Whether it brings all the fun and the meditation that goes into the slower processes of film development and darkroom work after midnight with some nice music in the background is another matter.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
The way I do the math, Tetanal still costs about $1.25 a roll at its rated capacity. Admittedly, many folks go over the rated capacity. Still, black and white only costs about $.50 cents a roll for me.
It could be that you have a better color workflow than I do. Seems like ever time I scan color film, it takes me 3 times longer than B/W to get it right.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
For about a year or so I've been shooting the M8 side by side with an R4 or Bessa T loaded with Velvia 50. My PP skills are not the best, but I have learned quite a bit. Nevertheless, for landscape shots, the M8 digital capture can't touch RVP50 with regard to color management (*at least in terms of my PP skills).
Shooting both side by side has been greatly beneficial to nabbing perfect exposure with Velvia.
Also, I confess to really enjoy tinkering around with postprocessing. But in terms of the end result, Velvia is always more pleasing to me by a large margin.
Shooting both side by side has been greatly beneficial to nabbing perfect exposure with Velvia.
Also, I confess to really enjoy tinkering around with postprocessing. But in terms of the end result, Velvia is always more pleasing to me by a large margin.
thegman
Veteran
I don't buy into it at all, in fact I'd almost go the other way. Digital (without PP) tends to give you an accurate representation of a scene, but with film you can choose whether you have strong or muted colours by the film you choose. Slide films like Velvia give such strong and contrasty colours that some people even call it "cartoonish", but I like that you can change "colour" into "COLOUR!" if you think it'll improve the photo.
So for me, film is more about colour than B&W, and it's colour I struggle with each time I've shot digital. I've seen some great digital PP results in the right hands, but it's not for me.
So for me, film is more about colour than B&W, and it's colour I struggle with each time I've shot digital. I've seen some great digital PP results in the right hands, but it's not for me.
gavinlg
Veteran
I shoot digital for b&w over film - more control over what the result looks like.
I prefer MF color film for color work, though I'm happy to use 35mm digital too. 35mm film for color is not as great quality wise as 35mm digital.
I prefer MF color film for color work, though I'm happy to use 35mm digital too. 35mm film for color is not as great quality wise as 35mm digital.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i didnt want to buy into it, but last time i dropped four rolls of regular 35mm slide film they asked about 35 euro to dev it... uncut, unframed... Compared to the 3 euro per roll of the previous time, this was a bit too big of a step... very demotivating.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I do. I shoot B+W film and colour digital. Colour film is impractical where I live. Virtually impossible to find a lab, and doing C-41 myself is not my idea of heaven.
justsayda
Member
I can buy into this. I've never been able to get good black and white with digital, and indeed have never really seen the "film look" achieved digitally by anyone else.
Although I'm using film for both at the moment, I can see the merits of digital for some colour work.
Given that slide / digital has a limited latitude, at some point you're going to need some kind of blending / merging of bracketed shots if only to get rid of blown highlights. Digital is obviously the best bet in such situations.
Although I'm using film for both at the moment, I can see the merits of digital for some colour work.
Given that slide / digital has a limited latitude, at some point you're going to need some kind of blending / merging of bracketed shots if only to get rid of blown highlights. Digital is obviously the best bet in such situations.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Here In Brisbane the last roll of E-6 I had processed cost me $20.00 at one of the last surviving pro labs... same deal, uncut, just developed!
That's horsesh!t IMO and is just one of the reasons that colour photography has been all but handed to digital on a plate!
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Tis exactly what motivated me to send my E6 rolls back to Taipei, where developing and scanning costs less than 5 euro a roll compared to 9-12 euro in Europe. Once I get my scanner back from Taipei, the cost will go down to 2-3 euro per roll.
The M8 shots have a quality that I'd qualify as greater "clarity" compared to Velvia, but the overall pallette I get from Velvia is simply unreproduceable with the M8.
On a trip where a friend brought a Canon 5DmkII with superior glass and I brought both the M8 and the R4 with Velvia, it was clear to us both that the M8 produces images at low ISOs that are noticeably more appealing than the 5D.
konicaman
konicaman
I do - for several reasons.
* Out-of-camera B+W jpgs are no good being only 8 bit, so a lot of PP needed
* Getting the right look usually takes RAW - more PP
* Psychological barrier - seeing a color pic on the camera monitor makes it hard for me to "think" B+W
* Scanning B+W negatives is actually faster (for me at least) than doing PP to a digital color file
* Out-of-camera B+W jpgs are no good being only 8 bit, so a lot of PP needed
* Getting the right look usually takes RAW - more PP
* Psychological barrier - seeing a color pic on the camera monitor makes it hard for me to "think" B+W
* Scanning B+W negatives is actually faster (for me at least) than doing PP to a digital color file
Similar threads
