View Full Version : Digital is dead?
starless
03-08-2011, 05:05
There are so many photographers, professional and amateur alike, who try to emulate a "film look" with their digital cameras. For example: converting to B/W, adding grain or any other effects that simulate analog capture, HDR (which always looks ridiculous anyway), the hipstamatic app craze, etc.
Isn't it better, and more effective, to just pick up a film camera? For the fraction of the price of an average digital setup they can get REAL film look.
So my question is to those who shoot digital and try to achieve an analog effect: why do you do it?
This should go well then!
They do it because its possible, and the difference is not discernible on the web and even in small to medium print -at least in the case of color.
hipsterdufus
03-08-2011, 05:12
Easy answer: convenience. /thread
kshapero
03-08-2011, 05:12
Each to their own.
Nikon Bob
03-08-2011, 05:16
This should go well then!
He he he, snicker yes.
To OP, I don't know as I have never tried to ape the film look with digital. They are what they are.
Bob
jsrockit
03-08-2011, 05:17
Well, since I would just scan the film and then use the image in lightroom anyway, shooting film hasn't appealed to me as much anymore. If I still was interested in being in a true wet darkroom for color & black and white, I would shoot film more for sure. ;) For me, digital is safer, more convenient, and ultimately cheaper for my way of working... and I can do all my "darkroom" work in my apartment while multitasking on other things.
starless
03-08-2011, 05:36
Ok, that makes sense. I also agree that once film goes through the scanner you end up with a digitally processed file anyway. So yes, some of the true 'film look' will inevitably be lost and you might as well shoot digital in the first place.
I guess my question is more about the aesthetics of a digital file that is post-processed to look like a film one. I don't want to post examples, but I've seen so many photographs that would have looked a lot better if no such effects had been applied.
Why do you go through all the trouble to alter a perfectly good capture in order to make it look like it's been shot on film, is the question?
Perhaps someone can post a few GOOD examples of such "film look" conversions?
Roger Hicks
03-08-2011, 05:36
Well, since I would just scan the film and then use the image in lightroom anyway, shooting film hasn't appealed to me as much anymore. If I still was interested in being in a true wet darkroom for color & black and white, I would shoot film more for sure. ;) For me, digital is safer, more convenient, and ultimately cheaper for my way of working... and I can do all my "darkroom" work in my apartment while multitasking on other things.
Or to put it another way, 'not concentrating'. Purely personally, I find that I do most things better (and enjoy them more) if I don't try to do too many things at once.
This isn't to say that your way or my way is better, just that we're sometimes tempted by others' ways of working, even when they are completely unsuitable for us.
Like you, I can't see much point in shooting then scanning colour, but wet-printed B+W is different, especially with Ilford's incredible new paper.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
03-08-2011, 05:39
Ok, that makes sense. I also agree that once film goes through the scanner you end up with a digitally processed file anyway. So yes, some of the true 'film look' will inevitably be lost and you might as well shoot digital in the first place.
I guess my question is more about the aesthetics of a digital file that is post-processed to look like a film one. I don't want to post examples, but I've seen so many photographs that would have looked a lot better if no such effects had been applied.
Why do you go through all the trouble to alter a perfectly good capture in order to make it look like it's been shot on film, is the question?
Perhaps someone can post a few GOOD examples of such "film look" conversions?
Well, yes, unless you're unable to handle film (brought up on digital), or don't care to print colour. For B+W there's just no contest for me.
Cheers,
R.
... and why, oh why, exactly, have people started capturing photographs anyway? cannot one simply take them? it was good enough for me! I just fail to what's the advantage, is whippersnapper still a word anyway ...
Roger Hicks
03-08-2011, 05:52
... and why, oh why, exactly, have people started capturing photographs anyway? cannot one simply take them? it was good enough for me! I just fail to what's the advantage
Dear Stewart,
Well, perhaps some people use the word 'capture' because they torture them afterwards...
Cheers,
R.
jsrockit
03-08-2011, 05:53
Or to put it another way, 'not concentrating'. Purely personally, I find that I do most things better (and enjoy them more) if I don't try to do too many things at once.
Well, let me rephrase that. I'm not multitasking while editing / PP an image, but while printing a large print... it is nice to watch TV or go on the internet... while the thing slowly comes out of my printer.
For B+W there's just no contest for me.
Hey, I agree with Roger about something! :eek: :D
I have yet to read anything that adequately explains why digital B&W can't match the look of B&W film, but it many cases it truly is no contest. But I know a few photographers who SWEAR that "no one" can tell the difference between 35mm and medium format B&W film when printed smaller than 8x10, so maybe it's true that the general public really can't make these distinctions.
Roger Hicks
03-08-2011, 05:58
Well, let me rephrase that. I'm not multitasking while editing / PP an image, but while printing a large print... it is nice to watch TV or go on the internet... while the thing slowly comes out of my printer.
Ah... you don't ENJOY watching paint dry, then.
Point fully taken, but partly, that's why I prefer the darkroom. You're constantly engaged with the process. Well, except with washing and drying, I suppose.
Cheers,
R.
PatrickT
03-08-2011, 06:01
Easy answer: convenience. /thread
Bingo! Comes down to this really...no other reason in my opinion.
back alley
03-08-2011, 06:02
after more than 30 years in the darkroom, i enjoy sitting on my butt and using photoshop.
btw, not everyone is trying to make digital look like film, many of us are quite pleased with the look of digital.
http://www.thedphoto.com/post_processing/create-a-stylish-washed-out-vintage-photo-effect-with-photoshop/
I have someone else do all the boring bits ... in this last issue Zoom someone used the word bressonian, and I decided that was the way to go. Intresting artical btw on Alexey Titarenko.
tom.w.bn
03-08-2011, 06:10
http://www.thedphoto.com/post_processing/create-a-stylish-washed-out-vintage-photo-effect-with-photoshop/
Uh. Oh. This is weird. But if you spend an hour on manipulating a photo it must be art after that.
It's just all the kids wanting to be hip and retro and all that. They make a photo look like it was taken 30 years ago in a holga, the print left in the sun and several glasses of wine spilt over it throughout the years and suddenly it's just WAAAAAY cooler looking!
jsrockit
03-08-2011, 06:15
It's just all the kids wanting to be hip and retro and all that. They make a photo look like it was taken 30 years ago in a holga, the print left in the sun and several glasses of wine spilt over it throughout the years and suddenly it's just WAAAAAY cooler looking!
And honestly, I have no issue with that. It's much better than them abondoning photography altogether. To each his (her) own. It's a great time in Photography... we have so many options.
Dave Jenkins
03-08-2011, 06:16
. . .perhaps some people use the word 'capture' because they torture them afterwards...
By far the best explanation I've heard for the use of that abominable term "capture" for making a photograph.
we appreciates different things as our age grows. when we are young boys we like the latest toys and the coolest gadgets often high tech and digital. when we become older, we appreciate the simple things in live like a film camera. we are drawn to things that we can relate to the most. like old people with old film cameras. haha
D90
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4679366261_232c0d4a62.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aperture64/4679366261/)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2700/4197044837_0afbe7120a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aperture64/4197044837/in/pool-1018741@N21/)
For me the question isn't not whether these look ok, or if you can tell that it is not film in an 8x10 print. The question is; what was wrong with these images straight out of the camera?
Digital is a puppy. How can it be dead? It will grow up like film did. And then it will pass like film does. World goes through cycles.
I have yet to read anything that adequately explains why digital B&W can't match the look of B&W film, ...
same here, wonder have anyone tried instead of giving opinions one way or another ?
For me the question isn't not whether these look ok, or if you can tell that it is not film in an 8x10 print. The question is; what was wrong with these images straight out of the camera?
with the exception of Polaroid stuff, I don't think anything is "straight out of the camera" whatever medium one chooses
with the exception of Polaroid stuff, I don't think anything is "straight out of the camera" whatever medium one chooses
Of course not, but there is a difference between just making what you have look it's best and turning it into something entirely different. I don't have a problem with manipulation. I in most cases just don't understand why it was considered necessary.
starless
03-08-2011, 07:08
I don't have a problem with manipulation. I in most cases just don't understand why it was considered necessary.
Yes, this is exactly what I am trying to figure out.
I know it's popular to convert digital to B/W (and the photos posted by aperture64 look quite good on a computer display at least) but surely if the film look is THAT important you're better off shooting B/W film in the first place.
Faintandfuzzy
03-08-2011, 07:13
There are so many photographers, professional and amateur alike, who try to emulate a "film look" with their digital cameras. For example: converting to B/W, adding grain or any other effects that simulate analog capture, HDR (which always looks ridiculous anyway), the hipstamatic app craze, etc.
Isn't it better, and more effective, to just pick up a film camera? For the fraction of the price of an average digital setup they can get REAL film look.
So my question is to those who shoot digital and try to achieve an analog effect: why do you do it?
Let me ask you what you do in this situation:
- You're at an event. You wish to photograph the event in color. It is very dark and you don't want to use flash. What do you do?
- You're at the same event, and you wish to use B&W film. It's dark enough that you need to use Ilford Delta 3200 or Kodak PMZ3200. Now, when viewing the photographs, you wish instead that you could have used Tri-X, because you'd have liked the look better.
In either situation, from digital capture, you could use high iso for the color work without issue. There is no high iso color option in film. For the B&W, you're stuck....you shot it on Kodak 3200, and you're stuck with it.
One way, you use Silver Efex and redo the iamge to use the Tri-X plugin. The other, you're stuck with something you don't like. Now you tell me, how much better off were you by "just picking up a film camera?"
Don't get me wrong, I prefer film. But sometimes, it makes far more sense to begin with a digital camera.
starless
03-08-2011, 07:15
Digital is a puppy. How can it be dead? It will grow up like film did. And then it will pass like film does. World goes through cycles.
It's just a catchy title, I suppose ;)
Gabriel M.A.
03-08-2011, 07:16
So my question is to those who shoot digital and try to achieve an analog effect: why do you do it?
Like those who order pineapple on their pizza, add sugar to their coffee, have their Martinis stirred and not shaken, write with a pencil and paper instead of an iPad, use an iPad as if they were using pencil and paper, and, specially, those who order caffeine-free Diet Coke: because you can.
It's all a matter of taste.
Of course not, but there is a difference between just making what you have look it's best and turning it into something entirely different. I don't have a problem with manipulation. I in most cases just don't understand why it was considered necessary.
No, I don't either. But every decision I make in the post-processing is base on aesthetics not on fidelity.
Still if I make a major alteration I make it clear what I have done, but I realise "truth" in this respect is arbitrary.
Paul Luscher
03-08-2011, 07:18
Well, sir or ma'am, as the case may be, the thing is that time doesn't go backwards, and there will be no real return to film. Digital is the future, like it or not.
As to your question about capturing a "film look": I don't go for that on MOST of my digital images--happy with the way they look as they are. But SOME photos look even better in my mind as a black and white--and I didn't realize that FILM has a monopoly on B&W, given that digital can be shot that way if you wish, or can be converted that way from a color image, just like you could do with color film.:)
And what's wrong about giving certain of my digital images a "film look?" Just a matter of style. Just like painters will give their work a certain look, in order to achieve a certain effect. I mean, people used to manipulate their film images to achieve a certain look...like posterization, for instance.....
Like those who order pineapple on their pizza, add sugar to their coffee, have their Martinis stirred and not shaken, write with a pencil and paper instead of an iPad, use an iPad as if they were using pencil and paper, and, specially, those who order caffeine-free Diet Coke: because you can.
It's all a matter of taste.
The diet coke thing is because they're fat, it can't be the taste
skibeerr
03-08-2011, 07:21
http://www.thedphoto.com/post_processing/create-a-stylish-washed-out-vintage-photo-effect-with-photoshop/
Is this article a joke, reminds me of the mudspray they sell for Chelsea Tractors.
W
starless
03-08-2011, 07:25
Let me ask you what you do in this situation:
- You're at an event. You wish to photograph the event in color. It is very dark and you don't want to use flash. What do you do?
- You're at the same event, and you wish to use B&W film. It's dark enough that you need to use Ilford Delta 3200 or Kodak PMZ3200. Now, when viewing the photographs, you wish instead that you could have used Tri-X, because you'd have liked the look better.
In either situation, from digital capture, you could use high iso for the color work without issue. There is no high iso color option in film. For the B&W, you're stuck....you shot it on Kodak 3200, and you're stuck with it.
One way, you use Silver Efex and redo the iamge to use the Tri-X plugin. The other, you're stuck with something you don't like. Now you tell me, how much better off were you by "just picking up a film camera?"
Don't get me wrong, I prefer film. But sometimes, it makes far more sense to begin with a digital camera.
Honestly, I would have shot it in digital and never bothered to convert them to look like Tri-X. I am not disputing the fact that digital is more convenient, especially for low-light situations.
However, I cannot relate to the problem of having to convert a photograph to look like something else, because it might look better if you apply a certain filter. I believe my vision as a photographer is as important as everything else and it should be part of the process of taking the photograph, not part of the post-production.
tom.w.bn
03-08-2011, 07:31
The diet coke thing is because they're fat, it can't be the taste
I had a colleague who drank diet coke at room temperature all the time. Besides that he was quite normal and had a normal figure too. As someone said, it's just a matter of taste.
duncanhill
03-08-2011, 07:42
Also you have to factor in film, processing and scanning. This is the dilemma I'm in at the moment. I shoot so much film that an x100, or something in that range , is looking cheaper and cheaper.
Let me ask you what you do in this situation:
- You're at an event. You wish to photograph the event in color. It is very dark and you don't want to use flash. What do you do?
- You're at the same event, and you wish to use B&W film. It's dark enough that you need to use Ilford Delta 3200 or Kodak PMZ3200. Now, when viewing the photographs, you wish instead that you could have used Tri-X, because you'd have liked the look better.
In either situation, from digital capture, you could use high iso for the color work without issue.
factual errors aside, looks like your problems would go away if you removed this strange insistence on "want," "wish" and "without issue"
personally, i would have shot what i got in the fridge in both scenarios and be very very happy with the results. and so would be everyone concerned
:cool:
http://www.thedphoto.com/post_processing/create-a-stylish-washed-out-vintage-photo-effect-with-photoshop/
well, i like film and i like digital... but this one is junk, no matter how you cut it :angel:
starless
03-08-2011, 07:45
Is this article a joke, reminds me of the mudspray they sell for Chelsea Tractors.
W
We all agree that the before photo looks better, right?
This conversion 'to look like film' reference is kinda missing the point. it is not about 'film vs digital' but analogue vs digitial. Film just happens to be analogue and human beings tend to be prefer analogue thingies to digital thingies in many respects. They are somehow more real because they are imperfect, just like the real world. thats my theory anyway. Lots of things both now and in the future are made perfect and then 'roughed up' to look more 'real' and carry some more of what we humans love in them - imperfect history connecting them to humankind:
Vintage prints, vintage styled prints, antique tables, vintage cars, retro cars, the list goes on forever really.
Clean digital perfection is not tethered to anything we can relate to and even in colour form it can be painful to look at. Thats because it looks like an edited, cleaned up simulation of the imperfect world we know. From getting up in the morning we see asymmetrical faces, moles on arms, trees leaning to one side, wonder why are left arm is never as good as our right when we work out, no matter what we do... This is the natural world and it messes with our heads when images that are supposed to be a reflection of that look like it but somehow 'more perfect.' Human beings get freaked out when human faces are made perfectly symmetrical, especially if they know the face. They cannot detect what has changed, but will generally select (prefer) the slightly asymmetric faces to the ones the computer has made perfectly symmetrical.
This goes to say that it is not about making digital look like film, but making digital or anything else feel more organic/analogue/real. Few people have issues with leaving out the grain on photos of modern architecture or abstracts etc do they? Funny that it tends to be more prevalent with more organic subjects or those with more human nostalgia connected to them. I think what this all means to me is that there is nothing wrong with it. Film has this quality to it naturally, but with digital it can be added. Surely thats OK, because if they made film without such a quality, people might use coarser developers or avoid them entirely, or use them for certain subjects. So, why is it I don't use Acros, Tmax 100 etc again? Because they look synthetic to my eyes. Oh, they look like digital ;)
starless
03-08-2011, 07:51
This conversion 'to look like film' reference is kinda missing the point. it is not about 'film vs digital' but analogue vs digitial. Film just happens to be analogue and human beings tend to be prefer analogue thingies to digital thingies in many respects. They are somehow more real because they are imperfect, just like the real world. thats my theory anyway. Lots of things both now and in the future and made perfect and then 'roughed up' to look more 'real' and carry some more of what we humans love in them - imperfect history connecting them to humankind:
Vintage prints, vintage styled prints, antique tables, vintage cars, retro cars, the list goes on forever really.
Clean digital perfection is not toethered to anything we can relate to. From getting up in the morning we see asymmetrical faces, moles on arms, trees leaning to one side, wonder why are left arm is never as good as our right when we work out, no matter what we do... This is the natural world and we belong in it.
I think that's a really good point. The analogue process is prone to accidents and unexpected results, at least in my experience. Some of those "errors" are what make a photograph. I think Winogrand said something along those lines but I have to look it up.
ibcrewin
03-08-2011, 07:54
Digital totally has it's place.. Like when you want to shoot your nephew's 3rd bday party and aunt Nancy wants you to email the pictures to her. Film has it's place in the same party, but they are for usually for yourself, not for aunt Nancy.
David Bailey, in an interview on the Beeb last year said something like "the art is in the errors, and I make more errors with film"
tbarker13
03-08-2011, 07:57
I really don't understand why this should be puzzling.
Film photographers have always used various darkroom tricks to accentuate or minimize grain. They do things to increase or lower contrast in developing.
Look at all the film choices that are available even today. Photographers have long enjoyed the freedom of matching their subject matter with different film characteristics.
Digital post-processing allows that same freedom - on the back-end, rather than the front-end.
shadowfox
03-08-2011, 08:32
By far the best explanation I've heard for the use of that abominable term "capture" for making a photograph.
I am not challenging those of you who are offended with the term 'capture' being applied to photography, I'm sure you have your own reasons. I'd be interested to know if you're willing to elaborate a bit.
But to me, using the word 'capture' emphasizes the effort that it takes to frame an elusive moment. Which is apt in context of something like street-photography or journalism or wedding/event photography.
The word 'take' somehow to me does not have the same weight, but I used it often enough.
Now we've gone off-tangent :)
Nikon Bob
03-08-2011, 08:42
Yes, this is exactly what I am trying to figure out.
I know it's popular to convert digital to B/W (and the photos posted by aperture64 look quite good on a computer display at least) but surely if the film look is THAT important you're better off shooting B/W film in the first place.
I think you mistakenly feel everyone one who converts digital colour to B&W wants to emulate the B&W film look and that it is "THAT" important. Thing is, it is not "THAT important to me and I only want to produce a B&W image that I like be it film or digital. OTH, if it is "THAT" important to you that is good too.
Bob
Digital images are made to be manipulated to get a certain look... is there anything wrong with that??? ;)
John Rountree
03-08-2011, 10:28
If you are shooting digital to emulate film you are missing the boat. Film looks like film because of the polyester base and embedded silver crystals. Digital simply doesn't have the physical ability to look like film. If you want it to look like film, only film can do that. But why would you want that? As has been said, innovation moves forward and digital is the medium of now and the foreseeable future. How many of you make (or have ever made) platinum prints? In his [I]Daybooks[I] Edward Weston complains bitterly and at length about how photographs will never be as beautiful as the platinum prints he used to make. Listening to Weston, the whole process of photography was being degraded by these new silver prints. But, then came Ansel Adams who made silver prints that knocked everybody's socks off. The paradigm changed. Today, platinum prints (including Weston's) look dull and flat. This is what is happening with digital today. We are still waiting for the digital equivalent of Uncle Ansel. But, have no doubt, he or she will come forward with digital images that change the paradigm, agian.
shadowfox
03-08-2011, 10:40
If you are shooting digital to emulate film you are missing the boat. Film looks like film because of the polyester base and embedded silver crystals. Digital simply doesn't have the physical ability to look like film. If you want it to look like film, only film can do that. But why would you want that? As has been said, innovation moves forward and digital is the medium of now and the foreseeable future. How many of you make (or have ever made) platinum prints? In his Daybooks[i] Edward Weston complains bitterly and at length about how photographs will never be as beautiful as the platinum prints he used to make. Listening to Weston, the whole process of photography was being degraded by these new silver prints. But, then came Ansel Adams who made silver prints that knocked everybody's socks off. The paradigm changed. [I] Today, platinum prints (including Weston's) look dull and flat. This is what is happening with digital today. We are still waiting for the digital equivalent of Uncle Ansel. But, have no doubt, he or she will come forward with digital images that change the paradigm, agian.
Those statements (underlined) are subjective personal opinions, correct?
Just want to make sure :)
John Rountree
03-08-2011, 10:46
@Shadowfox "Those statements (underlined) are subjective personal opinions, correct?
Just want to make sure."
There is a bit of subjectivity in the statement. But, objectively, a silver print in the manner of Ansel Adams does have more contrast and dynamic range than any platinum print I have seen. Sorry, I missed the first underline. Yes, that is purely subjective and probably couldn't be interpreted any other way.
starless
03-08-2011, 11:50
But the only reason to convert a a digital image to B&W is to make it look like film/analog.
After all B&W is property of black and white film.
Roger Hicks
03-08-2011, 11:56
But the only reason to convert a a digital image to B&W is to make it look like film/analog.
After all B&W is property of black and white film.
Are you too young to remember B+W television?
I fully take your point about the joke of digital pretending to be what it's not, and agree, but I don't think that your post above is your strongest argument.
Cheers,
R.
doolittle
03-08-2011, 12:17
The reason many people manipulate digital photos to look like film is that it gives them something to aim for. A known objective to work towards. Certain film looks will give an atmosphere or a hint of an historic time period etc. It's usually not difficult to do, and dare I say it, can be fun.
Here is one of my efforts to get a daguerreotype look:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1183/4731425692_e2ef1ffa4d.jpg
Sure, it has none of the qualities of a daguerreotype picture and bears only a vague resemblance to the real thing. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery as the saying goes.
On the subject of daguerreotypes: here we have one of the oldest forms of photographic recording, which is arguable capable of rendering more detail then any process which has succeeded it. Often it seems to come down to convenience over quality. Same with film vs digital, vinyl vs Cds (and mp3s).
tom.w.bn
03-08-2011, 12:31
But the only reason to convert a a digital image to B&W is to make it look like film/analog.
After all B&W is property of black and white film.
I thought that the main reason for bw is that there are no colors that distract from the content. So using a bw-film or converting a digital image to bw has the same goal.
starless
03-08-2011, 12:34
I remember B&W television when I was a kid, but aren't we discussing photography now?
What I meant is that in photography B&W or sepia was (obviously not anymore) associated with film. This is due to the very chemical process of photography - silver halides and all. That is why B&W is inherently a property of film.
The aesthetics of the B&W image are appealing to most of us because of our exposure to B/W photography.
starless
03-08-2011, 12:37
I thought that the main reason for bw is that there are no colors that distract from the content. So using a bw-film or converting a digital image to bw has the same goal.
From an artist's perspective yes.
But why film was B&W and looked like this in the first place, was due to the way it was made and the chemicals that were used in the process.
graywolf
03-08-2011, 13:09
By far the best explanation I've heard for the use of that abominable term "capture" for making a photograph.
Ah, but they are not making a photograph. They are capturing and image.
Interestingly enough, I got into a conversation about digital b&w v. darkroom b&w over at the University today (It's spring break and seemed like a good time to go to the library). I wound up explaining the difference as, "Good darkroom work takes some knowledge and lots of skill, while good digital work takes lots of knowledge, and little skill".
A question was, "What is the difference between a b&w digital photo, and a film one". I answered, on your monitor, not much. On an 8x10 or larger salon quality print on the wall, quit a lot.
BTW, my Hapo 66E started the conversation.
But why film was B&W and looked like this in the first place, was due to the way it was made and the chemicals that were used in the process.
film was B&W at the beginning, because that was better than complete B :D
IMO that has nothing todo wether digital files could not be converted also B&W. for instance sometimes colors are distracting the image, and taking them away gets the message through better. I bet there are many other reasons todo it.
Brian Sweeney
03-09-2011, 12:32
You can still buy Monochrome Digital Cameras. They are expensive.
With an 18-Megapixel M9 image, you get "about" the equivalent of a 6-Megapixel Monochrome sensor. Figure the Bayer-site makes about one monochrome pixel.
What was really hard was to do Color with a Monochrome Digital camera. Filter wheel interfaced to the camera, 3 separate exposures.
alexnotalex
03-09-2011, 13:29
Digital's not dead, that's what's selling. Follow the money :)
Brian Sweeney
03-09-2011, 15:52
Monochrome Digital is almost dead. Not that long ago -10 years- you could buy a Digital camera in either color or monochrome. The Kodak DCS760M was the last integral camera available in monochrome. Phase I has brought back a monochrome camera back. People do nice work with color conversion. Having used a Monochrome Digital Camera, I've never bothered with converting color images to monochrome. Just do not like the workflow.
I read somewhere the color filters can be removed from the CCD Nikons, D200 and D40 and earlier (D80?). The filters are gelatin based, so water soluble. Canon's are plastic, so no go. I seem to remember someone was doing this as a service. Might be something you'd be into, Brian. Maybe a "water pik" and some hot distilled...
:angel:
Brian Sweeney
03-10-2011, 01:29
I've read some online posts where Acetone was used to disolve off the dye layer of a CCD. At some point, i'll pick up an old digital camera and try it. My Monochrome DSLR still works. But running Win95B with Photoshop 3.0, and my own raw convertor... I wish Leica offered a Monochrome M9.
shadowfox
03-10-2011, 09:21
@Shadowfox "Those statements (underlined) are subjective personal opinions, correct?
Just want to make sure."
There is a bit of subjectivity in the statement. But, objectively, a silver print in the manner of Ansel Adams does have more contrast and dynamic range than any platinum print I have seen. Sorry, I missed the first underline. Yes, that is purely subjective and probably couldn't be interpreted any other way.
John, one of the beauty of Platinum prints lies in its ability to render continuous tones. It does not necessarily mean wider dynamic range and it certainly does not compete in the arena of higher contrast.
My favorite example of excellent platinum prints is actually from a modern photographer JOsÉ MIGUEL FERREIRA, here is his website:
http://www.jmf-photo.net
Have a look, let me know what you think.
Ah, but they are not making a photograph. They are capturing and image.
Interestingly enough, I got into a conversation about digital b&w v. darkroom b&w over at the University today (It's spring break and seemed like a good time to go to the library). I wound up explaining the difference as, "Good darkroom work takes some knowledge and lots of skill, while good digital work takes lots of knowledge, and little skill".
A question was, "What is the difference between a b&w digital photo, and a film one". I answered, on your monitor, not much. On an 8x10 or larger salon quality print on the wall, quit a lot.
BTW, my Hapo 66E started the conversation.
Well that's cobblers. Digital manipulation done well requires a large amount of knowledge coupled with a large amount of skill. To say anything else is simply ridiculous.
As for what looks better, pointless question, we all like what we like. Same as arguing about music, I don't like what you like, you don't like what I like, and that's fine.
Brian Sweeney
03-19-2011, 13:45
Digital sensors are inherently monochrome. A color mosaic filter is placed over the sensing elements of most color digital cameras, and over each sensor layer in a Foveon sensor. Kodak makes sensors for Monochrome work, still in production. Mostly used by the scientific industry.
This is from a Monochrome IR camera, almost 20 years old.
http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=206&pictureid=2024
http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=206&pictureid=2014
Phase 1 recently introduced a modern Monochrome/Infrared camera back for Medium format cameras.
peripatetic
03-19-2011, 15:20
It would take me years of sweat and toil in a dark room full of poisonous chemicals to learn to make prints even half as good as I can print at home on my inkjet printer.
I just don't see anything better about silver B&W prints from a negative and yes I've seen thousands of them on the walls of the London galleries over the last 20 years.
The emperor is as naked as the day he was born.
Why add grain? Change colours? Emulate film looks?
Bah, why not? You try to make pleasing looking images, whatever works in service of that goal is fine by me.
bizarrius
03-20-2011, 07:16
i once tried to make film look like digital.
turned out really bad.
Brian Sweeney
03-20-2011, 15:56
Panatomic-X in Microdol.
Close to the smoothness of digital that I have used.
http://ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=171&pictureid=2548
Loves it.
DanOnRoute66
03-20-2011, 19:07
I didn't know that either Panatomic-X or Microdol were still available, Mr. Sweeney.
Brian Sweeney
03-21-2011, 01:48
Neither available. When I got back the first results from the digital monochrome camera- wow, this is as smooth as Panatomic-X in Microdol. I never cared for grain. With film, or digital.
The aesthetics of the B&W image are appealing to most of us because of our exposure to B/W photography.
Are you high? :)
The asesthetics of B&W began when some hominid pulled a piece of charcoal out of the fire and drew with it.
Our fascination with B&W has NOTHING to do with film. It has everything to do with drawing.
No third party image can compete with a kid's stick figure-- that he/she drew, sorry.
Film is like when I drive my 240Z. It's alot of fun, but I'm not going to win a formula 1.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5429801999_bc41845c34_z.jpg
I do look incredibly cool though.:D
uhoh7, I have to disagree with you. I assure you that most people out there don't look at B&W photos and suddenly get all fuzzy about all those pictures they drew with a pencil when they were a kid. The aesthetics itself of the two art mediums don't have much effect on each other at all.
B&W photography is associated with all the famous photographs going back a number of decades ago. When you consider the pioneers in their area of photography, the masters and so on these are the people photographers today look towards and also who the average person has grown up with being shown these photos as examples of great photography, all of which was done in b&w.
B&W photography is associated with the classic 'old-world' style of photography, something is very romantic about it. Which is also why people have this "timeless" feeling about b&w images, for it is subconsciously associated with old pictures. So that's why it remains popular even with colour photography nowadays, because an image in b&w steals the idea of reality a little and becomes somewhat fantasy.
uhoh7, I have to disagree with you. I assure you that most people out there don't look at B&W photos and suddenly get all fuzzy about all those pictures they drew with a pencil when they were a kid.
We don't remember the traumas of early childhood, but they effect us for a lifetime.
You imply the attraction to B&W is due to photography. I think it is far deeper than that.
But I don't deny there are lots of great B&W photos, old and new, film and digital, which are compelling for a variety of reasons.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5092/5428758939_aaa0f5fbe1_z.jpg
Chris101
03-24-2011, 22:45
Uhoh, it's a childhood trauma alright. I was disciplined in 2nd grade for coloring leaves brown and skies purple.
Uhoh, it's a childhood trauma alright. I was disciplined in 2nd grade for coloring leaves brown and skies purple.
Now you probably play with HDR....:)
A client of mine has a house full of art. This is the piece which draws the most comment:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5560287960_09f0b5db28_z.jpg
bigger:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5140/5560287960_8809b82788_o.jpg
here you can see the actual color, or lack thereof:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5183/5559719737_7b9b42752c_z.jpg
terrible shots--first just a crop from a night time room shot. but you get the idea
it's hand drawn. I don't love it myself, but everyone else does.
There is always an exception.
This is an example of the pitfalls of the RFF - I mention Franz Kline and you post [2 large] pictures of a black and white bull, in a log house, by an [unidentified] artist you don't like.
Makes discussion pointless... too much "right fighting."
You say there is only little B&W painting, my point is there is much non-film B&W art, both before and after photography.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5058/5571005645_5f08b4de32_z.jpg
However one interesting study notes people who grew up watching B&W report dreaming in B&W, while younger people do not.
Faintandfuzzy
04-07-2011, 11:21
Honestly, I would have shot it in digital and never bothered to convert them to look like Tri-X. I am not disputing the fact that digital is more convenient, especially for low-light situations.
However, I cannot relate to the problem of having to convert a photograph to look like something else, because it might look better if you apply a certain filter. I believe my vision as a photographer is as important as everything else and it should be part of the process of taking the photograph, not part of the post-production.
That's interesting. I take it you've never made any adjustments in the darkroom (because it's not how you captured it in the camera) nor have you ever converted a color image to B&W after the fact.
Wow, it must be horrible to be so trapped in to a process to the extent it can hinder your vision.
Faintandfuzzy
04-07-2011, 11:22
factual errors aside, looks like your problems would go away if you removed this strange insistence on "want," "wish" and "without issue"
personally, i would have shot what i got in the fridge in both scenarios and be very very happy with the results. and so would be everyone concerned
:cool:
Really? So if you had Ektar 100 in the fridge, you would have used it in a dark venue and had a bunch of blurry shots.....and everyone would be thrilled? I highly doubt it!
Brian Sweeney
04-07-2011, 14:43
I would have loaded the Ektar into the Canon 7 with the 50/0.95 on it. ASA 100, at night, no problem.
Fuzzy, part of working as a 'professional' paid photographer is to be prepared for the work that you are going into. You don't turn up at an event in pitch black and say "^@&* all I have is Ektar 100!?".
You also don't go to the store and buy Delta 3200 for the job hoping that it will come out looking like 400TX.
But you also don't sell yourself as a film photographer and turn up with a digital camera, it's more convenient in terms of on the fly changes but it is still digital and no amount of photoshop and 'TRI-X plugin' will change that.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.