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

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by sdotkling

It's fake. That's the whole thing in a nutshell.

Ten years ago I was mouthing the same innanities.

[Gabriel M.A.]

It's not the medium, it's the high rate of evident "who cares!" treatment in those files. And good luck pointing it out because then you're an "elitist".

As mentioned previously in this thread, there are many variables.

Take Turkish coffee, for example: if one knows nothing about it, you'd be tempted to stir that cup and chug it down, giving you the impression that "Turkish coffee is bad", even if it was prepared to perfection. I'm sure some people without taste buds would say "who cares!", though.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

It is hard to convert a color image to black and white and get good tonality. This is not really a film vs digital thing, because the problem is the same when converting color film images to black and white. They tend to look muddy and flat, even when there is a full range of tones from pure black to pure white. The midtones need a lot of expansion (but without increasing the overall contrast, which would blow out highlights and block shadows). I have done hundreds of excellent digital BW photos. Most people who claim to hate digital BW just don't know how to get good results, and seeing most of the conversions others have done online just reinforces the view that digital BW 'sucks' because so few can do it right.

I think that digital BW will not really hit its stride until a true monochrome digital camera is introduced at a price working photographers can afford. Until then, BW film generally gives better tonality for most people, and for those of us who do know how to do BW conversions from color, film is still a hell of a lot easier to get good results with.


Here's a recent one I like

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Archlich

Too clean, and cheap. Some people add grain during PP, yet it's still fake - also showing the author's contempt, or at least lack of confidence toward the clean digital look, one of the media's very own property.

Yikes.


I didn't know this was my contempt, and lack of confidence toward the "clean digital look".


Lumix GF1 + Panasonic 20mm f/1.7


The lack of confidence is due to ISO 1600 (or is it the other way around?), and all contempt exercised in Lightroom.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

It is hard to convert a color image to black and white and get good tonality. This is not really a film vs digital thing, because the problem is the same when converting color film images to black and white. They tend to look muddy and flat, even when there is a full range of tones from pure black to pure white. The midtones need a lot of expansion (but without increasing the overall contrast, which would blow out highlights and block shadows). I have done hundreds of excellent digital BW photos. Most people who claim to hate digital BW just don't know how to get good results, and seeing most of the conversions others have done online just reinforces the view that digital BW 'sucks' because so few can do it right.

This is 100% true in my experience, and I'm one of those who find it difficult to get the appropriate midetone 'separation' in digital files without going overboard in contrast. There are those who are VERY good at it though, and their digital b&w work is either indistinguishable from low-grain film, or just looks superb without needing to be compared to anything.

For sure as well, true silver film is much easier to get a good contrast result from, even if the process is more intensive.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

Take Turkish coffee, for example: if one knows nothing about it, you'd be tempted to stir that cup and chug it down, giving you the impression that "Turkish coffee is bad", even if it was prepared to perfection. I'm sure some people without taste buds would say "who cares!", though.

Impressive example... I have heard the same from some other coffee-addicts too..

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by sdotkling

It's fake. That's the whole thing in a nutshell.

It's fake compared to what?

[gns]

No knock. As a couple have said, it's all photography.

To me it's funny when people talk about the film look. Really? Which film look? I've seen a lot of pictures and I've seen film look a million different ways. Ditto for digital.

It's less about the tool and more about what you do with it, if you ask me.

Gary

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by back alley

is it that it looks too clean? no grain?

Exactly. Thats why I am adding a touch of texture in Silver FX.

Also, with digital you have to watch for highlight clipping.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by mfogiel

It is very simple, the digital B&W is plain ugly, and if you don't see that, then don't worry about it.

Whenever I posted scans from b/w negatives next to digital capture no one was able to clearly pick which was which.

Yes, it´s easy to generate a poor black and white picture out of a camera JPG but with proper treatment there is no difference to a b/w negative. Especially not printed on inkjet, which is how most of the "art" prints are made today.

[bigeye]

Gabreil, I'd like to see what you could do with that shot on film. Direct comparisons reveal the strength and weakness.

Also, bring the coffee to boil 3 times to build the foam...

-Charlie

[dcsang]

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

[jippiejee]

Since some of us live in small apartments without the space for a darkroom, scanning film and shooting digital will have to do for us poor city dwellers. Yes we're fake, and we look up in admiration to those of you doing the real thing every day. Please don't ban us from the boards for being cheap copyists of the real photo artists here.

[mdarnton]

I can't really fault it on any substantive basis. To me it looks a lot like large format film; if I wanted that look, I'd shoot digital or large format, but I don't, so I shoot 35mm film.

I see a lot of good digital B&W. Dirk Steffen's, for instance, and jurgen-vt's (that's digital, right? I haven't checked).

I'm not a film totalitarian: I rarely print anything, and when I do, it's digital conversions from film, not silver. Mostly, I like seeing my Tri-X on a monitor, though.

Usually I'm too busy looking at the image to worry about where it came from, unless the processing really stands in the way. If you're making the processing part bigger to you than the image, if you're staring at the grain pattern and ignoring the picture, well . . . . too bad for you.

[paulfish4570]

good point, jj. my next big photo related purchase will be a printer. no room for anything but film developing/scanning - and an x100.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by jippiejee

Since some of us live in small apartments without the space for a darkroom, scanning film and shooting digital will have to do for us poor city dwellers. Yes we're fake, and we look up in admiration to those of you doing the real thing every day. Please don't ban us from the boards for being cheap copyists of the real photo artists here.

[damien.murphy]

Originally Posted by back alley

is it that it looks too clean? no grain? too cold?

i'm serious...

the big knock against the compact disk for music is that there is no warmth...too clean.

is that similar for the digital black & white image?

that would make sense to me...i love digital music, even as a kid i disliked the 'extras' that could be heard on a vinyl record...i like grain in an image but i much prefer that clean, clinical look.

btw, if you have not checked out the b&w digital image thread...you should, some wonderful images in there.

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]

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

[nightfly]

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.

[celluloidprop]

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.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by celluloidprop

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.

It needed to be said...

[hipsterdufus]

It really doesn't matter to me how something was created. A good image is a good image.

[dcsang]

Originally Posted by hipsterdufus

It really doesn't matter to me how something was created. A good image is a good image.

True.. but try to quantify the term "good" - not so easy to do unilaterally

Cheers,
Dave

[hipsterdufus]

Originally Posted by dcsang

True.. but try to quantify the term "good" - not so easy to do unilaterally

Cheers,
Dave

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]

Originally Posted by hipsterdufus

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.

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