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

[tbarker13]

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.

[tbarker13]

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.

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]

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.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

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.

[KM-25]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by jordanstarr

For me, a lot of B&W conversions are done by people who have no idea how to print black and white images "properly", so the conversions look bad

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

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.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by 135format

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.

Just out of curiosity: How they maintain the digital pictures in the museums having no archival conditions? (I know some of them do not..)

[paulfish4570]

km, that is a good system for limited space for printing. perhaps i can give our cabin another look-through ...

[gustavo peña]

Vinyl records do not make any noise if they are clean and without scrachets. What I like about vinyl records is they sound more warm and you also kind of get the feeling you are listening to live music compare to cd.

Analog noise is more beautiful, is like a guitar with distortion. The digital noise is not as good looking for my taste. Otherwise, if you like your picture clean I guess you are okay with digital.

[Teuthida]

I prefer to eat my meat raw, as I believe fire to be a relatively new and untested technology. Raw meat just has a taste you can't dupilcate.

[135format]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Just out of curiosity: How they maintain the digital pictures in the museums having no archival conditions? (I know some of them do not..)

I think just won't last as long. It's as simple as that. But even with museums trying to preserve all sorts of artefacts, they are still degenerating. It's entropy at work. The normal order of things. Nothing in nature is designed to last for ever. Why should our pictures?

[Harry Lime]

- Lack of dynamic range, most visible in the highlights
- Spectral sensitivity is too broad compared to b/w film

[JayM]

- Biggest reason as with all digital is archival options suck.

- Out of camera images acceptable at best and it seems silly to try to make them look like film that you can still buy and shoot in a camera that probably is more joy to use

It's not like I look at a picture and say "that sucks because I can tell it's digital." That almost never happens. Like many photos though, I enjoy them, but do not necessarily feel like I want to make pictures in the same manner.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by JayM

- Biggest reason as with all digital is archival options suck.

Can you explain this more?

[sevres_babylone]

Originally Posted by tbarker13

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.

Amen.

Confession. I printed black and white in a home basement wet darkroom for close to 20 years, but was never a particularly good printer. After that, for about 10 years, I mostly shot in colour, and mostly made c-prints, renting darkroom time at West Camera in Toronto it was a an exhibition of black and white digital prints by Pedro Meyer that I saw in an exhibition at Epson's Mexico City offices that inspired me to start printing digitally. I scanned and printed for quite a while before I got my Epson camera.

Digital has brought me back to black and white. My printing is much better than my darkroom printing was. I have shown and sold digital black and white prints. Generally, when I've shown them, the only people concerned with whether they are from film or digital, are RFF friends and flickr friends.

I have an appreciation for good silver prints of good photographs, and have some hanging in my home. For instance, Ruth Kaplan is an excellent photographer and stellar printer.

I don't know what a pure digital print looks like. Maybe a sheet of ones and zeroes. I use silver efex pro for most of my digital work, though I've also printed straight from black and white jpegs. I don't see the latter as being any purer.


Good thread, Joe. It's made me think, and taken my mind away from which bag I need to buy next

[MarkoKovacevic]

Originally Posted by 135format

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.

I don't know about the rest of the people here, but all my digital work (when i want to put it on a wall) is printed on Lambda machines, so I don't have the issues associated with inkjet. I can understand that people in smaller cities may not have places with these machines, though.

[dee]

No matter , I shall still use my M8 in monochrome 'cos it's the only option I have .
It seems more at home this way somehow .
The few A4 prints I indulge in will never rival those film prints which I admire , but then again , I would love a vintage Alfa Romeo rather than my battered 147 LOL.
Within my svere limitations , I simply strive to do the best I can .

[135format]

Originally Posted by MarkoKovacevic

I don't know about the rest of the people here, but all my digital work (when i want to put it on a wall) is printed on Lambda machines, so I don't have the issues associated with inkjet. I can understand that people in smaller cities may not have places with these machines, though.

Well yes that is an option but not one many people want to pay for. It ain't cheap. (assuming FB B+W silver gelatin paper not c prints).

[MarkoKovacevic]

Originally Posted by 135format

Well yes that is an option but not one many people want to pay for. It ain't cheap. (assuming FB B+W silver gelatin paper not c prints).

true. it's around 20-30$ for the FB BW silver gelitan per foot (29xhowever long) though it is only 9$ for the C prints, and they don't look bad.

[BobYIL]

I herewith will try to shed a light on the discussions of film B&W vs. digital B&W from -a little- engineering point of view; with as simple terms as possible.

First the Sensitivity vs. Wavelength of the recorded spectrum of visible light. In the below illustrations please note that the vertical axis is always Sensitivity for film or Quantum Efficiency for sensor- meaning almost the same- and the horizontal axis are the visible color wavelengths in nanometers.

First let's see how a hi-speed panchromatic film HP5+(thicker silver-halide spread over the surface for longer tones & longer exposure latitude; for digital this is equivalent of Dynamic Range) also an orthochromatic film APHS Litho(limited bandwith for solely hi-contrast applications ) will react to the visible spectrum.




Please note how the HP5+ reacts to different wavelengths and the respective colors in nanometers too.

To simplify the view the HP5+ alone:



The Tri-X curve now:



Note how the two top films cover the spectral range with their characteristic responses to colors. (Both exhibit excellent responses, do not mind about the cut-off frequency in testing the Tri-X.. the HP5+ is more linear/balanced while the Tri-X is more "blues loving" )

How about a CCD sensor from the Leica M9 neighborhood? (16MP) First the curves for individual colors. Note the "discrepancies" and how CFAs (color filter arrays) affect the sensitivity responses for each color:



Do they look any similar to the HP5+ or Tri-X color response curves above? (Hardly.. )

Bear in mind that ANY sensor, CCD or CMOS, is monochromatic by construction, it's the array filters that turn the "assigned" cells into color-sensitive ones with some sacrifices from the sensitivity too. The following is the ACTUAL response of the same CCD sensor above with no-CFAs (i.e. similar to the one the new B&W M-Leica is going to have):



Now you can compare this curve to the ones of the HP5+ and the Tri-X.

Shortly:

- We still need years to duplicate the characteristics of silver halides crystals following the chemical reactions as seen on the film through digital means.

- The more silver halide involves with further chemical reactions (film developing + image developing on paper thru wet printing) the more the differences between these characteristics curves.

Regards,

Bob

[paulfish4570]

it will not be long before digital display screens will be less expensive than display frames and matting. so, whether it's film or digital, photos will be displayed digitally. no fuss, no muss, no fading. change your mind? upload a new one ...