b&w - a digital after thought?

[zeos 386sx]

Luminous Landscape has an interesting article by Pete Myers explaining his reasons for returning to film in a Leica M after two years with "a nearly one-of-a-kind digital monochrome camera-the Kodak DCS 760m".

<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml>

Myers notes that "...no other manufacturer has expressed interest in developing a digital monochrome camera or medium format back. Given the precarious moment in the photo industry, I have my doubts that digital monochrome will be addressed any time soon".

It seems like the digital camera manufaturers have forgotten about b&w. Their attitude being that you can do a post-shoot conversion from color to b&w in your computer.

However, in a previous thread - "lens filter" - richard_l noted, "...in order to digitally emulate contrast (colored) filters, one is restricted to the use of color film. With black and white film, the only way to emulate contrast filters is to actually 'paint' over the image".

My interest is b&w and I'm feeling left out of the digital revolution. Can contrast filters be used on digital cameras to create the same affects that they do on film?

[GeneW]

Could any of the R-D1 owners respond to this? Isn't the R-D1 set for some very good B&W modes, including B&W modes that emulate filters?

Gene

[vincentbenoit]

Originally Posted by zeos 386sx

richard_l noted, "...in order to digitally emulate contrast (colored) filters, one is restricted to the use of color film. With black and white film, the only way to emulate contrast filters is to actually 'paint' over the image".

Call me stupid but this sentence doesn't make sense to me... would you care to elaborate?
Cheers
Vincent

[T_om]

You are touching on four different subjects.

First:

Myers notes that "...no other manufacturer has expressed interest in developing a digital monochrome camera or medium format back. Given the precarious moment in the photo industry, I have my doubts that digital monochrome will be addressed any time soon".

I agree. But the reason I agree is that there is no need for such a specialized instrument.


Second:

It seems like the digital camera manufaturers have forgotten about b&w. Their attitude being that you can do a post-shoot conversion from color to b&w in your computer.

They have not 'forgotten' and in fact, some digitals do have B&W mode... but again, it is not necessary. Digital capture is such that after-the-fact processing conversions give an IMMENSE amount of control over the conversion process and the quality of the end result. Also, whether the conversion is done in-camera or later on in the process is pretty much immaterial except as how it may save you a step if you are not particularly interested in getting the most out of the image. Same thing as the "RAW vs. jpg" battle that rages in parts of the digital community.


Third:

However, in a previous thread - "lens filter" - richard_l noted, "...in order to digitally emulate contrast (colored) filters, one is restricted to the use of color film. With black and white film, the only way to emulate contrast filters is to actually 'paint' over the image".

Sorry, but this is incorrect.


Fourth:

Can contrast filters be used on digital cameras to create the same affects that they do on film?

Unnecessary. With the single exception of polarizing filters, every filter effect that you can achieve by placing a filter on the lens can be done in post processing in PhotoShop. Every one. And even the effects of polarizing filters can be simulated to the extent that it would take an expert to tell the difference.

Digital capture and manipulation is a whole new ballgame.

Tom

[richard_l]

Originally Posted by vincentbenoit

Call me stupid but this sentence doesn't make sense to me... would you care to elaborate?
Cheers
Vincent

There is no way to emulate the effect of a colored filter on a black & white image. The only way to alter the contrast in a manner similar to a colored filter is to selectively change the values of different parts of the image. For example, in order to darken the sky, you have to do something like select the sky and then darken it.

However, using a color image, one can partially emulate the effect of a red-orange filter on black & white film by simply grayscaling the red color channel.

[titrisol]

mmmm efke 25 exposed as EI 6 and developed in Xtol for 7 minutes at 21.25C?
Those should be bullet proof negatives

The article is more equipment related than processing, I'm amazed that being a declared fine-art printer/photographer he wouldn't devote time to develop himself.

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by T_om

Unnecessary. With the single exception of polarizing filters, every filter effect that you can achieve by placing a filter of the lens can be done in post processing in PhotoShop. Every one. And even the effects of polarizing filters can be simulated to the extent that it would take an expert to tell the difference.

Digital capture and manipulation is a whole new ballgame.

Tom

And IR filters. Question: Is this valid for scanned film as well?

[Allen Gilman]

I think Tom has pretty much covered the essential points here. I read that article at Luminous-landscape and it just doesn't jive for me. Of course, any equipment is a personal choice based on personal needs. At any rate, whether you're using a film or digital camera, you're using your eyes at the time of exposure. Post-exposure, you process the black and white film or you convert the color image to black and white in your software of choice. Filters is a non-issue with digital as you can apply filters in PS or ajdust the color balance OR adjust the channel mixer for black and white. Works either way (film or digi) - just depends on what you're confortable working with.

[richard_l]

"My interest is b&w and I'm feeling left out of the digital revolution. Can contrast filters be used on digital cameras to create the same affects that they do on film?"

Yes.

[richard_l]

However, in a previous thread - "lens filter" - richard_l noted, "...in order to digitally emulate contrast (colored) filters, one is restricted to the use of color film. With black and white film, the only way to emulate contrast filters is to actually 'paint' over the image".

Tom wrote:
"Sorry, but this is incorrect."

Dear Tom:

If you have a black and white image of a red rose bush with green leaves, and the rose and the leaves are the same shade of gray, how in the world are you going to emulate the effect of a red or green filter? I'm assuming you understand how colored contrast filters work.

[jlw]

Old-timers (old enough to remember Kodak Panalure panchromatic b&w printing paper, anyway) will recall that it was possible to "post-process" filter effects on this paper by shooting on color negative film and then filtering at the printing stage. Because the film had recording color information from the scene, you could darken blue skies, lighten foliage, and do all the other contrast-filter tricks common to b&w film.

It's the same when you're doing b&w conversion of a color digital image -- you can shift the relationships among how colors translate to gray tones, just as you can by using filters with b&w film.

You can even simulate a polarizing filter's ability to enhance the contrast between sky and clouds... but one thing you emphatically can NOT do via post-capture Photoshop twiddling is simulate the ability of a polarizing filter to suppress non-metallic reflections. So, don't toss that polarizer yet!

[vincentbenoit]

Okay, I see your point now... and I happen to agree with you. (It's the way your original sentence was formulated that left me a bit puzzled). Basically, what you're saying is there is as much information in a picture taken with a color digital camera than in the same picture taken three times with a monochrome camera, using each of the three "primary" filters red, green, and blue. The latter approach is very impractical in most situations, of course, so that someone using a monochrome digital camera would have to choose the most appropriate colored filter at the time of capture, just as if this person was shooting B&W film. The color image, on the other hand, offers the flexibility of post-exposure channel "mixing", with much greater control over the tonality of the image since infinite R-G-B combinations are possible, and this combination can even vary from one part of the image to the next.

Therefore I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong here - that a true monochrome digital camera would have no benefit over a colour one as far as the tonality of the image (after appropriate post-processing) is concerned. However, a monochrome sensor would provide higher resolution and/or higher dynamic range as compared to a Bayer sensor of equivalent pixel count and pixel size since the monochrome sensor would be used at its native resolution and would not require demosaicing of the pixel array.

Most of my work is B&W, using both film and digital. I usually get better tonalities from the latter, but this is essentially due the higher level of control afforded by the possibility of combining channels a posteriori. B&W film, on the other hand, has a definite edge when it comes to "texture" (grain from silver particles is much more pleasing than digital noise) - for my style of pictures, at least.

Cheers

Vincent

[T_om]

Originally Posted by richard_l

Dear Tom:

If you have a black and white image of a red rose bush with green leaves, and the rose and the leaves are the same shade of gray, how in the world are you going to emulate the effect of a red or green filter? I'm assuming you understand how colored contrast filters work.

With the extremely accurate selection tools available in PhotoShop, combined with layer masks (IMHO the MOST powerful function PS offers) you can select and set the contrast/tone of any area of the image you desire. It will give EXACTLY the same result as placing, say, a red filter over a shooting lens.

It is even easier if the capture is a digital conversion instead of a B&W film scan, but I assume you are referring to B&W film only?

Tom

PS: Per the comment above by another poster about IR. You can indeed, simulate IR in PhotoShop. There are TONS of filters and PS actions out that that do that very thing.

[x-ray]

Check out the B&W pro converter made by The Imaging Factory. It does a stunning job of converting to B&W plus allows a full selection of color contrast filters plus the ability to make your own emulsion sensitometry response or preselected emylsion curves like tri-x, delta and etc. B&W film + filters offers nothing over the plugin except polarization. Check out the plugin.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...y.php?cat=5045

[richard_l]

Originally Posted by T_om

With the extremely accurate selection tools available in PhotoShop, combined with layer masks (IMHO the MOST powerful function PS offers) you can select and set the contrast/tone of any area of the image you desire. It will give EXACTLY the same result as placing, say, a red filter over a shooting lens.

My original remark was about emulating a colored filter. You said I was incorrect. You, sir, were incorrect to write that.

You are talking about simulating a colored filter, which involves manual selection of areas of the image to manipulate. Morreover, it will only approximate a filter, since a filter would affect the value, hue, and chroma of an enormous number of different colors in the original scene. It is therefore impossible to get "EXACTLY the same result" as a filter in a finite length of time. Simulating a filter is faking it.

One can even simulate infrared, but it is not the same as a true near-IR photo. For one thing, the IR information has longer wavelengths than most film and many digital cameras (which have built-in IR cutoff filters) can capture. Again, you can fake an IR photo, but you cannot emulate it.

[zeos 386sx]

Originally Posted by vincentbenoit

Therefore I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong here - that a true monochrome digital camera would have no benefit over a colour one as far as the tonality of the image (after appropriate post-processing) is concerned. However, a monochrome sensor would provide higher resolution and/or higher dynamic range as compared to a Bayer sensor of equivalent pixel count and pixel size since the monochrome sensor would be used at its native resolution and would not require demosaicing of the pixel array.
Vincent

I would like higher resolution and dynamic range in a digital camera.

The blow-up details from Pete Myers' Efke film shots are impressive. Are any current digital cameras getting that level of quality?

[richard_l]

Originally Posted by vincentbenoit

Therefore I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong here - that a true monochrome digital camera would have no benefit over a colour one as far as the tonality of the image (after appropriate post-processing) is concerned. However, a monochrome sensor would provide higher resolution and/or higher dynamic range as compared to a Bayer sensor of equivalent pixel count and pixel size since the monochrome sensor would be used at its native resolution and would not require demosaicing of the pixel array.

That is correct. I long for the day when someone comes out with a high-quality camera with a true monochrome sensor. Alas, it may never be.

[T_om]

Originally Posted by richard_l

Simulating a filter is faking it.
.

Um, certainly can't argue with that.

However, splitting hairs about...

Emulate ~ "To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with."

Simulate ~ "To make in imitation of or as a substitute for."

is a bit pedantic, no?

Tom

[T_om]

Originally Posted by zeos 386sx

I would like higher resolution and dynamic range in a digital camera.

The blow-up details from Pete Myers' Efke film shots are impressive. Are any current digital cameras getting that level of quality?

Yes.

It has been successfully argued (and shown) for quite a while now that digital has equaled or surpassed scanned 35mm film in technical quality. I don't think anyone seriously contends differently now.

Even medium format has been overtaken when you compare film to MF digital backs like the Phase 1, Leaf, Kodak, et al.

The 'look' however, is quite different, just as the 'look' of Tri-X differs from the 'look' of HP5.

Once you move into that area, the 'look', it all becomes subjective. Use whatever medium produces the results you want.

Tom

[richard_l]

Just to clarify....

I think of a filter emulation as a program or algorithmic procedure which mimics the action of an optical filter. It will work on any image without modification.

A simulation only mimics the result of using an optical filter.

[T_om]

Originally Posted by richard_l

Just to clarify....

I think of a filter emulation as a program or algorithmic procedure which mimics the action of an optical filter. It will work on any image without modification.

A simulation only mimics the result of using an optical filter.

Which leads me to paraphrase one of Garry Winogrand's quotes: Nothing matters except the picture.

I think what we end up with, the result, is more important that the way we produced it. Film, digital... makes no difference to me actually, as long as it produces the image we want.

Further, I believe that at this point in its development we are just scratching the surface of digital's capabilities. I also believe nothing looks like Tri-X except Tri-X.

But, we digress.

Tom

[zeos 386sx]

Originally Posted by T_om

Yes.

It has been successfully argued (and shown) for quite a while now that digital has equaled or surpassed scanned 35mm film in technical quality. I don't think anyone seriously contends differently now.

Tom

Would anyone know where I could download a high quality digital sample that demonstrates that? I'd like to see it with my own eyes.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by T_om

I think what we end up with, the result, is more important that the way we produced it. Film, digital... makes no difference to me actually, as long as it produces the image we want.

Further, I believe that at this point in its development we are just scratching the surface of digital's capabilities. I also believe nothing looks like Tri-X except Tri-X.

Nicely put, Tom. And no argument from me -- a longtime Tri-X & HP5 user -- and a new digital user. There's plenty to be excited about in both older and newer technologies.

Gene

[Bertram2]

Originally Posted by zeos 386sx

It seems like the digital camera manufaturers have forgotten about b&w. Their attitude being that you can do a post-shoot conversion from color to b&w in your computer.

The most pros don't complain because their clients can't see the difference anyway, an the very most amateurs seem to be contented with this converted junk stuff, which is still far away from scanned C41 B&W, not to speak of silver based flims.
Those who aren't happy with conversions shoot film for B&W parallel but this group seems to be too small to make a market for a digital B&W chip.
Regards,
Bertram

[T_om]

Originally Posted by zeos 386sx

Would anyone know where I could download a high quality digital sample that demonstrates that? I'd like to see it with my own eyes.

It was pretty much beaten to death on Luminous Landscape (for one site example).

Here is one item from "way" back in 2002: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

Here is some info on resolution: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...s-demyst.shtml

Last but not least, here is his "shoot out" article: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml

Please note I am only referencing Reichmann's site out of pure sloth. There are scores of other sites addressing this issue, but the LL is easily searched and referenced and I have been keeping up with Reichmann's transition ever since he was recommending Rollies and Provia.

Speaking of easily searched, just go to LL and type in "Film vs. Digital" and see what pops up.

Tom