Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

[NickTrop]

I dunno, Davey...

Fuji F20


Fuji F20


Fuji F20


Nikon D5000/35f1.8DX


Nikon D5000/35f1.8DX

[-doomed-]

What is Tradional?
A new editing software similar to the developer rodinal?

[mfogiel]

Rolleiflex F, Planar 75/3.5, TXP, DD-X



So, now you have a reference shot.

[NickTrop]

Good - thank you, mfogiel. Yeah - I can absolutely see a difference in MF even on the web. But I gotta tell ya, small format? I'm hard pressed... even with the photos I take with the 6.3 megapixel 1/1/7" sensor on the little F20.

[Ranchu]

No way around less DR, makes the tonality very linear. Slides are a more appropriate goal than black and white film, IMO.

[niels christopher]

Though I'am one of those digital "fakers" (I would'nt call it "fake", anyways), I consider "real" b/w filmshots to be more beautiful than digital captures. This might be caused by the natural grain & the higher dynamic range of film, I think.

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by niels christopher

Though I'am one of those digital "fakers" (I would'nt call it "fake", anyways), I consider "real" b/w filmshots to be more beautiful than digital captures. This might be caused by the natural grain & the higher dynamic range of film, I think.

I used to agree with you, but I'm not seeing it of late in small format... I'm just not.

[NickTrop]

On DR - not all subject matter/settings requires use all the available stops. Also, like sharpness, it's a bit overrated, perhaps? I can see Ansel Adams wanting to squeeze every stop of DR for his landscapes - but people shots/street stuff? Have you seen HCB's stuff? Did those photos have great DR?

[Disaster_Area]

I don't think one or the other is "better", they're just different... sometimes a project lends itself to the look of film, sometimes digital... I don't think there has to be a taking of sides.. it's apples and different apples... someone asks you for an apple and any apple will do... but sometimes you really want a Granny Smith rather than a Red Delicious

[Spider67]

If I take film I don't have to tweak around on my computer to make the pics BW

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by Spider67

If I take film I don't have to tweak around on my computer to make the pics BW

Mmmmmmmmmm - I can "black and white" something in two seconds digitally. Are you really saying that this is more difficult (or more "fun" - somehow) than loading film into a Jobo, pouring in chemicals, rotating/agitating, fixing, stopping, washing, pouring in that other stuff, drying, and scanning?

[Disaster_Area]

I'll second that... I have about 4 rolls in my fridge that have been waiting for development for weeks now because I haven't had time and/or been in the mood lately to soup and scan

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by Disaster_Area

I don't think one or the other is "better", they're just different... sometimes a project lends itself to the look of film, sometimes digital... I don't think there has to be a taking of sides.. it's apples and different apples... someone asks you for an apple and any apple will do... but sometimes you really want a Granny Smith rather than a Red Delicious

I would have agreed with you at one time. Now I think b&w is b&w. In fact, emulation sw increases your understanding - if anything. The differences among stocks of the same speed are fairly subtle.

[joeyjoe]

to the OP - what film were you using in your F20? I think if you want smooth and grainless images, then yeah - it's probably about the same. If you want grain and texture - no, digital "fakes" haven't caught up yet.

[Ranchu]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

On DR - not all subject matter/settings requires use all the available stops. Also, like sharpness, it's a bit overrated, perhaps? I can see Ansel Adams wanting to squeeze every stop of DR for his landscapes - but people shots/street stuff? Have you seen HCB's stuff? Did those photos have great DR?

YMMV.

I'm willing to pay for, process and scan film to get the DR. Convenience and resolution, the only advantages of digital, are further down on my list of wants.

The HCB pic that I remember the most, so I guess my favorite, is a picture taken of the backs of 4 (?) people sitting on the grass with a shoreline and a small boat in front of them. It had a soft tonality.

This one, edit. Though I think I saw a less cropped, better printed version?

http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/...sons-last.html

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by joeyjoe

to the OP - what film were you using in your F20? I think if you want smooth and grainless images, then yeah - it's probably about the same. If you want grain and texture - no, digital "fakes" haven't caught up yet.

Why is it that photogs will tout the "smooth nearly imperceptible grain structure" - implying they want grain minimized. Then turn around and tout the beauty of grain?

I never use fake grain. Pointless.

[Nikon Bob]

Most people would be hard pressed to see any difference between the two types of B&W images today. I can't so I use digital, if you can use film but neither are fake, just different.

Bob

[Jamie Pillers]

GEEZ... don't let Danny Lyon see this!

[mfogiel]

OK, so this is a 35mm Tri X in D76

[bigeye]

Better? Let's just say it puts the "Black" and "White" back in B&W.

In web comparisons it might seem close, but most of the film scanners introduce some of the same problems that PP does to digital B&W. The actual prints are better. mfogiel's shots are likely even better on paper.

- Charlie

[WalterM]

subjectivity.

Converting digitally to b&w feels fake to me. A masterfully printed photograph takes the cake any day, but each to his own. Whatever moves one to take pretty pictures.

[hipsterdufus]

Whip 'em out, everybody... You know what I'm talking about.

I'm going to say what has become my standard response to these type of threads: "Shoot what you like until it's broken or unavailable. Then shoot something else that you like. Repeat as necessary."

[RayPA]

Originally Posted by joeyjoe

to the OP - what film were you using in your F20? I think if you want smooth and grainless images, then yeah - it's probably about the same. If you want grain and texture - no, digital "fakes" haven't caught up yet.

Agree 100% adding: For photos where the shadows are opened up, such as sunlit photos on the beach, then yes, the two 'black and whites" are comparable (aside from the icky plasticky look of digital skin tones). But in any situation where digital "grain" (noise) is competing against film grain, film looks better.


/

[Ezzie]

Admittedly not the latest in digital sensor technology, my R-D1 falls short of TMX film with respects to dynamic range. I also think tonality is better when i comes to TMX. I say this because the R-D1 comes along as my proofing tool when shooting film on my DIY 4x5/6x12 P+S, and I can make direct comparisons.

Compare these two:
R-D1:



TMX (6x12 effective neg size)



Both taken at the same time. The settings from the R-D1 transfered to the P+S. Note the highlights and shadows especially

[PKR]

Nick; I must say, I enjoy your "attitude".

I work with both Film and Digital capture. My film is scanned these days. The two media have a very different look and "both are good tools" for a pro or amateur photographer. My question is.. (and I know I may be disturbing the "digital religious" here..) If digital is SO much better than film.. why does anyone want it to look like film? I don't get it..what's the deal?

BTW I shoot color Raw and keep everything in color until I drag the color out after making any adjustments .. for both Raw capture and film scans.

And.. Fuji S5 with dual sensor adobe Raw out makes great b+w files (Raw color + PS processing = b+w out.. shot to be converted to b+w by plan).. it's not film. It's digital. The bandwidth is better than most digital, but not as good as any popular b+w film. It has it's own look.. why is this bad? If you want film.. shoot film.