Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NickTrop

NickTrop

Mentor
Local time
9:19 PM
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
3,076
I dunno, Davey...

Fuji F20
40097_1432747935946_1150326236_31037262_8232382_n.jpg


Fuji F20
40097_1432747975947_1150326236_31037263_6638899_n.jpg


Fuji F20
45859_1432747695940_1150326236_31037258_3360686_n.jpg


Nikon D5000/35f1.8DX
38576_1416273044084_1150326236_30992403_4741905_n.jpg


Nikon D5000/35f1.8DX
38576_1416273204088_1150326236_30992407_8297457_n.jpg
 
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.
 
No way around less DR, makes the tonality very linear. Slides are a more appropriate goal than black and white film, IMO.
 
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.
 
niels christopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

I used to agree with you, but I'm not seeing it of late in small format... I'm just not.
 
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?
 
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 said:
If I take film I don't have to tweak around on my computer to make the pics BW
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
Disaster_Area said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
NickTrop said:
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?
Click to expand...

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/2009/09/theory-henri-cartier-bressons-last.html
 
Last edited:
joeyjoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top