why do we have a digital b&w thread?

PatrickCheung said:
These are so so awful...

8159159701_b17d2edb35_b.jpg


8148171771_643da35d28_b.jpg


7261613560_dde27276b0_b.jpg


7280209292_8c03a71af1_b.jpg


7688836450_734a20d060_b.jpg


7718340586_1afa33c436_b.jpg


7761707242_fed1a540db_b.jpg


6987838938_f14a368c7e_b.jpg


7179119806_e2e1cbf3b1_b.jpg
Click to expand...

These are great,

Having said that you're missing the point. We are discussing why there is Digital B&W thread and not about how digital b&w looks bad or good..

Similiar as saying why isin't there a Film Black&White thread..
 
That's okay :)

I was trying to prove that we have a digital black and white thread because digital black and white photos aren't awful as stated, without making it a film v digital thread. Though, I suppose I may have missed the point a bit...

Too many threads with too little photos these days :)
 
PatrickCheung said:
So awful they left you speechless, Godfrey?
Click to expand...

LOL! No, not at all, Patrick. You know I've followed and enjoyed your photos quite a lot. :)
But maybe the answer to this thread's confused existence is to create a Film Black and White thread. Might as well silo everything, eh?

I think I'm going to go home now, pull out my Polaroid SX-70, fit a pack of Impossible Project SilverShade film, and have some fun with it. Life's too short to be nattering around on the photo forums all the time...
 
Godfrey said:
But maybe the answer to this thread's confused existence is to create a Film Black and White thread. Might as well silo everything, eh?
Click to expand...

How about just a Black and White thread, period?

Furthermore, I'd like to see several polls -each with an anonymous example. The poll would be to vote for the "source" of the image. I'd bet a cold beer that the results would be more than surprising -and drive all of these debates into extinction.

Back to my fun!
 
to be perfectly candid...

this thread is a direct result of the many comments thrown about that digital b&w is 'less than' film b&w...
even in this thread there are people who will not accept that the look is different not better or worse.
how many times have you read something like...'i use digital for colour but film for b&w'? it's a pejorative statement and it almost always goes unchallenged.
i apologize for my crass and clumsy wording...guess i'm just another pretty face!
 
back alley said:
to be perfectly candid...

this thread is a direct result of the many comments thrown about that digital b&w is 'less than' film b&w...
even in this thread there are people who will not accept that the look is different not better or worse.
how many times have you read something like...'i use digital for colour but film for b&w'? it's a pejorative statement and it almost always goes unchallenged.
i apologize for my crass and clumsy wording...guess i'm just another pretty face!
Click to expand...

in all honesty i dont think non of us here in all seriousness care what the picture is taken with but the content of it is what matters to us.. i hope
 
The reason these threads are always such a dead end is because the comparison is so very subjective.

At this point to say one is better than the other is silly.
It's like saying yellow is a prettier color than red.

Traditional B+W can be beautiful and I enjoy the craft.
Digital B+W can be beautiful and I enjoy the craft.

These threads are never beautiful nor a constructive part of the craft. ;)
 
denizg7 said:
in all honesty i dont think non of us here in all seriousness care what the picture is taken with but the content of it is what matters to us.. i hope
Click to expand...

I think you mixed up sites, my friend... 95% do, 5% dont write they are busy shooting. :)
 
back alley said:
...
how many times have you read something like...'i use digital for colour but film for b&w'? it's a pejorative statement and it almost always goes unchallenged. ...
Click to expand...

I don't know that that statement is all that pejorative, but it's backwards from mine.

I prefer to work with digital capture for color work as it is so much smoother and easier to obtain what I want from it. I also use digital capture for B&W work, similar reasons. I only use B&W film .. because I like it so much more than color film, which is always a pain in the butt. B&W film is what I grew up with and more of what I see, photographically, fits B&W than color.

Many film users seem to have a chip on their shoulder regards digital cameras and image processing. I've never quite understood that. Do such folks also frown on daguerreotypes and cyanotypes? Photograms? Offset printing? I have no idea. I've seen both beautiful and crappy work in all photographic mediums.

Now where are those film packs ...?
 
randolph45 said:
I have never been an overly tech side guy when it comes to photographs.True there are some ? on duplication of image achievement.The visual aspect of the images no matter the equipment used is more important to me.

So let the stoning begin:eek:
Click to expand...


Excellent!

You grab the bong while I see if I can find my stash ... because this discussion will go nowhere and it should help fill the time.
 
back alley said:
even in this thread there are people who will not accept that the look is different not better or worse.
Click to expand...

There's this nice turn of phrase that pretty much sums up attitudes towards film and/or digital: If that's the sort of thing you like then you 're gonna like that sort of thing. It's not a question of which is better simpliciter (although one may be better than the other once you qualify the aspect of comparison). Just preferable in some way over the other option.
 
Perhaps it's a highly selective version of Sturgeon's Law, that 90% of anything is crap.

90% of digi B&W is crap.

90% of halide B&W was crap, so only the people who were reasonably good at it stayed with halide. As as result, maybe only 75% of current halide is crap.

On top of this, there's more and more digi B&W, and less and less halide B&W, so even if it remained at 90% crap for both, we'd be seeing more and more digi B&W crap, simply because we see more and more digi B&W.

Of course you can get good digi b&W. I've even made a few digi b&W pics myself that I've liked. But a lot depends on subject matter. I just find it easier to get good B&W from film. Why would anyone regard "I shoot digi for colour and film for B&W" as pejorative? For me (and no doubt for many others), it's a simple statement of fact.

Finally, and this is the only part of my argument that depend on pure opinion, are we talking about on-screen, or prints? On screen, I doubt it matters a damn. On paper, I've seen a lot more halide prints that I like. Yes, I've seen many excellent digi B&W prints. But I've seen many, many more halide B&W prints that I like.

Cheers,

R.
 
I realised I'm in the I don't do digital B&W camp-not sure why, could be I like prints. I do some digital colour but do less colour overall.
What I find I'm seeing is more people shooting digital and buying expensive 'film packs' I wonder what that would mean for those people?
Is it they hate digital B&W and add film grain in because that's what they want/like a faux tri-x? Could be they don't want to mess with film and want the 'look' whatever that is.
Will we ever get to a point where people shoot digital mono for it's characteristics? I haven't used the Leica Mono camera, but it must be a step in that direction.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Stewart,

(1) Well, it's a lot more rigorous than most of the 'laws of economics'

(2) A well-known statistic is that 67.3% of statistics are made up.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

... of late I've been wondering why we don't swap all the economists for climate-statisticians, and vice versa ... then we can have complete confidence in the state of the economy and global warming will be well within statistical error
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top