|
|
Hello , i want to know what you think about the 2 methods of taking black and white photography . personnaly i would only take b&w photos with a magnetic film (film camera) because in th digital photography the color response is different , the pictures oftenly look fake and theres no grain in them, sometimes theres like a reddish tint to the whole picture . But with film photography you have the advantage of choosing your film (depending on how much grain you want ...) the speed of the film and you could even push it or pull for more or less grain , and last you can costumize the negative when processing it ... all of those are not present in the digital photography . If anybody wants to share ideas and comments feel free to post em.
here is a B&W pic i took with a normal film (hp5 plus 400 iso push to 800 )
And her's one i took in color with a digital and converted it to B&W
You can notice the different color response and contrast and the grain
-alvin-
(edit: one more difference is the format of the picture in digital its 4:3 and in normal its wider)
[last edit 10/31/2004 3:58 PM by 6 Atomic 6 Garden 6 - edited 1 times]
| |
Digital vs. film black and white comes down to a matter of personal preference. A friend with an EOS-10D was recently telling me about its built-in black and white options (including filters!) and expressing a love for it.
You can change film to get different speeds with film, certainly, but most higher-end digital cameras also allow various choices of film speed.
For me, I like film and will continue to like film. I just like the look more and a digital of sufficient resolution to keep me happy would be way too much money.
Also, judging by the black and white photo you posted, you're looking for a high-contrast/high-grain look. Is that the case? If not, I suggest you try processing your Ilford in DD-X. HP5 should not be that grainy at ISO 800. Hell, it's not generally that grainy at 3200!
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits | |
The tonal range of black and white film is greater (something like 9 stops?) then a digital camera's sensor (4 stops?).
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." | |
Yes. Black and white film does have a greater tonal range. Paper is another thing entirely, though. It lacks the full tonal range of film.
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits | |
IMO, the lack of dynamic range is a digital camera's Achilles' heel right now. Although you can get very smooth-looking images and lack of "grain" (noise) at low ISOs. Of course, if you WANT grain, then that's a con and not a pro...
Both methods are valid; I will sometimes convert my color digital shots to B&W or even an IR look because some images are better visualized that way. But I also still shoot in MF with B&W film.
[last edit 10/31/2004 8:46 PM by Servo - edited 2 times]
| |
Of course grain can look nice where noise always looks bad IMO.
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits | |
Agreed. If you want it with a digital, it can be done in post-processing anyways, bumping up the ISO will just make ugly noise.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." | |
Digital B&W will never match up to film.
| |
Posted by Rustblade
Digital B&W will never match up to film.
|
Now hold on there a sec, bucko. Making statements like that is pretty silly; it reminds me of my photography teacher in high school telling me that photojournalists would never use digital cameras.
Now if you instead said "Digital B&W will never totally supplant B&W film" then you would have an accurate statement, for the same reason that people still do chemical darkroom work now. The traditional process has some benefits, and you get some enjoyment out of doing it in analog media.
But to say that sensor technology will never be able to "match up" to B&W film is pretty silly. Already we've seen a progression in the last 10 years from digicams with CGA resolution costings several hundred dollars, to digital SLRs in the sub-$1000 range that can provide as much or more detail than your typical frame of 35mm 400-speed print film. We've got a ways to go before you start seeing 4x5-equivalent resolution, but with larger cameras, better lenses, and better sensors I think you'll see it happen within the next 20 years easily. As well as improvements to dynamic range, tonal separation, and all that good stuff.
| |
Posted by Servo
Now hold on there a sec, bucko. Making statements like that is pretty silly; it reminds me of my photography teacher in high school telling me that photojournalists would never use digital cameras.
Now if you instead said "Digital B&W will never totally supplant B&W film" then you would have an accurate statement, for the same reason that people still do chemical darkroom work now. The traditional process has some benefits, and you get some enjoyment out of doing it in analog media.
But to say that sensor technology will never be able to "match up" to B&W film is pretty silly. Already we've seen a progression in the last 10 years from digicams with CGA resolution costings several hundred dollars, to digital SLRs in the sub-$1000 range that can provide as much or more detail than your typical frame of 35mm 400-speed print film. We've got a ways to go before you start seeing 4x5-equivalent resolution, but with larger cameras, better lenses, and better sensors I think you'll see it happen within the next 20 years easily. As well as improvements to dynamic range, tonal separation, and all that good stuff.
|
I know you guys, (especially ETMJ) are film advocates.
One of the reasons I came back to film was exploring; but I used to do my own developing in B and W.
Now I shoot a roll of film , and the 4 by 6 print I get back looks positively boring. You shoot a great landscape, and the mediocre print you get back sucks.
Yet even with a 1 meg didicam, every shot can be previewed full screen.
That's one thing that discourages me from film; being able to see a full size detail of every shot.
Yet when I developed my own film, there was no such thing as a 4 by six. I used to do an "index shot". The only print option was 8 by ten.
And you could play around in the darkroom to adjust the shot, but at least you could see it.
[last edit 11/3/2004 2:14 AM by 'Dukes - edited 2 times]
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. | |
If your prints look lackluster it could be time to find a new lab. I know that my black and white would come back lousy from most labs. I don't shoot it for lab printing. I shoot it for greatest tonal range. The two are not necessarily the same.
Good film is still vastly superior to digital in all of the respects that important to me - tonal range and resolution included. However, I'm hardly going to be one to say that it never will be. I anticipate that in less than 5 years we'll be in a place where the limiting factor with either is the glass being used. There is already a 35mm-size digital sensor that has a 16MP resolution on the market. Even low-speed pro film has a theoretical resolution of only 20-25MP by most estimates.
As digital sensors improve and the images become less noisy and more tonal even the most serious film photographers will consider more strongly the idea of making the switch.
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits | |
for small 72dpi web image, it may not worth to spend on good old B&W, but for anything else, IT DOES!
No digital printed, even the big medium format captor will rendernatural and good images as real B&W silver print will.
The digital may become finer and sharper, but the grain, even emulated won't render the same image picture as chemical will do. We control digital, while silver print are naturally controlled by so much different factors that you cannot control them all at the same time to duplicate the same effect, whatever the digital media.
I really like to see my picture on the spot on my coolpix, but comming home with good old film pictures that you will see ?? when you process them, and confirming that I was right on lighning and framing after I came home, that magic makes me only want to go more and more into B&W film.
Pour fins d'archives.
WWW.EXPLORATIONURBAINE.CA | |
Posted by SPEK Photo
for small 72dpi web image, it may not worth to spend on good old B&W, but for anything else, IT DOES!
No digital printed, even the big medium format captor will rendernatural and good images as real B&W silver print will.
The digital may become finer and sharper, but the grain, even emulated won't render the same image picture as chemical will do. We control digital, while silver print are naturally controlled by so much different factors that you cannot control them all at the same time to duplicate the same effect, whatever the digital media.
I really like to see my picture on the spot on my coolpix, but comming home with good old film pictures that you will see ?? when you process them, and confirming that I was right on lighning and framing after I came home, that magic makes me only want to go more and more into B&W film.
|
Indeed
edit: one thing that keeps me from taking B&W photography all the time is the cost of everything involved in it , while in digital its no problem , i deiced to only take color pictures on my digital and for B&W ill leave it for film.
-alvin-
[last edit 11/3/2004 11:52 PM by 6 Atomic 6 Garden 6 - edited 1 times]
| |
To keep the cost low on B&W film, you can zig-zag your own film; buy your film in 100' bulk roll and fill plastic canister that can be reused. This way a film will be around 2.50$cdn for 36 exposures. I've learned B&W by myself 10 years ago and I still enjoy it very much.
Pour fins d'archives.
WWW.EXPLORATIONURBAINE.CA | |
I'm a big film fan too, but I'm more and more considering to go digital for two reasons.
Money. Okay, I have access to a darkroom whenever I want for free and I roll black and white films from bulk. As for color, I usually buy Fuji outdated films on ebay (I just got 24 rolls for 40$CAN shipping included) and I send them at Future Shop where they develop my negatives, scan them and put them on a CD for 5$. Even though it's relatively cheap, I can't experiment as much as I would with a digital.
Pollution. I really enjoy the feeling of a darkroom but christ! All those chemicals going down the drain, I feel guilty as hell. I re-use my fixer as long as I can but still, it pisses me off!
http://www.flickr....otos/30228457@N05/
http://baleze.deviantart.com/
what | |
So recycle your fixer when you're done with it. Most larger cities have a place that does it. Look around a bit!
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
-Tom Waits |
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 125 ms
|
|
Ethics
