# Black and white film look from digital camera mainly post-production?



## rllr (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm rather enamored with a lot of pictures I see coming out of Hasselblad 500cm's, Leica M3's, or even cheaper alternatives like the Kiev 60 or Pentacon Six, but a lot of the digital pictures I see just lack something that the film has.  Maybe it's sample bias and the people shooting on these other cameras are better photographers, so the pictures end up looking better?

I'm not at the point where I want to go off and dive into the world of film cameras just yet, but I was curious if there are any digital cameras out there that do a better job of emulating a film look like the black and white image below has, or if it's primarily just a matter of taking the right shot on anything and then doing some post-production work with something like silver efex?

small boy with paper | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## SCraig (Aug 12, 2012)

I try to let me camera do as little as possible other than capturing the image.  I do not want it doing noise reduction or sharpening or anything else I can disable.  While I don't convert to B&W very often, if I did it would be the same way.  I would do the conversion in post-processing on my computer.


----------



## fjrabon (Aug 12, 2012)

yeah, nik software has a great program for getting the B&W feel out of digital photos.  

a lot of it is getting the grain right.  Digital noise and film grain are very different.  Many people find film grain appealing, but digital noise is just ugly. Sort of like how guitarists prefer analog tube distortion to a solid state amp peaking.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 12, 2012)

VSCO Film | Visual Supply Co

Becareful..  last time I posted about emulating film... Mayhem!
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/293162-film-digital.html


----------



## rllr (Aug 12, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Sort of like how guitarists prefer analog tube distortion to a solid state amp peaking.


As a guitarist myself, this is a great analogy.  



Schwettylens said:


> VSCO Film | Visual Supply Co
> 
> Becareful..  last time I posted about emulating film... Mayhem!
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/293162-film-digital.html



Thanks for the VSCO link.  I'd never heard of that before.  I'm sure if I started on film that would be a godsend, but I can still probably get some use out of that if I just look at the different types of film and find the ones that match what I'm going for.

So here's another question.  Most of these plugins are for Photoshop OR Lightroom.  I don't currently own Lightroom, though I'm not averse to buying it.  I do however own Photoshop which I have been using for over a decade.  As I understand it Lightroom is more about managing collections of photos or small tweaks vs. Photoshop in this context being more about bringing in the big guns for heavier edits or manipulations.  Does anyone have any insight into where, from a workflow perspective black & white postprocessing makes he most sense (PS or LR)?


----------



## enzodm (Aug 12, 2012)

As far as I know, there is one digital camera specifically made for black&white (that is, not Bayer pattern in front of sensor): Leica Camera AG - Photography - M Monochrom . Of course, digital noise remains digital noise.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 12, 2012)

If you want "that film look" just shoot some film. What's the big deal? If you care enough about the aesthetics to really pursue that look then do what you need to do to get it. That's just part of being an "artist."


----------



## gsgary (Aug 12, 2012)

rllr said:
			
		

> I'm rather enamored with a lot of pictures I see coming out of Hasselblad 500cm's, Leica M3's, or even cheaper alternatives like the Kiev 60 or Pentacon Six, but a lot of the digital pictures I see just lack something that the film has.  Maybe it's sample bias and the people shooting on these other cameras are better photographers, so the pictures end up looking better?
> 
> I'm not at the point where I want to go off and dive into the world of film cameras just yet, but I was curious if there are any digital cameras out there that do a better job of emulating a film look like the black and white image below has, or if it's primarily just a matter of taking the right shot on anything and then doing some post-production work with something like silver efex?
> 
> small boy with paper | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



Leica M monochrome


----------



## greybeard (Aug 12, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Digital noise and film grain are very different.  Many people find film grain appealing, but digital noise is just ugly. Sort of like how guitarists prefer analog tube distortion to a solid state amp peaking.


^^ Nice analogy


----------



## rllr (Aug 12, 2012)

enzodm said:


> As far as I know, there is one digital camera specifically made for black&white (that is, not Bayer pattern in front of sensor): Leica Camera AG - Photography - M Monochrom . Of course, digital noise remains digital noise.



If I had $8000 + the cost of lenses to toss at a camera body this would be a perfect solution.  As it stands, if I'm not happy with the digital method post-production, I will just have to bite the bullet, pick up a film camera, and give it a go.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 12, 2012)

rllr said:


> I'm rather enamored with a lot of pictures I see coming out of Hasselblad 500cm's, Leica M3's, or even cheaper alternatives like the Kiev 60 or Pentacon Six, but a lot of the digital pictures I see just lack something that the film has.  Maybe it's sample bias and the people shooting on these other cameras are better photographers, so the pictures end up looking better?
> 
> I'm not at the point where I want to go off and dive into the world of film cameras just yet, but I was curious if there are any digital cameras out there that do a better job of emulating a film look like the black and white image below has, or if it's primarily just a matter of taking the right shot on anything and then doing some post-production work with something like silver efex?
> 
> small boy with paper | Flickr - Photo Sharing!




To begin with, everything you see on the Internet is a digital photo regardless of how it was first captured. The process of scanning a film negative is going to have an influence.

I think, yes absolutely, it has a lot to do with sampling. You're talking about a small group out there who are shooting b&w film and for the most part they're already highly skilled. Stands to reason then that you're seeing some excellent work and it will compare favorably to the much larger body of work that's going to include examples from less skillful photographers. Just to make the point however it's not too hard to search the web and find "other" examples of b&w film photography--umm: Jen in B&W | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Your question as posted in the title -- yes, it's mainly post processing. As Schwetty noted the subject is a tad touchy because you've got some groups of zealots out there (both sides) who are going to insist there's only one true answer. There are various solutions to having a digital photo emulate film. In b&w it's basically a case of simulating grain. In color it's trickier as color films have unique color gamuts.

The photo you offered up as an example was a portrait in b&w that had been lightly tinted. I'm not really a portrait photographer, but I dug up a couple here for a little test and lightly tinted them. See what you think. Are they both film? Is one film and the other digital made to emulate film? Are they both digital? Am I trying to trick you?

Joe


----------



## Alpha (Aug 12, 2012)

Hard to tell, especially at low resolution and with an average shot. #1 is definitely digital. I can't tell fully with #2, but I would lean towards digital as well. The hat is a dead giveaway in #1. Her forehead is the giveaway in #2.


----------



## skyy38 (Dec 29, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> VSCO Film | Visual Supply Co
> 
> Becareful..  last time I posted about emulating film... Mayhem!
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/293162-film-digital.html



To that, I add this:

Looking for film look? Shoot like film! - Creative COW


----------



## skyy38 (Dec 29, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> yeah, nik software has a great program for getting the B&W feel out of digital photos.
> 
> a lot of it is getting the grain right.  Digital noise and film grain are very different.  Many people find film grain appealing, but digital noise is just ugly. Sort of like how guitarists prefer analog tube distortion to a solid state amp peaking.



Are you talking about digital noise from a camera or print source?


----------



## skyy38 (Dec 29, 2012)

enzodm said:


> Of course, digital noise remains digital noise.



How about if that digital noise gets *softened*....?


----------



## Vautrin (Dec 30, 2012)

rllr said:


> I'm rather enamored with a lot of pictures I see coming out of Hasselblad 500cm's, Leica M3's, or even cheaper alternatives like the Kiev 60 or Pentacon Six, but a lot of the digital pictures I see just lack something that the film has.  Maybe it's sample bias and the people shooting on these other cameras are better photographers, so the pictures end up looking better?
> 
> I'm not at the point where I want to go off and dive into the world of film cameras just yet, but I was curious if there are any digital cameras out there that do a better job of emulating a film look like the black and white image below has, or if it's primarily just a matter of taking the right shot on anything and then doing some post-production work with something like silver efex?
> 
> small boy with paper | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



If you shoot with a Leica or a Hasselblad, and compare that with a shot with, say, a point and shoot you convert to B&W, the film will win as:

1.  Both Hasselblad and Leica use EXCEPTIONALLY good lenses.  Maybe even better than a modern Nikon or Canon lens, but that's arguable and it's best not to start flames 
2.  Digital cameras suck at black and white out of camera.

For point #1, the only thing you can do for digital is get a digital version, which is out of most everyones price ranges.

For point #2, there's all kinds of things you can do to make digital look as good as film 

Check out this post on the forum, which is almost exactly the same question posted at nearly the same time you started this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...me-techniques-get-really-good-b-w-images.html


----------



## Vautrin (Dec 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> VSCO Film | Visual Supply Co
> 
> Becareful..  last time I posted about emulating film... Mayhem!
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/293162-film-digital.html



The issue with trying to compare film to digital is youd really need to look at finished prints of both

There is SOOO much information in film, your scanner will never capture but a good printer (a person in a darkroom not a machine) will

But i can see the difference in a traditional silver gelatin print and an epson print


----------



## gsgary (Dec 30, 2012)

rllr said:


> I'm rather enamored with a lot of pictures I see coming out of Hasselblad 500cm's, Leica M3's, or even cheaper alternatives like the Kiev 60 or Pentacon Six, but a lot of the digital pictures I see just lack something that the film has.  Maybe it's sample bias and the people shooting on these other cameras are better photographers, so the pictures end up looking better?
> 
> I'm not at the point where I want to go off and dive into the world of film cameras just yet, but I was curious if there are any digital cameras out there that do a better job of emulating a film look like the black and white image below has, or if it's primarily just a matter of taking the right shot on anything and then doing some post-production work with something like silver efex?
> 
> small boy with paper | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



Leica MM


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 30, 2012)

Vautrin said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > VSCO Film | Visual Supply Co
> ...



If you really want to see how much information you can get from a film negative, go to http://www.piezography.com/PiezoPress/ and query Jon Cone's remasters of Dorothea Lange's original negatives rescanned. My, my my. I have two of these prints and it's incredible, the detail and tonality captured. Jon said in several of the Lewis Hines rescans he had to dilute the image quality slightly to get an exact recreation but that Hines, had he the technology at the time, had so much more richness and detail in his images than he could have ever imagined. I don't remember the exact scan dpi but beleive it is in the 2,400 range. I know it takes a good long time to scan one 4x5 negative. These scans are available from the Library of Congress. What is not is Jon Cone's printing systems, and that's another story altogether.


----------

