# Film black and white vs digital black and white



## kevinfoto

Is there a difference between black and white film vs digital black and white? Please explain.


----------



## MTVision

Are you asking what's the difference between shooting with b/w film vs. shooting with your digital camera set to b/w mode?


----------



## Sw1tchFX

Not even close.


----------



## katerolla

Film 1
Digital 0

I miss true B&W but I don't have a dark room any more, digital dosen't come close to film


----------



## Cruzingoose

You just can't say "film=good, digi=bad".To answer Kevin's question, I would personally say that film has a texture, a feeling of a moment of life captured, on a see-it, touch-it medium that has the potential to last a hundred years, and yet to be able to re-animated at a moments notice on paper for all to share.

Digi to me is harsh and unforgiving, limited to the pixel resolution of the captured image and computer technology available to reproduce a working image. With the digital half life of 1 year or so, (my opinion), The digital images stored on optical disk is likely to be lost in 4 or 5 years. Hard disk storage may be ok for 10 years, IF the computer that houses it stays operational.

Digi images are most likely to be never shared or archived on paper. Acording to the Smithsonian, we as a people have lost about 20 years of hard history due to digi. And not just images, but written matter also. Not many people write letters anymore, and most of those are computer printed. Very little handwriting and certainly no penmanship. Pardon me PenPersonShip.....


----------



## unpopular

I think the biggest issue with digital is that there is no consensus on the best method to meter, expose and process. Everyone seems to be all over the place and what little technique there is is vague and imprecise.


----------



## kevinfoto

I like film black and white so much better. They say if u want to work in the industry you have to shoot digital. But there is nothing like black and white film.


----------



## bazooka

Cruzingoose said:


> You just can't say "film=good, digi=bad".To answer Kevin's question, I would personally say that film has a texture, a feeling of a moment of life captured, on a see-it, touch-it medium that has the potential to last a hundred years, and yet to be able to re-animated at a moments notice on paper for all to share.
> 
> Digi to me is harsh and unforgiving, limited to the pixel resolution of the captured image and computer technology available to reproduce a working image. With the digital half life of 1 year or so, (my opinion), The digital images stored on optical disk is likely to be lost in 4 or 5 years. Hard disk storage may be ok for 10 years, IF the computer that houses it stays operational.
> 
> Digi images are most likely to be never shared or archived on paper. Acording to the Smithsonian, we as a people have lost about 20 years of hard history due to digi. And not just images, but written matter also. Not many people write letters anymore, and most of those are computer printed. Very little handwriting and certainly no penmanship. Pardon me PenPersonShip.....



I have to strongly disagree that digital has a half life of 1 year.  If one backs up their work both onsite and offsite (I'm sure most digital professional artists do this), the lifespan is indefinite.  Moreover, nothing changes in the file, whereas with film, it certainly degrades over time.  And yes, digital images are certainly printed.  Many people don't even consider it to be a photograph or a final work until it is printed.  For the casual point-and-shooter or typical in-business-out-of-business portrait photographer?  Sure, but I'm talking about true professional photographers that take their work seriously (which is reflected in pricing).


----------



## sparks017

The quality of B+W in film is outstanding compared to digital. Film is great in a sense is that you work with the photo with your hands and the creation of a true film photo is a sense of completion. As someone says with digital the photo really does not seem complete until it is printed.


----------



## unpopular

The only advantage I truly see with b/w film is the ability to adjust hilights after exposure. With digital, your latitude is pretty fixed - it's like having slide film with 6-8 stops of _useable _dynamic range - which is probably close to b/w film without taking into account adjustments in development time. All other issues, including highlight handling, can be addressed through exposure, processing and greyscale conversion.

But - I don't mean to understate how much of a disadvantage this is. Adjusting highlight density is an enormous advantage to b/w film.


----------



## ann

What is interesting (at least for me) the best way to archive digital files is on film, done all the time.

If film has been properly processed it will last over 100 years.


----------



## unpopular

Tests show that under normal conditions a CDR will last 10-20 years, which isn't good though the data which it contains can be transferred nondestructively (unlike film). 

I wonder how long a CDR will last if properly archived? What about media archived and permanently stored to a hard drive? Certainly if I turned off my computer today and came back to it 10 years later, it would boot just as I had left it. What about in 100 years?


----------



## analog.universe

With redundant hard drives the data life is indefinite.  Any IT professional that depends on data storage uses a RAID. (redundant array of independent disks)  Identical copies of the data are stored on several drives using a device that makes the process transparent to the user.  When a drive fails, which it inevitably will, you switch it for a working one, and the data is copied back from the drive that's still running.  Depending on how paranoid you are you can keep as many copies as you want, all hardware managed, so you don't have to remember to back up.

For _really_ long term storage, there's always digital tape.  It doesn't depend on the thing running the whole time it's stored, but it's much more expensive, hardware and media.


----------



## unpopular

I agree that hard drives are far better than film for long term storage. A curator could easily run backups of important files periodically.

I suppose the only real risk to hard over the very long term, into antiquity, is the seals breaking. But I would imagine under archival conditions this could easily be comparable to the longevity of film.


----------



## unpopular

... I wonder if 100 years we'll still be watching "All your base are belong to us"


----------



## ann

unpopular said:


> ... I wonder if 100 years we'll still be watching "All your base are belong to us"



huh, don't recognize the quote, maybe I too old


----------



## analog.universe

ann said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I wonder if 100 years we'll still be watching "All your base are belong to us"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huh, don't recognize the quote, maybe I too old
Click to expand...


It was an internet meme that started when I was in college, 2000ish..    A line from an ancient video game with a bad English translation... guess you had to be there.


"Someone set us up the bomb!"


----------



## unpopular

12 years later


----------



## gsgary

Digital






120 HP5 that expired in 1984


----------



## ann

analog.universe said:


> ann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I wonder if 100 years we'll still be watching "All your base are belong to us"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huh, don't recognize the quote, maybe I too old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an internet meme that started when I was in college, 2000ish..    A line from an ancient video game with a bad English translation... guess you had to be there.
> 
> 
> "Someone set us up the bomb!"
Click to expand...


ah no wonder,


----------



## unpopular

Wow. Look at that! Digital out performs improperly processed, expired film :er:


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> Wow. Look at that! Digital out performs improperly processed, expired film :er:



Well, you know, some of Admiral Perry's lost polar exploration's glass plates, buried in the frozen ground around 1908, were found, dug up, and developed in the late 1990's...so, "Expired Film" from 1984? Pshaw!!! I developed a bunch of film I shot in junior high school when I was in college...it turned out okay, eight years later. I had however kept it in 100% darkness, sealed in Kodak bulk film cans (metal cans with tight-fitting lids!) sealed with tape, in the deep freeze at home...

Anyway: the difference in highlight rendering between B&W film and digital it the most noticeable thing to me. B&W films that have nice, long tonal ranges contrast quite a bit with the way digital just simply "clips" highlights. I always loved Kodak's Tri-X for the way it handled its entire range of tonal values...it was grainy, yes, but it had such beautiful tonality.

My question is this though: when does a "film" image become a "digital" image? And I ask that is all seriousness: FILM looks fantastic when printed "wet", using an enlarger and lens,photo paper, developer, stop, fixer, and printed "analog-style" or "traditionally". BUT what about SCANNED FILM??? That has been digitized!!! What about scanned film that has been inkjet printed? Is that not a "digital" image that results? I no longer have my darkroom...I even gave away my $600 darkroom sink and frame....sob...

I am not posing this question just for sport--I'm serious.


----------



## kevinfoto

Wow. Thanks for all your great responses. I think I'll stick to black and white film. I love it. I also love digital. I have a canon 5d mark 2 and love the results. But part of me  wishes this digital photography never came. I feel like the art of photography has been diluted with digital. Everyone can put there digital camera in auto and be a photographer. Instant results in a works obsessed with instant gratification.


----------



## dxqcanada

Derrel said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Look at that! Digital out performs improperly processed, expired film :er:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is this though: when does a "film" image become a "digital" image? And I ask that is all seriousness: FILM looks fantastic when printed "wet", using an enlarger and lens,photo paper, developer, stop, fixer, and printed "analog-style" or "traditionally". BUT what about SCANNED FILM??? That has been digitized!!! What about scanned film that has been inkjet printed? Is that not a "digital" image that results? I no longer have my darkroom...I even gave away my $600 darkroom sink and frame....sob...
> 
> I am not posing this question just for sport--I'm serious.
Click to expand...


I feel that a film/printed image becomes digital as soon as it is captured in electronic form.
Looking at a scanned B&W image on a website or printed on an injet is nowhere close to viewing the original print.



kevinfoto said:


> I feel like the art of photography has been  diluted with digital. Everyone can put there digital camera in auto and  be a photographer. Instant results in a works obsessed with instant  gratification.



I think Photographic Art has been expanded by digital as it provides more tools to easily manipulate the image into its final form.
Many auto film cameras were made ... and Polaroid was created for instant gratification.


----------



## dxqcanada

unpopular said:


> Wow. Look at that! Digital out performs improperly processed, expired film :er:



Hmm, I think the scanned Film image is still better than the Digital image.
I don't think it was improperly processed (there was no mention of the film/print processing).


----------



## kevinfoto

Good point! So do you guys think I should get a negative scanner to upload my film black and white shots on web?


----------



## The_Traveler

Everyone can hum or strum a guitar or plink a piano and that doesn't mean that they are artists.
The fact that technology can get virtually everyone close to an image that only people with some skills could get 10 or 20 years ago just means that the technologically skillful and the average digital schmo will be essentially indistinguishable; real artistry is recognizable because it soars above the crowd.
The absolute beauty of digital is that it has introduced many more people to the art and has removed some of the physical barriers to creating it - darkroom, equipment, endurance.

In re: film versus digital.  We have been educated to view the qualities of film, particularly in landscape, portraits and pj as the ultimate, the gold standard - deviation from that means something lower. Becaue digital creates images that are not film, it takes some work to get there - if that is where you want to go.

A friend of mine, Carolyn Guild,  shoots digital with a D3x (and Zeiss lenses), prints her own work and produces large prints that are, face to face, as perfect as large camera b&w. If that's what you want to do, it can be done.

OTOH, digital allows us to do relatively easily what would be impossible with film - and routinely.


----------



## gsgary

The_Traveler said:


> Everyone can hum or strum a guitar or plink a piano and that doesn't mean that they are artists.
> The fact that technology can get virtually everyone close to an image that only people with some skills could get 10 or 20 years ago just means that the technologically skillful and the average digital schmo will be essentially indistinguishable; real artistry is recognizable because it soars above the crowd.
> The absolute beauty of digital is that it has introduced many more people to the art and has removed some of the physical barriers to creating it - darkroom, equipment, endurance.
> 
> In re: film versus digital.  We have been educated to view the qualities of film, particularly in landscape, portraits and pj as the ultimate, the gold standard - deviation from that means something lower. Becaue digital creates images that are not film, it takes some work to get there - if that is where you want to go.
> 
> A friend of mine, Carolyn Guild,  shoots digital with a D3x (and Zeiss lenses), prints her own work and produces large prints that are, face to face, as perfect as large camera b&w. If that's what you want to do, it can be done.
> 
> OTOH, digital allows us to do relatively easily what would be impossible with film - and routinely.




Brian Duffy could do things with film that you thought were impossibe
ICONS OF PHOTOGRAPHY - Iconic Photograph - Benson & Hedges Advert by Brian Duffy features - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums


----------



## unpopular

dxqcanada said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Look at that! Digital out performs improperly processed, expired film :er:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I think the scanned Film image is still better than the Digital image.
> I don't think it was improperly processed (there was no mention of the film/print processing).
Click to expand...


Maybe I was a wee bit snarky, but IMO, the hilights are a bit blown.


----------



## Arpeggio9

The_Traveler said:


> OTOH, digital allows us to do relatively easily what would be impossible with film - and routinely.



The reverse is also true, especially when it comes to things that really matter in a photo, like tones and how they balance out. How organic and natural tones look and such. Digital can only come close and film does it with ease. Sure film can't shoot at ASA 180,000  or shoot 40 frames per second, however, some things film really does well.


----------



## Josh66

B&W film vs. digital seem pretty close to me - as far as exposure/range goes.  I do like the look of film over digital though.

IMO, where digital really has some catching up to do is dynamic range compared to color negative film...

The ISO battle is just stupid now.  Do we really need ISO 128,000?  I mean, has everyone just accepted that skies are always going to be blown out, or what?

Just a snap-shot example:



2012011027 by J E, on Flickr

If that were digital, it would look a little different.  The sky would definitely be blown out, and maybe the sand too.  Not exactly a shot you could do an HDR for either...


----------



## compur

A digitally scanned film image is a digital image. It is no longer a film image. 

All images on the internet are digital.

Comparing "digital vs film images" by posting them on the internet is nonsensical.  They're _both _digital with the latter being at least second generation.


----------



## bhop

unpopular said:


> The only advantage I truly see with b/w film is the ability to adjust hilights after exposure. With digital, your latitude is pretty fixed - it's like having slide film with 6-8 stops of _useable _dynamic range - which is probably close to b/w film without taking into account adjustments in development time. All other issues, including highlight handling, can be addressed through exposure, processing and greyscale conversion.
> 
> But - I don't mean to understate how much of a disadvantage this is. Adjusting highlight density is an enormous advantage to b/w film.



Basically this is it for me. I shoot a lot of b/w film and can almost always adjust it to my liking in the scanning process, even if some of it's seems to scan with blown highlights, i'm somehow able to tone it down to something that's useable in those blown spots.  Digital blown highlights are just.. well, there's nothing there to work with.


----------



## The_Traveler

Arpeggio9 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, digital allows us to do relatively easily what would be impossible with film - and routinely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reverse is also true, especially when it comes to things that really matter in a photo, like tones and how they balance out. How organic and natural tones look and such.
Click to expand...


That's only because you grew up and experienced the tones of B&W as what is real.


----------



## Derrel

compur said:


> A digitally scanned film image is a digital image. It is no longer a film image.
> 
> There are no images on the internet that are not digital.
> 
> Comparing "digital vs film images" by posting them on the internet is nonsensical.  They're _both _digital with the latter being at least second generation.



See, this is the point I was asking about earlier...to me, once the film is "digitized" by being scanned, I think it's a digital image....a digital image of a piece of film...I dunno...I looked at that woman's landscape prints of the snow scenes, and to me, and to perhaps one of America's best dye transfer printers, and print-makers in general, Ctein, digital "has trouble" in showing the nuances of TEXTURE on real-world subjects. Of course, her on-screen images are very,very SMALL, web-reductions, and frankly, not very good ones....the photos look pretty bad,actually, but then, she has been ripped off before and she does not want to see her images "lifted" by posting GOOD web-reductions...

Anyway...I'm not 100% sold on the B&W "look" of anything shot digitally, even in good inkjet print form. I've gone to galleries, shows, and many times been to the state fair's World Exhibit with top professional photos flown in via DHL and FedEx and all the couriers, from Asia, Europe, the island nations, as well as all across North and South America, and I have seen "top-quality" B&W DIGITAL images, and I have also seen Edward and Brett Weston Printed B&W original prints from the 30s, 40s, and 50's, and Wynn Bullock stuff printed in the early 1960's I guess it would be...I dunno...I like how "CLEAN" B&W digital images are, but they also look, well...a bit "sterile" or maybe "disinfected" or "pasteurized"...they seem to lack the nuances in minor,minor,minor tonal variation that film-captured images have. Perhaps its something at the micro-contrast level. Digital images are for the most part, RGB images made up with very discrete elements...it is very much a discrete Either this, or THAT, or THAT....with the millions of silver grains in a negative, and then the even more millions of silver grains in the enlargement paper, it seems to me that WET-printed B&W film on silver-based, fiber-based paper has a degree of "nuance" that seems to make textural clues more visually apparent on even modest-quality B&W prints, and I don't mean on the stuff that Brett Weston printed from his dad's negs, or Bullock's own prints, or genuine Ansel Adams printed images--I mean on just "regular amateur photographer work", film-captured B&W prints seem to look very,very different than regular-grade digital B&W work printed on inkjet systems. Again....digital is little RGB dots, and then little dots of ink, as opposed to millions and millions of tiny, overlapping silver grains with actual DEPTH...first on the film, and then on the enlarging paper.

*I'll use an analogy that I think is appropos: film B&W is like silk...digital B&W is like fine polyester or Rayon...they look a hell of a lot alike--don't they!!! From a distance, virtually indistinguishable to most people. Both are made of fine, fine fibers, woven. Both are shiny and supple. Both make wonderful backings on your suit vests. One is very,very OLD-fashioned, outmoded, and outdated. The other is a modern marvel of industrial engineering. Rayon or fine polyester is the equal of natural silk in the hands of the masters. Uhhhhhh....NOT!!!!!!!!!*

I dunno...just seems like scans of film = a digitized, digital image to me...


----------



## Josh66

Derrel said:


> I dunno...just seems like scans of film = a digitized, digital image to me...


I agree - but in most cases, I think you have more information to work with in a film scan than you do with digital capture.  Especially so with color neg film.

Like bhop said - with digital, blown highlights are just gone - with film you can almost always recover them.


----------



## Derrel

O|||||||O said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno...just seems like scans of film = a digitized, digital image to me...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree - but in most cases, I think you have more information to work with in a film scan than you do with digital capture.  Especially so with color neg film.
> 
> Like bhop said - with digital, blown highlights are just gone - with film you can almost always recover them.
Click to expand...


My contention is that you have vastly more information to work from in a WET-printed film-negative print (either contact print or enlargement) than you do with a SCAN made of the same exact piece of film. I think the FILM contains MORE discrete, as well as overlapping, bits of information than a scan is capable of rendering. Same for the printing-out process on silver-rich fiber-based paper---I think the "wet" darkroom process has more data points, with more minute differences, and more variations in the density, size, and tonal information than a scanner can handle, or an inkjet print can deliver...

It is the reduction of the millions of tiny silver bits into DISCRETE, "scanner data" that is Either/Or, that messes up the process. Scanned film is a hybrid system...


----------



## Josh66

I have yet to make a wet print (one day soon), but I have no doubt that you are right.

So, I guess it would be fair to say that film scans are somewhere in the middle.  Wet print > scan > digital ...?


----------



## dxqcanada

kevinfoto said:


> Good point! So do you guys think I should get a negative scanner to upload my film black and white shots on web?



My wife and I are working towards rebuilding our Darkroom to work dually in digital and analog photography ... going back to our roots.
We also do have a film scanner to be able to present our Film images digitally, but our real use of film is to produce a chemically developed silver based print.


----------



## compur

Derrel said:


> *I'll use an analogy that I think is appropos: film B&W is like silk...digital B&W is like fine polyester or Rayon...they look a hell of a lot alike--don't they!!! From a distance, virtually indistinguishable to most people. Both are made of fine, fine fibers, woven. Both are shiny and supple. Both make wonderful backings on your suit vests. One is very,very OLD-fashioned, outmoded, and outdated. The other is a modern marvel of industrial engineering. Rayon or fine polyester is the equal of natural silk in the hands of the masters. Uhhhhhh....NOT!!!!!!!!!*



That's a good analogy.

Many fine old things have been replaced by modern cheap things that supposedly look just as good ... but they don't.  Not when you compare them side by side.

For example, I'm also a fan of vintage watches.  Many modern watches are made to look like the vintage ones but there is really no comparison when you see them together. This is true of many things.


----------



## Derrel

compur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'll use an analogy that I think is appropos: film B&W is like silk...digital B&W is like fine polyester or Rayon...they look a hell of a lot alike--don't they!!! From a distance, virtually indistinguishable to most people. Both are made of fine, fine fibers, woven. Both are shiny and supple. Both make wonderful backings on your suit vests. One is very,very OLD-fashioned, outmoded, and outdated. The other is a modern marvel of industrial engineering. Rayon or fine polyester is the equal of natural silk in the hands of the masters. Uhhhhhh....NOT!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good analogy.
> 
> Many fine old things have been replaced by modern cheap things that supposedly look just as good ... but they don't.  Not when you compare them side by side.
> 
> For example, I'm also a fan of vintage watches.  Many modern watches are made to look like the vintage ones but there is really no comparison when you see them together. This is true of many things.
Click to expand...


Thanks. It took me a few minutes of thinking to come up with an analogy I thought would be simple, and yet "accurate" and appropos...


----------



## dxqcanada

Derrel said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'll use an analogy that I think is appropos: film B&W is like silk...digital B&W is like fine polyester or Rayon...they look a hell of a lot alike--don't they!!! From a distance, virtually indistinguishable to most people. Both are made of fine, fine fibers, woven. Both are shiny and supple. Both make wonderful backings on your suit vests. One is very,very OLD-fashioned, outmoded, and outdated. The other is a modern marvel of industrial engineering. Rayon or fine polyester is the equal of natural silk in the hands of the masters. Uhhhhhh....NOT!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good analogy.
> 
> Many fine old things have been replaced by modern cheap things that supposedly look just as good ... but they don't.  Not when you compare them side by side.
> 
> For example, I'm also a fan of vintage watches.  Many modern watches are made to look like the vintage ones but there is really no comparison when you see them together. This is true of many things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks. It took me a few minutes of thinking to come up with an analogy I thought would be simple, and yet "accurate" and appropos...
Click to expand...


It was good !!!


----------



## epatsellis

It depends on what you're working with. Compare a properly exposed Betterlight image to a film image here:
http://www.betterlight.com/rest_of_the_picture.html then let me know if you still consider digital to be secondary to film.

I personally use both, depending on what I'm shooting and what the end result will be. I have exhibited both 6K digital scan back and film images side by side, and there's no difference, though the digital tends to look to be of higher acutance. A good photographer can create world class images using either medium, if you are detail oriented. 

erie


----------



## unpopular

bhop said:


> Basically this is it for me. I shoot a lot of b/w film and can almost always adjust it to my liking in the scanning process, even if some of it's seems to scan with blown highlights, i'm somehow able to tone it down to something that's useable in those blown spots. Digital blown highlights are just.. well, there's nothing there to work with.




Or you could cut development time according to the zone system ...




Derrel said:


> I'll use an analogy that I think is appropos: film B&W is like silk...digital B&W is like fine polyester or Rayon...they look a hell of a lot alike--don't they!!! From a distance, virtually indistinguishable to most people. Both are made of fine, fine fibers, woven. Both are shiny and supple. Both make wonderful backings on your suit vests. One is very,very OLD-fashioned, outmoded, and outdated. The other is a modern marvel of industrial engineering. Rayon or fine polyester is the equal of natural silk in the hands of the masters. Uhhhhhh....NOT!!!!!!!!!




Perhaps but, like film, in the wrong hands silk may as well be rayon


http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh149/pianoplayer_photos/subalbum/30vhf9u.jpg


----------



## Arpeggio9

compur said:


> A digitally scanned film image is a digital image. It is no longer a film image.
> 
> All images on the internet are digital.
> 
> Comparing "digital vs film images" by posting them on the internet is nonsensical.  They're _both _digital with the latter being at least second generation.




It's not the same tho'. It has something to do with how the information is initially captured. Something is lost when film image gets scanned, but there is still that film vibe to the scan. Just like listening to an old album from the vinyl Vs. that same recording but from the CD. IMO record sounds so much more pleasant but it's not that bad coming from the CD. There is still that analog tape sound.


----------



## compur

Arpeggio9 said:


> It's not the same tho'. It has something to do with how the information  is initially captured. Something is lost when film image gets scanned,  but there is still that film vibe to the scan. Just like listening to an  old album from the vinyl Vs. that same recording but from the CD. IMO  record sounds so much more pleasant but it's not that bad coming from  the CD. There is still that analog tape sound.




 Thank you for missing my point so eloquently.


----------



## unpopular

I have no doubt that if you scanned a negative using a PMT drum scanner, and printed it directly to b/w silver paper at 600ppi, you wouldn't see that much of a difference.


----------



## Cruzingoose

Back in my original post, I stated that digi on optical has a life of about 5 years. The CDs that are factory made using metal as the reflective element will likely last forever. However, the consumer cdr materials use dye that indeed does fade over time. Many of my archived files and early scanned images on CDR are unreadable due to CRC errors. This means the reflective surface of the disk has lost the ability to hold data and there are too many read errors to reconstruct the original files.  And worse yet, every time the laser is played on the disk, a little bit more of the dye fade away as the drive increases the power to the laser to try and recover the data. It becomes an increasing downward spirial. I have some dard disk and a few 5" floppies that are still readable, but only on my old computer that knows what a floppy disk is. Virtually all of my original Sony VFD Mavica disks and their images are gone and unreadable. They won't even format anymore, yet Maxell and Sony states a "lifetime warranty". 

I'm not addressing professional protographers and the like with Multiple Raid Servers and IT Pros. I'm addressing Joe and Jane Average Picturetaker. Tonight I'm watching a program The First World War on the Military Channel. The film is incredible, and I'm sure it came from many individual sources that stored it away and perhaps forgotten for years. 

I have a job developing some 35mm film shot at the 1936? Olympics in Germany. Even though the film is almost 70 years old, the images are amazingly intact and beautiful.  The film is Perutz Neo-Persenso Peromnia. I developed it using Edwal LPD for 2 minutes. I tried to post an image here but I guess I'm not doing something right. 

If you think your Mac Quadra or Windoz 3.11 box still has important files on it, you may want to check again. My Mac won't even power up and I've got all kinds of images and animations on it, and the 40 mb hard drive in the Windoz box just makes dropped marbles noises. The only digital images I have left from the early 90s are printed on a primitive HP Paintjet XL300.


----------



## murlis

It's all about the grain man! But seriously I think the debater leads outside of the medium itself if you consider that older film cameras often have much better quality cheaper lenses that can produce stunning photos whereas the digital slr lenses are awful to a large amount, Unless you're willing to spend hundreds. But a £400 lens for a DSLR would cost like £40 for its FSLR equivalent


----------



## The_Traveler

Arpeggio9 said:


> *especially when it comes to things that really matter in a photo, like tones *and how they balance out.



???????????????


----------



## Arpeggio9

The_Traveler said:


> Arpeggio9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *especially when it comes to things that really matter in a photo, like tones *and how they balance out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???????????????
Click to expand...


I just think that tones on film look really well without much post processing. A half decent scanner will do the job. I don't know much about all analogue processing and darkroom yet, but if it's well scanned, I think tones look wonderful and lively. I do think that it's very important for a medium to represent tones of reality in a certain way so it's pleasing and accurate to the human eye. I just see that extra dimension on film that the other medium does not have, like it's more 3d or something. There are certain aspects in digital capture that 35 mm film can't mach, however, those are not as important to me as the way film looks and feels. 

Now, I don't know what's important to you in a photo and I hope that digital does it for you, but to me it just isn't so appealing. I didn't mean to say that one thing is all that matters in a photo. I guess it's all about personal preference and what works best for an individual, but one should never fool themselves into thinking that digital is an evolution in photography. It's merely a revolution.They are two very different mediums and one should be able to see that in the final outcome which is a photo, printed, scanned, or what have you.


----------



## unpopular

What do you guys think - would this scene be possible in a single exposure with digital?







Kodak TMAX 100, N-2

(scanned on an mid-end Epson flatbed)


----------



## unpopular

I think that these were shot using that weird C41 b/w stuff. Even still, hilights are well retained:
















(scanned on a Leafscan 35)


----------



## unpopular

There is a certain luminance from a silver print, that is hard to replicate:






(scanned from print on a low-end scanner)


----------



## Arpeggio9

This is Fuji Superia 400 desaturated. CVS scanner (about 1 meg file)






This is Ilford hp5+ 400 scanned at pro lab (originally 5 meg file).


----------



## Josh66

Arpeggio9 said:


> This is Fuji Superia 400 desaturated.


Not picking on (just) you (I see it ALL the time on Flickr) - but why convert color film to B&W?  Why not just shoot B&W film?

Serious question.  Is there some advantage I don't know about?


----------



## unpopular

There is merit to shooting color film in that you have more options in how the image is processed in post at the expense of limited latitude.

It's a tradeoff, though I am unsure it's appropriate in this particular case.


----------



## unpopular

Cruzingoose said:


> If you think your Mac Quadra or Windoz 3.11 box still has important files on it, you may want to check again. My Mac won't even power up and I've got all kinds of images and animations on it



... pull the hard drive and install on another, functional machine?


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> What do you guys think - would this scene be possible in a single exposure with digital?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kodak TMAX 100, N-2
> 
> (scanned on an mid-end Epson flatbed)



Yes, based on my own mental image of the light that was present when that was shot, I think it would be possible to capture that scene in one exposure using a good, modern d-slr; especially one of the high-end ones that are testing out with the 13.9 EV dynamic range...a few years back, we had d-slrs that were at topping out at 10.9 EV at base ISO, rapidly dropping down to 9, then 8, then 7 EV at elevated ISO levels. It's hard to tell just how much of a contrast range was in that scene...is that sky the result of a filter over the lens (as it appears to be)? And what about the burned in sky at the top? The final image looks rather muddy to me...no offense intended, but the scene as-shown, on my monitor, over the WWW, is not much of a testament to B&W film...it just looks like the entire scene has been flattened and compressed. But then again, as compur pointed out, we're being shown an on-screen "digital image" whenever we look at images on the computer...so...

If you want to simulate -2 development, do you adjust your camera's Tone Curve setting to "low"? I know that is what I do. Also, the tonal response of "digital" varies quite a bit, across the entire spectrum of digital cameras. Some cameras have pretty amazing shadow recovery abilities...the Nikon D2x and Xs models for example, when they hit the market, were a huge step up in the amount of shadow detail that was recoverable and actually useful, compared with other cameras. Those two models made exposing to the right less-critical. The "new" Sony sensor in the D7000 and Pentax K-5...that sensor has amazing underexposure recovery potential...I do not know of any other sensor that can be shot with the in-camera ISO control menu set to ISO 200, and then an exposure made at an Exposure Index of 50,000, and then a BLACK raw file recovered to make a very good image...

I am mentioning these specific cameras because they span about a five year range in "advancements" in what a d-slr sensor can do...there is not clear set of capabilities associated with the word "digital".

And, with the B&W films, how do we describe the response and look of the DYE-based, chromogenic B&W films?


----------



## Josh66

Derrel said:


> And, with the B&W films, how do we describe the response and look of the DYE-based, chromogenic B&W films?


To me, it looks the same as converting color film to B&W in PP (same grain).  I guess some people like that, but I prefer the grain of real B&W film...


----------



## Derrel

O|||||||O  >>SNIP>>  I prefer the grain of real B&W film...[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Here is real film with LOTS of grain....Tri-X 35mm...shot with a lens made during the Johnson Administration era, the 35mm O.C. Nikkor, and developed in Agfa Rodinol, a developer know for its rather big, but very sharp-edged grain...shot in 1985, but scanned on a low-end Minolta film scanner in the 2000's. This was shot hand-held at around 1/15 second with an old Nikon F Photomic FTN.
> 
> R59-15A-Dana_Tri X1986.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com


----------



## Josh66

Not bad.  See, even though there is a fair amount of grain - there is still a lot of detail.

I actually quite like Rodinal, lol.  It's quickly becoming my main developer (edging HC-110 out).


----------



## FeelTheMomentForever

I love the developing and processing of the film b&w, one thing i miss the most is a darkroom. I think that it is the feeling of knowing that you did all the work to produce beautiful images vs a machine doing it. I also feel that b&w from film even transfered to digital produces better photos, but if you have the time and knowledge you can edit a digital b&w to be equally pleasing. Its all a matter of personal opinion I think.


----------



## unpopular

Derrel said:


> Yes, based on my own mental image of the light that was present when that was shot, I think it would be possible to capture that scene in one exposure using a good, modern d-slr; especially one of the high-end ones that are testing out with the 13.9 EV dynamic range...



I wasn't trying to prove a point, I was just curious what people would think. If a modern DSLR can take on nearly 14 stops of latitude, that is damn impressive.

As for the muddiness, you know I prefer lower contrast that most people. No offense taken at all.

RE: tone curve, that is prob essentially what I'm doing


----------



## Alpha

I find BW conversions to be especially challenging, though I don't doubt it's possible to equal film. I think film is much easier to use in that regard.


----------



## Arpeggio9

O|||||||O said:


> Arpeggio9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Fuji Superia 400 desaturated.
> 
> 
> 
> Not picking on (just) you (I see it ALL the time on Flickr) - but why convert color film to B&W?  Why not just shoot B&W film?
> 
> Serious question.  Is there some advantage I don't know about?
Click to expand...


Just kind of messed around with processing on that one and I liked it better that way at the time. I don't really like to do that any more at the final stage, but often I just take the color away from my photos just to see what they look like as far as mood and light goes. Sometimes color film can pass as B&W film photo because there is still that contrast and grain. It's not a match for true B&W film tho'. I am seeing that more and more.


----------



## Corto

Digital:







Film:






Just Different, Both can look great in their own way.


----------



## compur

Derrel said:


> O|||||||O  >>SNIP>>  I prefer the grain of real B&W film...[/QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is real film with LOTS of grain....Tri-X 35mm...shot with a lens made during the Johnson Administration era, the 35mm O.C. Nikkor, and developed in Agfa Rodinol, a developer know for its rather big, but very sharp-edged grain...shot in 1985, but scanned on a low-end Minolta film scanner in the 2000's. This was shot hand-held at around 1/15 second with an old Nikon F Photomic FTN.
> 
> R59-15A-Dana_Tri X1986.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A beautiful photo that shows the wonderful characteristics of film.
Click to expand...


----------



## gerardo2068

I think the whole film vs digital it's kind of pointless.

Back before the electric guitar came around there was just acoustic guitars. I'm sure same topic was talk when a new generation were going straight to electric guitar and never even touch an acoustic guitar. With acoustic guitar there were so many classic creations out there, but without the electric guitar there would not be many of the classic songs that many people talk about till this day. 

Electric piano, synthesizer and all those electric instruments.

Digital photography its just another tool to let creativity run free. Many technics and results will be very different from film but it don't take away from many wonderful images that has been created from manipulating digital images. 

Just like with the acoustic guitar, film will always have its own technics, character and purpose to be. 

Instead of bragging about one or the other I just enjoy both of them for what each of them are able to do and the good things they have brought to us.


----------



## Cruzingoose

unpopular said:


> Cruzingoose said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think your Mac Quadra or Windoz 3.11 box still has important files on it, you may want to check again. My Mac won't even power up and I've got all kinds of images and animations on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... pull the hard drive and install on another, functional machine?
Click to expand...


The Windoz drive is kaput. It won't stay spinning even without a computer, just klunks a bit then quits. The Quadra is perhaps one of Mac's goofy boxes. I did not realize this 'till long after I bought it. Apparently the OS is "blessed" and "married" to the computer. According to the folks on the Mac List, it may not work on any other Mac, unless it is set up as a secondary drive. I don't have another Mac right now, but interested in buying one if anyone here wants to part with one on the cheep.


----------



## epatsellis

compur said:


> That's a good analogy.
> 
> Many fine old things have been replaced by modern cheap things that supposedly look just as good ... but they don't.  Not when you compare them side by side.
> ....



While mostly true, if you spend some time at the link I posted earlier, you will in fact find that there are b&w digital solutions that *outperform film* in sharpness and detail. Can you achieve this with a DSLR? Probably not. But DSLR's are just the tip of the digital imaging iceberg, so to speak.There's a whole lot more out there that is readily available that can make film seem lo-res by comparison.


----------



## compur

epatsellis said:


> ... if you spend some time at the link I posted earlier, you will in fact find that there are b&w digital solutions that *outperform film* in sharpness and detail.



Thank you but I don't care about sharpness and detail.


----------



## o hey tyler

unpopular said:


> Everyone seems to be all over the place and what little technique there is is vague and imprecise.



Welcome to photography in the digital age. 

You can process film in a number of different ways as well. Some might deem them "vague" or "imprecise"... but they get the job done.


----------



## thepaulreid

Film has 'soul'. If you can see it and value it, then it is for you.




Will she come back by The Paul Reid, on Flickr


----------



## gsgary

thepaulreid said:


> Film has 'soul'. If you can see it and value it, then it is for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will she come back by The Paul Reid, on Flickr




I love this shot :thumbup: i have just got my hands on a Mamiya C330


----------



## thepaulreid

Enjoy!! gsgary. I love my Rolleicord, soul in a black metal box . Mamiya c330 was on my list too before I saw the 'cord.  Great camera the c330 tho!


----------



## djacobox372

unpopular said:
			
		

> The only advantage I truly see with b/w film is the ability to adjust hilights after exposure. With digital, your latitude is pretty fixed - it's like having slide film with 6-8 stops of useable dynamic range - which is probably close to b/w film without taking into account adjustments in development time. All other issues, including highlight handling, can be addressed through exposure, processing and greyscale conversion.
> 
> But - I don't mean to understate how much of a disadvantage this is. Adjusting highlight density is an enormous advantage to b/w film.



The whole "film has more latitude" argument is not nearly as valid as it was years ago. Digital used to be almost as bad as slide film, but todays dslrs meet or surpass most film in latitude from my recent experience.


----------



## unpopular

^^ when developed normally, B/W film has about 11 stops of latitude. But the advantage of b/w film is that you can adjust development time to retain highlight detail.

If today's DSLR's can retain 13 stops of latitude, as Derrel has said, then yes latitude isn't so much an issue.


----------



## TZK

Allow me to join the discussion, although it has been about a week since the last reply.
I wonder for how long we will keep arguing about Digital vs Analogue. Will it ever stop, or people will still be arguing, say in 15 years from today.
The thing with photography is that when you compare it to other things (silk vs artificial fabric, or VHS vs DVD, records vs CD, etc) is that photography is an Art, while most of the other analogies refer to things consumed. record vs CD: when Led Zeppelin, for example, made their music back then, they didn't have to choose between Vinyl and CDs. It wasn't part of the process, and when Kubrick made his films, he didn't have to choose how it will be sold and viewed decades later, and I'm not sure how space Odyssey will be sold/viewed 20 years from today. But if a filmmaker chooses to shoot a whole film, or a specific scene in Super 8, for example, or in B&W instead of color, then it's most probably because this fits his concept or what he is trying to achieve in his work, and digital methods just won't fit. What I'm trying to say is The Process the artists chooses is part of the creation of the work. If a sculptor chooses to create his figures in paper mache or plaster rather than, say, bronze, then it's kind of weird to argue whether paper mache or plaster has more value, or which is shinier. So comparing the creative process (art) to consumption (CD, DVD or Vinyl) is not fitting here. or at least is not covering the whole subject.

Re: scanned film becomes digital. Well, that's partly correct, but it's not fully digital, as it was captured by a film camera and on film surface. So if scanned film is no longer film photography, than this applies to Everything you see outside the gallery/museum. Books reproduce images of old or contemporary masters, that is usually done now digitally. magazines, etc. Unless it's the actual silver print hanging on the museum wall, it's most probably digital. And so comparing images online is also pointless as both are digitized at the end, and the tonality of the film photograph is limited by the scanner that allowed the hard image to be seen online or on a computer screen.

I have problems with digital once it starts trying to be what it is not. So when you use photoshop to make a digital image look analogue/vintage then it starts getting cheesy and kitchy. If you use digital in order to create  something that looks Analogue, then there's something wrong here, and you are probably using the wrong tool and just trying to do it the easy way. It's more like "argh, I don't want (or know how) to get messy in the darkroom so I will just get it done with on PS within seconds."  If you choose to use Acrylic instead of oil paint, then make your painting look like acrylic. If you want it to look like an oil painting, then use oil paint, and be honest with yourself.


----------



## Corto

Well said TZK.

But  if we want to share images over the internet we have to digitize our film shots. And yes, Unfortunately we cant share our Silver prints unless we meet each other in person.

If it wasnt for the digital age (internet) many of us would never see the work of others. I prefer film, But I find it a blessing to be able to share the way we can these days.


----------



## TZK

I just think that these discussions focus too much on the craft (which  is important of course) but meanwhile we tend to forget that the craft,  for artists, is only the means by which they communicate something  deeper. What matters, really, is what you are trying to express (ideas,  emotions and feelings) and whatever you choose to bring these ideas and  emotions into existence is fine, as long as it doesn't contradict with  the 'message' (I hate the word 'message' when talking about art, by the  way). I don't think an artist's ultimate goal is to show the world how  great silver is, or what a wonderful film Tri-X is! Nobody cares about  Tri-X, except photographers when shopping for film. What the world cares  about is what is inside of you and how you (not the film/camera) view  the world.
What we need more of is discussions of the content, and its relation to the methods used.

As for digitizing, I don't find it a bad thing. I was  just making this clear for those who would refuse to call a scanned  image/film "film photograph", just because it passed by a computer. All  your (recent) art/photography books are digital. But as long as editors  and curators spend hours to make sure the printed reproduction is an  honest representation of the original, then it's fine. I never saw Carlo  Molino's polaroids in person, but I Love them, given that those  reproductions are pretty much what they look like in real. Also, the  Mona Lisa is not a digital drawing, despite all the digitally-printed  postcards and posters. And as long as a digital image can allow me to  see Van Gogh's brush strokes in detail, I'm happy.


----------



## jake337

TZK said:


> Allow me to join the discussion, although it has been about a week since the last reply.
> I wonder for how long we will keep arguing about Digital vs Analogue. Will it ever stop, or people will still be arguing, say in 15 years from today.
> The thing with photography is that when you compare it to other things (silk vs artificial fabric, or VHS vs DVD, records vs CD, etc) is that photography is an Art, while most of the other analogies refer to things consumed. record vs CD: when Led Zeppelin, for example, made their music back then, they didn't have to choose between Vinyl and CDs. It wasn't part of the process, and when Kubrick made his films, he didn't have to choose how it will be sold and viewed decades later, and I'm not sure how space Odyssey will be sold/viewed 20 years from today. But if a filmmaker chooses to shoot a whole film, or a specific scene in Super 8, for example, or in B&W instead of color, then it's most probably because this fits his concept or what he is trying to achieve in his work, and digital methods just won't fit. What I'm trying to say is The Process the artists chooses is part of the creation of the work. If a sculptor chooses to create his figures in paper mache or plaster rather than, say, bronze, then it's kind of weird to argue whether paper mache or plaster has more value, or which is shinier. So comparing the creative process (art) to consumption (CD, DVD or Vinyl) is not fitting here. or at least is not covering the whole subject.
> 
> Re: scanned film becomes digital. Well, that's partly correct, but it's not fully digital, as it was captured by a film camera and on film surface. So if scanned film is no longer film photography, than this applies to Everything you see outside the gallery/museum. Books reproduce images of old or contemporary masters, that is usually done now digitally. magazines, etc. Unless it's the actual silver print hanging on the museum wall, it's most probably digital. And so comparing images online is also pointless as both are digitized at the end, and the tonality of the film photograph is limited by the scanner that allowed the hard image to be seen online or on a computer screen.
> 
> *I have problems with digital once it starts trying to be what it is not. So when you use photoshop to make a digital image look analogue/vintage then it starts getting cheesy and kitchy. If you use digital in order to create  something that looks Analogue, then there's something wrong here, and you are probably using the wrong tool and just trying to do it the easy way. It's more like "argh, I don't want (or know how) to get messy in the darkroom so I will just get it done with on PS within seconds."* *If you choose to use Acrylic instead of oil paint, then make your painting look like acrylic. If you want it to look like an oil painting, then use oil paint, and be honest with yourself.*



I agree with everything your saying up to this blast paragraph.

Your somewhat contradicting yourself here.  At first you speak that the medium is not as important as the vision one is trying to create.  If one wants to paint, an oil painting, and only has acrylic they should then not use the tools/medium they have to create their vision?  

What if ones vision is to create an "oil" painting with acrylic?  Is their vision somehow no longer valid because of their choice medium?

You may be blessed with the extra income to shoot film but I'm not in that place.  I have a, paid for, camera and computer, those are my medium.  I barely have the extra income to print out any of my digital files.  Honestly, when converting images to b&w, I have never thought of analog or how it looks.  I convert to my own tastes and if another wants to compare it to analog or otherwise, that is only their opinion. If I create an analog "look" via digital and I am still using my medium to show my vision, what does it matter?  

That's right, it doesn't.


----------



## jake337

TZK said:


> I just think that these discussions focus too much on the craft (which  is important of course) but meanwhile we tend to forget that the craft,  for artists, is only the means by which they communicate something  deeper. What matters, really, is what you are trying to express (ideas,  emotions and feelings) and whatever you choose to bring these ideas and  emotions into existence is fine, as long as it doesn't contradict with  the 'message' (I hate the word 'message' when talking about art, by the  way). I don't think an artist's ultimate goal is to show the world how  great silver is, or what a wonderful film Tri-X is! Nobody cares about  Tri-X, except photographers when shopping for film. What the world cares  about is what is inside of you and how you (not the film/camera) view  the world.
> What we need more of is discussions of the content, and its relation to the methods used.
> 
> As for digitizing, I don't find it a bad thing. I was  just making this clear for those who would refuse to call a scanned  image/film "film photograph", just because it passed by a computer. All  your (recent) art/photography books are digital. But as long as editors  and curators spend hours to make sure the printed reproduction is an  honest representation of the original, then it's fine. I never saw Carlo  Molino's polaroids in person, but I Love them, given that those  reproductions are pretty much what they look like in real. Also, the  Mona Lisa is not a digital drawing, despite all the digitally-printed  postcards and posters. And as long as a digital image can allow me to  see Van Gogh's brush strokes in detail, I'm happy.



Maybe everyone should stop spitting hairs and just call it photography.


----------



## TZK

Jake,
I'm referring to imitation. Maybe I'm bringing too much 'conceptual art' here (my background) but if creating an acrylic painting that pretends to be an oil (19th century) painting, and the usage of acrylic is justified somehow, then fine. Use acrylic (or plaster, bronze, etc) for what it is, or have a reason behind twisting the material and making it do new things other than laziness or being unable to deliver the real thing. Someone using cheap plastic to create objects that look like they were made of crystal is fine, and even impressive. it's about recycling, the every-day objects, etc. On the other hand, a sculptor who intends to create a statue, but, unable to do it in stone, cast it in resin and paint it in brown, this is different. Back to photography, I admire so many digital work and photographers, but seeing photos heavy with many filters and fake grains, or fake polaroids just make me cringe. Polaroids are beautiful because they are Polaroids with everything associated with these cameras and films. I would rather push the limits of digital photography, rather than make it look backward and create things we have seen before, but in lower quality.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I do appreciate both, analogue and digital, but I hate digital images that scream "look at me, can you tell the difference? I'm as good as analogue"<br>
Finally, I think bad art is bad art, be it digital or manual.
Regards,
Tarek


----------



## jake337

TZK said:


> Jake,
> I'm referring to imitation. Maybe I'm bringing too much 'conceptual art' here (my background) but if creating an acrylic painting that pretends to be an oil (19th century) painting, and the usage of acrylic is justified somehow, then fine. Use acrylic (or plaster, bronze, etc) for what it is, or have a reason behind twisting the material and making it do new things other than laziness or being unable to deliver the real thing. Someone using cheap plastic to create objects that look like they were made of crystal is fine, and even impressive. it's about recycling, the every-day objects, etc. On the other hand, a sculptor who intends to create a statue, but, unable to do it in stone, cast it in resin and paint it in brown, this is different. Back to photography, I admire so many digital work and photographers, but seeing photos heavy with many filters and fake grains, or fake polaroids just make me cringe. Polaroids are beautiful because they are Polaroids with everything associated with these cameras and films. I would rather push the limits of digital photography, rather than make it look backward and create things we have seen before, but in lower quality.<br>
> <br>
> Anyway, I do appreciate both, analogue and digital, but I hate digital images that scream "look at me, can you tell the difference? I'm as good as analogue"<br>
> Finally, I think bad art is bad art, be it digital or manual.
> Regards,
> Tarek



I understand what you're saying.


----------



## jvh

It SURE IS ! ... a BIG TIME. ... in any case 8x10 B&W is still hard to beat a specially if you print in traditional way. B&W film has almost 3d presentation compare to digital. Dital RGB spectrum does NOT reach "pale of grey" any close as film >>> darkroom >>> final print. Even printing on high end InkJet will put out a better result if you are coming from 8x10 B&W film.


----------



## accipiter19

News from the art world:  Some of Picasso's most famous oil paintings were made with house paint.


----------



## ktan7

Film b&w definitely have more mood. Something that can't be done via digital. Unless, you spend hours editing it. Why would you spend hours editing when you can go out and create?


----------



## Ilovemycam

I like the look of film, but I shoot digital. No room or time for a wet darkroom anymore.

Just look at the movies now compared to the film movies. Different look...same with still pix.


----------



## Ysarex

ktan7 said:


> Film b&w definitely have more mood. Something that can't be done via digital. Unless, you spend hours editing it. Why would you spend hours editing when you can go out and create?



Because digital has such a compelling atmospheric aura that you can't capture with film. Why spend the extra money and time to process and scan film when you can have digital right now?


----------



## Jad

I left my film photography two years ago when we sold out and went full time RVers. I had a state or the arts darkroom and the best of large format camera gear. I spent nearly 40 years making wonderful prints using the best films and papers ever made. The last few years of my darkroom work was frustrated by the lost of some excellent materials. The quality print papers were disappearing and remaining choices was limited as well as high priced. Chemicals are hard to have shipped now that they are considered hazardous materials. I liked using the ready load film packs from Kodak which are gone. The airport situation after 911 made it nearly impossible to carry film with you so I ended up shipping it to my destination and then found out later the shippers were x-raying the package. I have never made a digital B&W print that comes close to my darkroom prints. Inkjet prints may improve with time, but ink vs. a silver print at this point, there is no comparison. I sure do miss my darkroom but at this time in my life it is doubtful I will ever have a darkroom again.


----------



## Ysarex

I left my film photography well over a decade ago. I had a state of the art darkroom and the best large format and medium format camera gear. I spent nearly 40 years making superb prints using the best films and papers -- loved Portriga Rapid and Gallerie and Brovira. I was considered a regional expert in darkroom methods and made a name as a fine printer and teacher. But I saw the promise in digital and started learning. Now I make B&W inkjet prints that rival and indeed surpass in certain ways the quality of a fine silver print. For example software manipulation makes the old darkroom practice of burning and dodging look like a very dull knife next to a scalpel. I'm having a great time continuing to take photos and learning how to improve the quality of my work.

Joe


----------



## timor

I am film and darkroom junkie and don't touch digital, but I have to agree with Joe. There is no stopping in computer technology. However photography could be perceived from different points of view. For professional photographer technology is very important and that for many reasons. From artistic POV, or for hobbyists like me it would be just a personal choice. In the world increasingly dominated by smart machines doing something "clumsy" and completely manual seems like a revival.


----------



## Jad

Ysarex said:


> I left my film photography well over a decade ago. I had a state of the art darkroom and the best large format and medium format camera gear. I spent nearly 40 years making superb prints using the best films and papers -- loved Portriga Rapid and Gallerie and Brovira. I was considered a regional expert in darkroom methods and made a name as a fine printer and teacher. But I saw the promise in digital and started learning. Now I make B&W inkjet prints that rival and indeed surpass in certain ways the quality of a fine silver print. For example software manipulation makes the old darkroom practice of burning and dodging look like a very dull knife next to a scalpel. I'm having a great time continuing to take photos and learning how to improve the quality of my work.
> 
> Joe



Joe,
 You sound very much like myself. I also had a long history of being a highly respected large format Black and White photographer where we lived. I had a display gallery and taught darkroom sessions for a number or years. I just need to reinvent myself and accept the learning curve that goes with it. I have an Epson printer 2882 and have done some printing with it but as long as I had my darkroom I never really took an interest with the inkjet printing. Now that has all changed, I need to focus my attention on getting setup for a new look with my Black and White images. I plan on purchasing a larger printer in the near future so I can make 16x20 prints. What are your recommendations for the types of papers I should try, knowing we have very a similar backgrounds?


----------



## Compaq

Ysarex, half of your post is basically identical to Jad's post. Was that coincidental? Am I being crazy here?


----------



## Mike_E

For most of us there isn't a lot of difference because most of us don't print in the darkroom and the best prints you're likely to get are done with an inkjet printer at around 320 dpi no matter which type of file is being printed.

The biggest difference I notice is from the camera and lens that's being used.  Format to format not so much but since a lot of us can now afford to step up in format with the price of film cameras having dropped this makes a big difference.

There is no way a 35mm image can compete with a 120mm format -top quality to top quality- and 120 doesn't hold up to 4X5 and so forth.  I'm not telling anybody here anything that they don't already know of course but I would point out that until digital medium format becomes financially available -at least to most of us- or a large format back that's usable at shutter speeds that have real world applications comes around then film is the most likely avenue to make the kind of images we are looking to achieve.


----------



## Ysarex

Jad said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I left my film photography well over a decade ago. I had a state of the art darkroom and the best large format and medium format camera gear. I spent nearly 40 years making superb prints using the best films and papers -- loved Portriga Rapid and Gallerie and Brovira. I was considered a regional expert in darkroom methods and made a name as a fine printer and teacher. But I saw the promise in digital and started learning. Now I make B&W inkjet prints that rival and indeed surpass in certain ways the quality of a fine silver print. For example software manipulation makes the old darkroom practice of burning and dodging look like a very dull knife next to a scalpel. I'm having a great time continuing to take photos and learning how to improve the quality of my work.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe,
> You sound very much like myself. I also had a long history of being a highly respected large format Black and White photographer where we lived. I had a display gallery and taught darkroom sessions for a number or years. I just need to reinvent myself and accept the learning curve that goes with it. I have an Epson printer 2882 and have done some printing with it but as long as I had my darkroom I never really took an interest with the inkjet printing. Now that has all changed, I need to focus my attention on getting setup for a new look with my Black and White images. I plan on purchasing a larger printer in the near future so I can make 16x20 prints. What are your recommendations for the types of papers I should try, knowing we have very a similar backgrounds?
> Two Lane Highway
Click to expand...


When I read your post a lot sounded familiar. I leaned more to medium format and my Arca 69f along with some Rolleis and Hasselbalds were my heaviest users but I shot my share of sheet film. Time wise as well; nearly 40 years.

The trick to getting good B&W from inkjet is the paper -- it's all about the paper. Next, you need to either use a multiple black ink printer like your Epson (3 black inks) or Canon 9500 or settle for a monochrome image with a tint from a color printer. I get best results by printing an RGB image with a printer like your Epson 2880 and adding a very slight olive tint. I build my own paper/printer profiles including for B&W prints and then it's all about the paper:

Museo Silver Rag
Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta
Canson Infinity Baryta
Moab Colorado Gloss
Legion Sommerset Enhanced
Canson Arches Velin
Moab Entrada

The last three are matte surfaces. That list contains an opportunity in looking toward the future. A fine B&W print is always more than just a photograph. It's physical presence is an integral component of the whole. That's why RC (plastic) color prints have always been ugly and why you and I never touched RC B&W papers -- plastic is inherently ugly. The choices now available in high quality inkjet papers is enough to make you giddy. With a range of paper surfaces and base tints that not only exceeds what's available in silver printing right now but exceeds what we had available 30 years ago. It's exciting.

My career was spent in academia. Still today I encounter colleagues who start complaining that digital technologies just don't hold up to film and the darkroom. After I concede that a silver print properly processed and toned will outlast a print in ink and then make them concede that color ink prints have more than double the lifespan of RA4 materials, I press them on how hard they've really tried to learn digital processing and printing. Invariably they haven't made the effort. It took us decades to become experts with film and the darkroom -- digital takes some time as well.

Joe


----------



## Jad

Joe,
 Your post is very helpful and I will try some of these papers you mentioned. I need to develop a new work flow and get calibrated for printing with inkjet just like I did with my darkroom work. John


----------



## Knipser

Sorry for not reading all posts... but... wouldn't it be a good alternative to take b/w shoots on film, develope them yourself (I did that in the past, it's very easy, just need a small drum developer - $20 on eBay) - and then scan the films?

I am aware that ICE (dust removal) will not work on b/w films, still, sounds like a good alternative. Or?


----------



## djacobox372

bazooka said:


> Cruzingoose said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't say "film=good, digi=bad".To answer Kevin's question, I would personally say that film has a texture, a feeling of a moment of life captured, on a see-it, touch-it medium that has the potential to last a hundred years, and yet to be able to re-animated at a moments notice on paper for all to share.
> 
> Digi to me is harsh and unforgiving, limited to the pixel resolution of the captured image and computer technology available to reproduce a working image. With the digital half life of 1 year or so, (my opinion), The digital images stored on optical disk is likely to be lost in 4 or 5 years. Hard disk storage may be ok for 10 years, IF the computer that houses it stays operational.
> 
> Digi images are most likely to be never shared or archived on paper. Acording to the Smithsonian, we as a people have lost about 20 years of hard history due to digi. And not just images, but written matter also. Not many people write letters anymore, and most of those are computer printed. Very little handwriting and certainly no penmanship. Pardon me PenPersonShip.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to strongly disagree that digital has a half life of 1 year.  If one backs up their work both onsite and offsite (I'm sure most digital professional artists do this), the lifespan is indefinite.  Moreover, nothing changes in the file, whereas with film, it certainly degrades over time.  And yes, digital images are certainly printed.  Many people don't even consider it to be a photograph or a final work until it is printed.  For the casual point-and-shooter or typical in-business-out-of-business portrait photographer?  Sure, but I'm talking about true professional photographers that take their work seriously (which is reflected in pricing).
Click to expand...


Digital backups typically only last as long as the photographer and/or interest in his work lives.  It's unfathomable the amount of art that would have been lost if it had to be purposefully backed up every year or two over history.


----------



## Finster

I agree. Not only is it silly to expect people to back up digital photos constantly, but it would also be necessary to convert the file types to work with the current standard. Film is able to be viewed anywhere, at anytime. All you need is a light source and functioning eyes.


----------



## MartinCrabtree

If I had to choose one camera to keep it would be my Nikon F5. Maybe it's my age,maybe not. 

You can produce a digital monochrome wet print that equals one derived from film. I choose to look at it this way. Neither digital or emulsion images come from the device finished. Both must be developed,one chemical and one electronic. And if you have crap to work with neither will be any good in the end.


----------



## lenny_eiger

I just read this thread. Let me see if I can help. I have done both digital and darkroom printing, and done both to excess. If you want to print very contrasty or very small, there is little difference between the two. They both can handle very large ranges. The resolution is very close. However, there is one place where film outdoes the digital without question. It has to do with sensor size. Digital, even the most expensive you can buy, can not compare to a medium format or a 4x5 piece of film scanned at high rez on a drum scanner.

Consider that you have a telephone pole in an image. Let's say its a new one, with that reddish creosote that has 1,000 different shades of brown. How much do you think you could reproduce of that with a 1/4 inch sliver of film? What if that 1/4 inch was on a 4x5, and what if you decided to move up to 8x10? Now you have a full inch to describe the same set of tones. How much more could you reproduce faithfully? Plenty I would say. Now let's go the other way. Med format would try and represent that same set of tones with 1/16 of an inch, 35mm would use 1/64 of an inch. Would it speak to the richness, the subtle shifts from one color to the next? No. Neither can a silly little 35mm digital sensor, whether it be a high-end Nikon or Canon. It just can't do it.

It's called definition. Sometimes called film real estate. It wins, every time. Physics.

Lenny
EigerStudios


----------



## Ilovemycam

djacobox372 said:


> bazooka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cruzingoose said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't say "film=good, digi=bad".To answer Kevin's question, I would personally say that film has a texture, a feeling of a moment of life captured, on a see-it, touch-it medium that has the potential to last a hundred years, and yet to be able to re-animated at a moments notice on paper for all to share.
> 
> Digi to me is harsh and unforgiving, limited to the pixel resolution of the captured image and computer technology available to reproduce a working image. With the digital half life of 1 year or so, (my opinion), The digital images stored on optical disk is likely to be lost in 4 or 5 years. Hard disk storage may be ok for 10 years, IF the computer that houses it stays operational.
> 
> Digi images are most likely to be never shared or archived on paper. Acording to the Smithsonian, we as a people have lost about 20 years of hard history due to digi. And not just images, but written matter also. Not many people write letters anymore, and most of those are computer printed. Very little handwriting and certainly no penmanship. Pardon me PenPersonShip.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to strongly disagree that digital has a half life of 1 year. If one backs up their work both onsite and offsite (I'm sure most digital professional artists do this), the lifespan is indefinite. Moreover, nothing changes in the file, whereas with film, it certainly degrades over time. And yes, digital images are certainly printed. Many people don't even consider it to be a photograph or a final work until it is printed. For the casual point-and-shooter or typical in-business-out-of-business portrait photographer? Sure, but I'm talking about true professional photographers that take their work seriously (which is reflected in pricing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Digital backups typically only last as long as the photographer and/or interest in his work lives. It's unfathomable the amount of art that would have been lost if it had to be purposefully backed up every year or two over history.
Click to expand...


That is why we make prints of our best work. Hopefully they may be saved. And that is why we should freely give low res digital images to whomever wants it on the net. POd books are another help for survival. Just sell them at cost if your interested in 
preservation. 

When we die, there is good chance some or all of our work will be lost if it is just digital. Nice prints have a chance at surviving.

In my case I have been forwarned all my prtints will end up in a dumpster or will be deleted if digital. My family hates my work. But I am doing a OK job with spreading it all over the world!


----------



## Ilovemycam

unpopular said:


> I agree that hard drives are far better than film for long term storage. A curator could easily run backups of important files periodically.
> 
> I suppose the only real risk to hard over the very long term, into antiquity, is the seals breaking. But I would imagine under archival conditions this could easily be comparable to the longevity of film.



It is good to have prints as well. Prints are for the digital photog the same as negs are for the film photog. I was able to recover many images I had lost the negs by having a print. A print will yield about 90% to 95% of the image.


----------



## limr

This thread hasn't seen a lot of action for a couple of weeks but I'd like to dive in anyway.

There's no good answer to the analog v. digital debate. It's so dependent on individual aesthetics, required functionality, method preference...

One thing I'll add that hasn't been said is that I feel at a certain point, images created and modified solely in digital format become less about photography and more about graphic art. I believe there's a spectrum, from the more traditional film, wet developing and printing to the modern digital imaging and editing. There's overlap for sure, and I'm not sure where the line in the sand is to be drawn. And that's as far as I care to get into this debate at the moment.

What I would like to do is to present some images and I'm interested to read thoughts about the differences. There are two scenes and two pictures for each scene. The film was originally shot in black and white (Tri-X). The digital images were converted to B&W and I tried to make them as similar as I could in terms of lighting and contrast without going too crazy. I'm not identifying which is digital and which is film. No, it's not a test to see if you can tell which is which: I'm truly interested in what you like or dislike about each version and I don't want your biases (one way or another) to get in the way.

View attachment 47255View attachment 47256View attachment 47257View attachment 47258


----------



## timor

limr said:


> One thing I'll add that hasn't been said is that I feel at a certain point, images created and modified solely in digital format become less about photography and more about graphic art.... There's overlap for sure, and I'm not sure where the line in the sand is to be drawn.


I can't agree with you more.
I would like to see your samples, but there is something wrong with your attachments, can you try to upload them once more ?


----------



## limr

Hmmm - when I uploaded last night, they were showing but now I just see attachment links. Weird. Let me try uploading them in a different configuration.

Scene 1a



Scene 1b


Scene 2a


Scene 2b


----------



## timor

Yes, you're right, there is no way to tell with 100% certainty What's film, what's not. Here is the problem, all of them are digital now, there is no other way to show a picture on the computer. 
The whole discussion about digital and film b&w photography is a bit off. It is not, how the final print looks: computer can simulate a lot, no problem here, it is the whole mental process of creating b&w image. If you load in your camera b&w film you have to think b&w: you have to see the world the same way film and chemical process will record it. If you don't know your film and process, you cannot expose the film in a way it will support your vision, just to align the needle of light meter is not enough, that is good for snapshots. Modern dslrs have much, much more sophisticated method of deciding the exposure and still can't read photographer's mind. But that is still good enough for digital sensor. Shooting digital sensor you cannot think in b&w the same way like with film. Basically you are shooting color slide, you may have b&w vision of the picture in your head, but your exposure it for something else.
B&w process starts on computer with: "what we have here...ah... let see how it looks in b&w", and maybe you on your way to create a great b&w image, but the creation is not photographic anymore, it's digital arts.
So, discussion between the men what is better to use for b&w images is pointless; use what is better for you in sens of satisfaction (from the POV of enthusiast, not professional of course).


----------



## Ysarex

timor said:


> Yes, you're right, there is no way to tell with 100% certainty What's film, what's not. Here is the problem, all of them are digital now, there is no other way to show a picture on the computer.
> The whole discussion about digital and film b&w photography is a bit off. It is not, how the final print looks: computer can simulate a lot, no problem here, it is the whole mental process of creating b&w image. If you load in your camera b&w film you have to think b&w: you have to see the world the same way film and chemical process will record it. If you don't know your film and process, you cannot expose the film in a way it will support your vision, just to align the needle of light meter is not enough, that is good for snapshots. Modern dslrs have much, much more sophisticated method of deciding the exposure and still can't read photographer's mind. But that is still good enough for digital sensor. Shooting digital sensor you cannot think in b&w the same way like with film. Basically you are shooting color slide, you may have b&w vision of the picture in your head, but your exposure it for something else.
> B&w process starts on computer with: "what we have here...ah... let see how it looks in b&w", and maybe you on your way to create a great b&w image, but the creation is not photographic anymore, it's digital arts.
> So, discussion between the men what is better to use for b&w images is pointless; use what is better for you in sens of satisfaction (from the POV of enthusiast, not professional of course).



I only bothered to examine the first set and I won't take on the 100% factor but I'm 99% certain the Scene 1a is scanned film and the Scene 1b is from a digital camera.

Joe


----------



## timor

Ysarex said:


> I only bothered to examine the first set and I won't take on the 100% factor but I'm 99% certain the Scene 1a is scanned film and the Scene 1b is from a digital camera.Joe


I rely on your experience Joe, can you give me some pointers ? How do you see it ? It's the sharpness ?


----------



## Josh66

I can't tell...  In both cases, "B" looks to have more range (more shadow detail), but that could be the processing, so there is really nothing to go on...  The highlights look the same to me in A and B.


----------



## Ysarex

timor said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only bothered to examine the first set and I won't take on the 100% factor but I'm 99% certain the Scene 1a is scanned film and the Scene 1b is from a digital camera.Joe
> 
> 
> 
> I rely on your experience Joe, can you give me some pointers ? How do you see it ? It's the sharpness ?
Click to expand...


I just looked at the second set. Scene 2a is digital and Scene 2b is scanned film. The OP reversed the order on the second set -- film/digital then digital/film. You have to look close and you can see the film grain in the film shots, but the real give-away for scanned film is always the spotting. It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of needle as Jesus said than it is to clean all of the cr*p off a piece of film before you scan it. And then if you take it into Photoshop and start cloning out all those spots you're either going to miss a few or you're going to start being thankful that you only average one keeper per 36 exp. roll. In the two film shots I just spotted the pieces of scanned lint the OP failed to spot out.

Joe


----------



## gsgary

Ysarex said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right, there is no way to tell with 100% certainty What's film, what's not. Here is the problem, all of them are digital now, there is no other way to show a picture on the computer.
> The whole discussion about digital and film b&w photography is a bit off. It is not, how the final print looks: computer can simulate a lot, no problem here, it is the whole mental process of creating b&w image. If you load in your camera b&w film you have to think b&w: you have to see the world the same way film and chemical process will record it. If you don't know your film and process, you cannot expose the film in a way it will support your vision, just to align the needle of light meter is not enough, that is good for snapshots. Modern dslrs have much, much more sophisticated method of deciding the exposure and still can't read photographer's mind. But that is still good enough for digital sensor. Shooting digital sensor you cannot think in b&w the same way like with film. Basically you are shooting color slide, you may have b&w vision of the picture in your head, but your exposure it for something else.
> B&w process starts on computer with: "what we have here...ah... let see how it looks in b&w", and maybe you on your way to create a great b&w image, but the creation is not photographic anymore, it's digital arts.
> So, discussion between the men what is better to use for b&w images is pointless; use what is better for you in sens of satisfaction (from the POV of enthusiast, not professional of course).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only bothered to examine the first set and I won't take on the 100% factor but I'm 99% certain the Scene 1a is scanned film and the Scene 1b is from a digital camera.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


Opposite way round on scene 2  b is film a is digital


----------



## amolitor

The first has rather dramatic grain and rather opaque shadows.

The differences between the pictures are clear, but they consist of things I don't care much about. I don't care about the fine details of the tonal rendering curve, and that's pretty much what all the differences are. I do like some translucency in the shadows and a touch of texture in the whites, but I'm not fanatic about it. The upshot is that I have no preferences in your samples, really, and I know precisely why.


----------



## Ballistics

I like how my B+W come out. Never shot film, but I couldn't tell the difference anyway. As for gsgary's example, that's such a misrepresentation of digital vs film. You could easily match that film b+w with a digital camera.


----------



## timor

Ballistics said:


> I like how my B+W come out. Never shot film, but I couldn't tell the difference anyway. As for gsgary's example, that's such a misrepresentation of digital vs film. You could easily match that film b+w with a digital camera.


There is no problem with matching, with flexibility of digital technology it is no problem to surpass.


----------



## limr

Scene 1A = film
Scene 1B = digital

Scene 2A = digital
Scene 2B = film

There was no processing of the film images once they were scanned in, which yes, included some missed pieces of dust from the scanning. No matter how hard you clean the film and the scanner screen, there really is no way to avoid pieces of dust.

I find that software does a pretty decent job turning digital color shots into black and white as long as you don't rely on the auto settings (but that's pretty much for any 'fix' - I despise Auto Correct) and know how to go in and mess with histograms and curves and have time to mess around. I'm either less impressed or less skilled with color modifications. They tend to look too fake too fast for my tastes.

The problem with trying to say 'digital surpasses' or 'film surpasses' is that it assumes that everyone does/should have the same set of criteria for judging a photograph. Personally, I find the incessant demand for uniform sharpness or post-processing bokeh in digital imaging to be a bit boring. I like grain. I like imperfections. The film cafe scene is one of my favorite shots, including that spot of "notalgia blur" in the center of the image that was the result of a smudge on the lens that I didn't know about until I processed the film. Others might be really bothered by that because they want everything sharp. Or they might want more contrast or more detail in the shadows or highlights. We all like different things about photography - both making and consuming - and these are very personal, subjective aesthetics, so it's essentially a moot debate. There's no way to objectively and logically 'win' this one.

It kind of reminds me of something a few years back: someone posted a picture by Henri Cartier Bresson on Flickr without saying who the photographer was. The comments that came in about what he should do to improve his photography if he wanted to be a professional were fairly amusing. Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics


----------



## limr

timor said:


> The whole discussion about digital and film b&w photography is a bit off. It is not, how the final print looks: computer can simulate a lot, no problem here, it is the whole mental process of creating b&w image. If you load in your camera b&w film you have to think b&w: you have to see the world the same way film and chemical process will record it. If you don't know your film and process, you cannot expose the film in a way it will support your vision, just to align the needle of light meter is not enough, that is good for snapshots. Modern dslrs have much, much more sophisticated method of deciding the exposure and still can't read photographer's mind. But that is still good enough for digital sensor. Shooting digital sensor you cannot think in b&w the same way like with film. Basically you are shooting color slide, you may have b&w vision of the picture in your head, but your exposure it for something else.
> B&w process starts on computer with: "what we have here...ah... let see how it looks in b&w", and maybe you on your way to create a great b&w image, but the creation is not photographic anymore, it's digital arts.
> So, discussion between the men what is better to use for b&w images is pointless; use what is better for you in sens of satisfaction (from the POV of enthusiast, not professional of course).



I agree - I shoot differently when I have B&W loaded than when I have color. When using a digital, as you said, it's "let's see how this will look" and it becomes - for me anyway - a less thoughtful process.

Part of the issue is that neither film nor digital cameras work the way the human eye works, so it's always a challenge, no matter what the tool, to create an image that matches what you see or what you imagine in your mind. I personally take more satisfaction when my film image comes out the way I imagine it because shooting film requires me to _think_ more while digital just allows me to s_hoot_ more. Like you, I'm not talking about professional photographers who are of course very skilled and thoughtful with their tools and images. They have to be. But I don't think my experience with digital is so different from that of the casual digital 'photographer' who can get some cool bird shots with sport mode and continuous shooting but can't even tell you what an aperture is.  For me, post processing is more about minor little fixes rather than the start of major alterations that result in an entirely different image.


----------



## Ballistics

The fact that no one jumped out and said that photo by HCB was great means 2 things to me. 

1 - They said it's not great, because they really think it's not and they weren't influenced by a house name 
2- Standards change with the times. And that photo just isn't up to snuff with our current standards.  

Me personally, I don't really think that it's a great photo either. Just because it's a photo by the revered HCB, doesn't mean I'm automatically going to think it's amazing.
I also think that he was a fraud, and a lot of his decisive moment photos were staged. But hey, that's just me.


----------



## Josh66

Ballistics said:


> The fact that no one jumped out and said that photo by HCB was great means 2 things to me.
> 
> 1 - They said it's not great, because they really think it's not and they weren't influenced by a house name
> 2- Standards change with the times. And that photo just isn't up to snuff with our current standards.
> 
> Me personally, I don't really think that it's a great photo either. Just because it's a photo by the revered HCB, doesn't mean I'm automatically going to think it's amazing.
> I also think that he was a fraud, and a lot of his decisive moment photos were staged. But hey, that's just me.



Which post is this in response to?

Henri Cartier-Bresson's work never really blew me away or anything, not my style I guess.

Not that it really matters, but hell - he didn't even develop his own film.  That was apparently the boring part to him and better left to people with nothing better to do.


----------



## Derrel

limr said:
			
		

> One thing I'll add that hasn't been said is that I feel at a certain point, images created and modified solely in digital format become less about photography and more about graphic art.... There's overlap for sure, and I'm not sure where the line in the sand is to be drawn.



Yes, I agree with that. Working with a camera and film is "photography", while working with a digital camera and computer is "digital imaging". The two activities are similar in many ways, but the fundamental difference is that analogue photography uses a permanent, fixed image, captured in an emulsion as the basic "source" of the images. There actually is a single, finite "image" that has ben captured and made permanent, and it can be held in the hand, and seen, and peered at. The digital image exists only when a computer can decode the binary data. Because of the way film captures, and the way digital images are captured, there are some differences in how the pictures are made, and also some differences in the way the cameras and lenses are best optimized.

I looked at the four sample photos and it was dead easy to spot the film/digital, then digital/film pairings. The dirty lens on the second photo was an odd thing, I thought. In the second pair of images, the way the film image literally jumped out at me was the way the highlights and the tones just below highlight are rendered; a lot of young people mighty not be familiar enough from actual experience, but the way to spot REAL film is often to look at the brightest highlights, and then to look for tones that are just  a bit darker, and then darker still; in the film shot, you can see some grain, and some tonal variation, and in the brightest highlights, there might (or might not) be some minute variations in density between paper white (in digital "blown white", 255) and just-holding-detail whites.

In the sky and building tones near the brightest areas, the digital shot just suddenly has sky tones that are pure, detail-less, ugly white. THere is a very abrupt "clipping". In B&W film, the upper mid tones become lighter and lighter and lighter, and then fade into highlights; there are also medium bright highlights, bright highlights, the brightest highlights, and in some scenes, pure, specular white highlights that are "paper white".

In the second set of pictures, all I did was I to look straight for the rooftops and sky juncture area...the digital and film shots revealed themselves in about 1 second each. In the first set of pics, the lack of grain and higher overall look of sharpness makes the digital image stand out against a film image. Overall, small-format digital has mostly surpassed the "sharpness/detail" look of most small-format B&W films that I grew up with.


----------



## limr

O|||||||O said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that no one jumped out and said that photo by HCB was great means 2 things to me.
> 
> 1 - They said it's not great, because they really think it's not and they weren't influenced by a house name
> 2- Standards change with the times. And that photo just isn't up to snuff with our current standards.
> 
> Me personally, I don't really think that it's a great photo either. Just because it's a photo by the revered HCB, doesn't mean I'm automatically going to think it's amazing.
> I also think that he was a fraud, and a lot of his decisive moment photos were staged. But hey, that's just me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which post is this in response to?
> 
> Henri Cartier-Bresson's work never really blew me away or anything, not my style I guess.
> 
> Not that it really matters, but hell - he didn't even develop his own film.  That was apparently the boring part to him and better left to people with nothing better to do.
Click to expand...


I think it was in response to my link about the way HCB's photo was criticized for being amateurish. Regardless of why they criticized the picture, my point is that even though a picture is considered great by many and fetches a high price at auction doesn't mean everyone is going to agree, and not because the photo "isn't up to snuff with current standards" but because it's not up to snuff with a person's individual standards or style. Is there even any consensus about "current standard"?


----------



## Ballistics

limr said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that no one jumped out and said that photo by HCB was great means 2 things to me.
> 
> 1 - They said it's not great, because they really think it's not and they weren't influenced by a house name
> 2- Standards change with the times. And that photo just isn't up to snuff with our current standards.
> 
> Me personally, I don't really think that it's a great photo either. Just because it's a photo by the revered HCB, doesn't mean I'm automatically going to think it's amazing.
> I also think that he was a fraud, and a lot of his decisive moment photos were staged. But hey, that's just me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which post is this in response to?
> 
> Henri Cartier-Bresson's work never really blew me away or anything, not my style I guess.
> 
> Not that it really matters, but hell - he didn't even develop his own film.  That was apparently the boring part to him and better left to people with nothing better to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it was in response to my link about the way HCB's photo was criticized for being amateurish. Regardless of why they criticized the picture, my point is that even though a picture is considered great by many and fetches a high price at auction doesn't mean everyone is going to agree, and not because the photo "isn't up to snuff with current standards" but because it's not up to snuff with a person's individual standards or style. Is there even any consensus about "current standard"?
Click to expand...


Yeah, there is, hence why no one thought it was a good photo.


----------



## timor

O|||||||O said:


> Henri Cartier-Bresson's work never really blew me away or anything, not my style I guess.
> Not that it really matters, but hell - he didn't even develop his own film.  That was apparently the boring part to him and better left to people with nothing better to do.


I share that opinion, AA said: art require from the artist utmost, skill in own processing to. Regarding AA, how many people can recognize more than 25 photographs by Adams ? Or Weston ?


----------



## Derrel

The HCB comments were in response to this PetaPixel article: Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics

And yeah, based on 21st century small-format B&W standards,in other words the standards of TODAY, that picture has a very low standard of technical fitness. As-shown in a web-sized JPEG,we see high graininess, flat tones, low acutance, and subject motion blue--which many unstudied, self-taught digital-imaging newbies cannot "grok". I'm not sure, buty something makes me thin k that shot was made in 1936, but it could be earlier or later. I saw the contact sheet for the shot...shot after shot of awful crap. It was the best shot he could make. On old, high-grain, pre-WW II 35mm film with an uncoated lens. In its DAY and era, it was a good, candid-style, small-camera image, but even when it was NEW, it was vastly inferior, in technical quality, to a shot made on say a 4x5 inch hand camera like a Speed or Crown Graphic.

On most social networking sites today, where digital newbies gather in droves, technical quality is about all they know how to recognize. Flickr is the McDonald's of the restaurant world.


----------



## timor

I just looked at Life magazine photos of JFK and family. Brr... Who processed this pictures ?


----------



## Josh66

Derrel said:


> Flickr is the McDonald's of the restaurant world.



There is good and bad on Flickr...  Really depends on which 'groups' you like.  The 'award' groups, yeah - McD's.


----------



## limr

"Yeah, there is, hence why no one thought it was a good photo."

There are many reasons that could account for why people didn't like the photo, and the fact these debates continue on this and other forums shows that there are still varying standards on what is "good" - not just what Flickr or Instagram or the 10b "Italian look" tells us is "technically good."


----------



## o hey tyler

Ballistics said:


> I like how my B+W come out. Never shot film, but I couldn't tell the difference anyway. As for gsgary's example, that's such a misrepresentation of digital vs film. You could easily match that film b+w with a digital camera.



I guess you can. 

I trolled everyone in this thread for that exact reason. I shot this digitally: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/328178-black-white-portrait.html


----------



## Ballistics

Derrel said:


> The HCB comments were in response to this PetaPixel article: Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics
> 
> And yeah, based on 21st century small-format B&W standards,in other words the standards of TODAY, that picture has a very low standard of technical fitness. As-shown in a web-sized JPEG,we see high graininess, flat tones, low acutance, and subject motion blue--which many unstudied, self-taught digital-imaging newbies cannot "grok". I'm not sure, buty something makes me thin k that shot was made in 1936, but it could be earlier or later. I saw the contact sheet for the shot...shot after shot of awful crap. It was the best shot he could make. On old, high-grain, pre-WW II 35mm film with an uncoated lens. In its DAY and era, it was a good, candid-style, small-camera image, but even when it was NEW, it was vastly inferior, in technical quality, to a shot made on say a 4x5 inch hand camera like a Speed or Crown Graphic.
> 
> On most social networking sites today, where digital newbies gather in droves, technical quality is about all they know how to recognize. Flickr is the McDonald's of the restaurant world.



That's because that is today's standard. Not to mention people mentioned that the composition was good, but the technical aspects were terrible. I wouldn't even go as far as saying the composition was all that great. And seeing it in person didn't change my mind about his work. I know people like to devalue opposing opinions with cliches like "Sure it looks bad on a screen, but you should see the 15 foot print! It's amazing!" Never the case. None of these revered photographers would survive in today's world in my opinion. I remember seeing a print by Cindy Sherman, where she was dressed like a male religious figure (pope or bishop). I looked at it, for a few minutes, as it was probably one of the largest photos in the exhibit at around 5 or 6 ft tall, and I just thought, "Why is this 'great'?" I brought it up to one of my professors at the time, and all she kept saying was how brilliant and amazing that photo was and going on and on. She asked my opinion about it, and I told her what I honestly felt. Nothing. There was nothing amazing about that photo to me. I was black listed for the rest of the semester, and wound up with my first B lol. 

All this elitist talk of being trained to know what is good and what isn't, is retarded. HCB was the back bone of a few courses I took. 2 professors I had in particular were huge HCB fans and used most of his photos in lectures. I've been told for 2 years that his work is amazing and fantastic, and I just disagree.


----------



## Josh66

o hey tyler said:


> I trolled everyone in this thread for that exact reason. I shot this digitally: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/328178-black-white-portrait.html



Not sure if it counts as 'trolling' if like literally every single person just "bought the lie" without questioning it.

Not a very good 'prank' either, since you went out of our way to make it look like film.  For all intents and purposes, you succeeded, lol.  It does have a 'film look'.  Not sure if I would have been able to tell - and you know better than most that I shoot mostly film.

So, congrats on pulling it off?  lol

But if that's the look you want, I bet it's still easier to "do it in camera" by just shooting film to start with.


----------



## Ballistics

O|||||||O said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I trolled everyone in this thread for that exact reason. I shot this digitally: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/328178-black-white-portrait.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if it counts as 'trolling' if like literally every single person just "bought the lie" without questioning it.
> 
> Not a very good 'prank' either, since you went out of our way to make it look like film.  For all intents and purposes, you succeeded, lol.  It does have a 'film look'.  Not sure if I would have been able to tell - and you know better than most that I shoot mostly film.
> 
> So, congrats on pulling it off?  lol
> 
> But if that's the look you want, I bet it's still easier to "do it in camera" by just shooting film to start with.
Click to expand...


You think it's easier to shoot with film and then develop the film vs a lightroom adjustment? 

Tyler, how long did that take you to process.


----------



## Josh66

Ballistics said:


> You think it's easier to shoot with film and then develop the film vs a lightroom adjustment?



Yes.


----------



## Ballistics

O|||||||O said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's easier to shoot with film and then develop the film vs a lightroom adjustment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Easier in what way?


----------



## Josh66

Ballistics said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's easier to shoot with film and then develop the film vs a lightroom adjustment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easier in what way?
Click to expand...


Why do you think developing film is so hard?

Usually when I'm developing film I'm somewhere between 'drunk' and 'wasted'.  Even wasted, I can do it in my sleep.  Most days, developing a roll of film is literally the easiest thing I did.

I'm pretty good at doing stuff after a few beers though, so I'm willing to count this as the exception rather than the rule.  

Editing stuff on the computer though, GOD! - so tedious.  There are literally like a hundred things that are more fun, lol.


----------



## Ballistics

O|||||||O said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easier in what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think developing film is so hard?
> 
> Usually when I'm developing film I'm somewhere between 'drunk' and 'wasted'.  Even wasted, I can do it in my sleep.  Most days, developing a roll of film is literally the easiest thing I did.
> 
> I'm pretty good at doing stuff after a few beers though, so I'm willing to count this as the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> Editing stuff on the computer though, GOD! - so tedious.  There are literally like a hundred things that are more fun, lol.
Click to expand...


 Editing on the computer very forgiving. I don't think developing is hard, but to say that it's easier than a single adjustment is confusing, which is why I asked in what way.


----------



## Derrel

Ballistics said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The HCB comments were in response to this PetaPixel article: Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics
> 
> And yeah, based on 21st century small-format B&W standards,in other words the standards of TODAY, that picture has a very low standard of technical fitness. As-shown in a web-sized JPEG,we see high graininess, flat tones, low acutance, and subject motion blue--which many unstudied, self-taught digital-imaging newbies cannot "grok". I'm not sure, buty something makes me thin k that shot was made in 1936, but it could be earlier or later. I saw the contact sheet for the shot...shot after shot of awful crap. It was the best shot he could make. On old, high-grain, pre-WW II 35mm film with an uncoated lens. In its DAY and era, it was a good, candid-style, small-camera image, but even when it was NEW, it was vastly inferior, in technical quality, to a shot made on say a 4x5 inch hand camera like a Speed or Crown Graphic.
> 
> On most social networking sites today, where digital newbies gather in droves, technical quality is about all they know how to recognize. Flickr is the McDonald's of the restaurant world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because that is today's standard. Not to mention people mentioned that the composition was good, but the technical aspects were terrible. I wouldn't even go as far as saying the composition was all that great. And seeing it in person didn't change my mind about his work. I know people like to devalue opposing opinions with cliches like "Sure it looks bad on a screen, but you should see the 15 foot print! It's amazing!" Never the case. None of these revered photographers would survive in today's world in my opinion. I remember seeing a print by Cindy Sherman, where she was dressed like a male religious figure (pope or bishop). I looked at it, for a few minutes, as it was probably one of the largest photos in the exhibit at around 5 or 6 ft tall, and I just thought, "Why is this 'great'?" I brought it up to one of my professors at the time, and all she kept saying was how brilliant and amazing that photo was and going on and on. She asked my opinion about it, and I told her what I honestly felt. Nothing. There was nothing amazing about that photo to me. I was black listed for the rest of the semester, and wound up with my first B lol.
> 
> All this elitist talk of being trained to know what is good and what isn't, is retarded. HCB was the back bone of a few courses I took. 2 professors I had in particular were huge HCB fans and used most of his photos in lectures. I've been told for 2 years that his work is amazing and fantastic, and I just disagree.
Click to expand...


Your failure to understand how Cindy Sherman fits into the photo art world speaks volumes. Your young age and lack of art training and knowledge shows quite loudly. Your idea that the masters of the past could not succeed today is hilarious. I bet $10,00 on ANY of fifty master shooters to out-shoot you, consistently. Them with three lenses and one camera and you with forty lenses and two cameras. Of course, you are in your twenties and think you know it all. Pretty amusing. Of course, many people today are poorly educated in the arts, and have never studied photographic history, so your willingness to demean master photographers is understandable. Go ahead and mock what you do not understand.

Where do you come down on the debate between Rodinal and HC-110 as a compensating developers, and VSCO's plug-in suite for digital B&W? Oh, wait?  ;-)


----------



## Josh66

Time away from a computer is time well spent, IMO.  If I can get the look I want away from a computer, and have a couple beers in the process, that's time well spent.

Once I start scanning (which is very tedious and boring), PP mostly consists of rotating and cropping.  The boring stuff all happened while I was enjoying a few drinks and watching a clock.

The scanning is the only part I would rather not have to do.  But it gives me gigantic files to work with if I ever shoot something worthy of printing large.

For the developing part, I generally avoid it if I'm out of beer, lol.  Let's face it - it's mostly clock watching, and you need something to pass the time.  Scanning and everything that goes with that, I'd rather not be drinking - because if I am I'm likely to let things go that I would otherwise fix.  Cloning out dust, for example - I lose patience for that quickly.  But it must be done...  At one time, I used Lightroom extensively, and it was at least as tedious and boring as all the 'dust cloning' I do.  I try not to let too much dust get on my negatives, but there is always a little bit no matter what I do.  (So I always have to check it, and at least clone out the most obvious offenders.)


----------



## Ballistics

Derrel said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The HCB comments were in response to this PetaPixel article: Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics
> 
> And yeah, based on 21st century small-format B&W standards,in other words the standards of TODAY, that picture has a very low standard of technical fitness. As-shown in a web-sized JPEG,we see high graininess, flat tones, low acutance, and subject motion blue--which many unstudied, self-taught digital-imaging newbies cannot "grok". I'm not sure, buty something makes me thin k that shot was made in 1936, but it could be earlier or later. I saw the contact sheet for the shot...shot after shot of awful crap. It was the best shot he could make. On old, high-grain, pre-WW II 35mm film with an uncoated lens. In its DAY and era, it was a good, candid-style, small-camera image, but even when it was NEW, it was vastly inferior, in technical quality, to a shot made on say a 4x5 inch hand camera like a Speed or Crown Graphic.
> 
> On most social networking sites today, where digital newbies gather in droves, technical quality is about all they know how to recognize. Flickr is the McDonald's of the restaurant world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because that is today's standard. Not to mention people mentioned that the composition was good, but the technical aspects were terrible. I wouldn't even go as far as saying the composition was all that great. And seeing it in person didn't change my mind about his work. I know people like to devalue opposing opinions with cliches like "Sure it looks bad on a screen, but you should see the 15 foot print! It's amazing!" Never the case. None of these revered photographers would survive in today's world in my opinion. I remember seeing a print by Cindy Sherman, where she was dressed like a male religious figure (pope or bishop). I looked at it, for a few minutes, as it was probably one of the largest photos in the exhibit at around 5 or 6 ft tall, and I just thought, "Why is this 'great'?" I brought it up to one of my professors at the time, and all she kept saying was how brilliant and amazing that photo was and going on and on. She asked my opinion about it, and I told her what I honestly felt. Nothing. There was nothing amazing about that photo to me. I was black listed for the rest of the semester, and wound up with my first B lol.
> 
> All this elitist talk of being trained to know what is good and what isn't, is retarded. HCB was the back bone of a few courses I took. 2 professors I had in particular were huge HCB fans and used most of his photos in lectures. I've been told for 2 years that his work is amazing and fantastic, and I just disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your failure to understand how Cindy Sherman fits into the photo art world speaks volumes. Your young age and lack of art training and knowledge shows quite loudly. Your idea that the masters of the past could not succeed today is hilarious. I bet $10,00 on ANY of fifty master shooters to out-shoot you, consistently. Them with three lenses and one camera and you with forty lenses and two cameras. Of course, you are in your twenties and think you know it all. Pretty amusing. Of course, many people today are poorly educated in the arts, and have never studied photographic history, so your willingness to demean master photographers is understandable. Go ahead and mock what you do not understand.
> 
> Where do you come down on the debate between Rodinal and HC-110 as a compensating developers, and VSCO's plug-in suite for digital B&W? Oh, wait?  ;-)
Click to expand...


That's what I love about you, you have no issue making things personal, and making baseless and incorrect assumptions about me. It's awesome and I get a kick out of proving you wrong time and time again.
For starters, I'm not some 20 something kid. But nice attempt.

Also, who is talking about where Cindy Sherman fits into the photo world? I've done plenty of research, wrote my paper about her, and saw her "art" in person. Does nothing for me. 
And thank you for comparing me to the fifty master shooters, even though I wasn't making it about myself but the photo world today, I'm glad you think I belong being compared to these "elite" members.

You have a bad habit of  twisting an argument brother. And I really think you need some sort of anger management therapy to help that bipolar disorder you got going on.


----------



## Ballistics

Ballistics said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because that is today's standard. Not to mention people mentioned that the composition was good, but the technical aspects were terrible. I wouldn't even go as far as saying the composition was all that great. And seeing it in person didn't change my mind about his work. I know people like to devalue opposing opinions with cliches like "Sure it looks bad on a screen, but you should see the 15 foot print! It's amazing!" Never the case. None of these revered photographers would survive in today's world in my opinion. I remember seeing a print by Cindy Sherman, where she was dressed like a male religious figure (pope or bishop). I looked at it, for a few minutes, as it was probably one of the largest photos in the exhibit at around 5 or 6 ft tall, and I just thought, "Why is this 'great'?" I brought it up to one of my professors at the time, and all she kept saying was how brilliant and amazing that photo was and going on and on. She asked my opinion about it, and I told her what I honestly felt. Nothing. There was nothing amazing about that photo to me. I was black listed for the rest of the semester, and wound up with my first B lol.
> 
> All this elitist talk of being trained to know what is good and what isn't, is retarded. HCB was the back bone of a few courses I took. 2 professors I had in particular were huge HCB fans and used most of his photos in lectures. I've been told for 2 years that his work is amazing and fantastic, and I just disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to understand how Cindy Sherman fits into the photo art world speaks volumes. Your young age and lack of art training and knowledge shows quite loudly. Your idea that the masters of the past could not succeed today is hilarious. I bet $10,00 on ANY of fifty master shooters to out-shoot you, consistently. Them with three lenses and one camera and you with forty lenses and two cameras. Of course, you are in your twenties and think you know it all. Pretty amusing. Of course, many people today are poorly educated in the arts, and have never studied photographic history, so your willingness to demean master photographers is understandable. Go ahead and mock what you do not understand.
> 
> Where do you come down on the debate between Rodinal and HC-110 as a compensating developers, and VSCO's plug-in suite for digital B&W? Oh, wait?  ;-)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I love about you, you have no issue making things personal, and making baseless and incorrect assumptions about me. It's awesome and I get a kick out of proving Mr. Hewitt wrong time and time again.
> For starters, I'm not some 20 something kid. But nice attempt.
> 
> Also, who is talking about where Cindy Sherman fits into the photo world? I've done plenty of research, wrote my paper about her, and saw her "art" in person. Does nothing for me.
> And thank you for comparing me to the fifty master shooters, even though I wasn't making it about myself but the photo world today, I'm glad you think I belong being compared to these "elite" members.
> 
> 
> You have a bad habit of  twisting an argument brother. And I really think you need some sort of anger management therapy to help that bipolar disorder you got going on.
> 
> 
> 
> _Where do you come down on the debate between Rodinal and HC-110 as a compensating developers, and VSCO's plug-in suite for digital B&W? Oh, wait? _;-)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "I've never shot film" don't you understand? Or are you looking at the only chance of one up you'll get from arguing with me?
Click to expand...


----------



## timor

Ballistics said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it's easier to shoot with film and then develop the film vs a lightroom adjustment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easier in what way?
Click to expand...

Maybe because Josh crossed already the threshold of being intimately acquainted with the process and material and what he imagine he can get from the film instinctively.


----------



## Derrel

People who have very little understanding of film, or B&W image making, in ALL its aspects, love to weigh in on how horrible master photographers like HCB and Cindy Sherman were. They took a college class and cannot see what the difference was between Cindy Sherman and the thousands of other shooters in the 1980's. I lived through the 1980's. I was exposed to Cindy Sherman in university fine arts classes before she was "a big name". At the time, I was uncertain about why everybody raved about her work. But of course, I was then just a kid, still wet behind the ears. I love how a young guy with no film experience to speak of can talk about how crappy the work of the masters of fine art photography is. Good stuff! Oughtta be on Comedy Central. Sponsored by the fine dining kingpin, McDonald's.

I get a kick out of young college students who have shot a couple of rolls of film trying to tell all of us what B&W film is "all about". It's amusing. Unable to answer even a simple, very basic question about film developing, and on this forum,proclaiming that the masters of the past could not compete with the digital newbies of this day and age....the Facebook brigade versus The Masters. Hilarious!
Again, who one listens to is based on multiple factors. THose who have never done, talking about how "bad" the masters were. Cute!

In a thread about the differences between common, widely-used film developers and one of the "self-styled new young hotshots" cannot even make a single comment about film except, "I have zero experience in film"??? Yeahhhh....this is not "personal", this is about personal experience. ANd one party has NONE, and yet, opines as if he's an expert, or even a journeyman, but is not even a beginner or novice-level practitioner in B&W photography...


----------



## o hey tyler

Ballistics said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I trolled everyone in this thread for that exact reason. I shot this digitally: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/328178-black-white-portrait.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if it counts as 'trolling' if like literally every single person just "bought the lie" without questioning it.
> 
> Not a very good 'prank' either, since you went out of our way to make it look like film.  For all intents and purposes, you succeeded, lol.  It does have a 'film look'.  Not sure if I would have been able to tell - and you know better than most that I shoot mostly film.
> 
> So, congrats on pulling it off?  lol
> 
> But if that's the look you want, I bet it's still easier to "do it in camera" by just shooting film to start with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think it's easier to shoot with film and then develop the film vs a lightroom adjustment?
> 
> Tyler, how long did that take you to process.
Click to expand...


It took about two minutes from importing it.


----------



## o hey tyler

O|||||||O said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I trolled everyone in this thread for that exact reason. I shot this digitally: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/328178-black-white-portrait.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if it counts as 'trolling' if like literally every single person just "bought the lie" without questioning it.
> 
> Not a very good 'prank' either, since you went out of our way to make it look like film.  For all intents and purposes, you succeeded, lol.  It does have a 'film look'.  Not sure if I would have been able to tell - and you know better than most that I shoot mostly film.
> 
> So, congrats on pulling it off?  lol
> 
> But if that's the look you want, I bet it's still easier to "do it in camera" by just shooting film to start with.
Click to expand...


I went out of my way by clicking a button. Never called it a prank. 

No need to get all butthurt Joshua.


----------



## limr

"None of these revered photographers would survive in today's world in my opinion."

The problem with this is that you assume the "old masters" would be shooting with the same equipment and techniques as they did in the time they became famous. If Ansel Adams were in his prime today, would he be the 'dinosaur' with the 4x5 and stores of Rodinal? Or would he be the one to take digital to its limits? Because it wasn't the technology that made him good - it was his talent, knowledge, and skill with the technology. If his technology were digital or even modern film cameras, it's very well possible that he could shoot circles around many modern photographers. I'd certainly put up Vivian Maier against any of today's street photographers. And talk about hard-core anti-establishment film photography that's getting a LOT of attention and accolades even with "today's standards" - have you heard of Miroslav Tichy? http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/...ng-tom-photographer-and-his-cardboard-camera/ Give it a look-see

Look, I get it. I don't particularly like it when I'm told by "experts" what is supposedly good and what isn't. Personal tastes vary wildly and if you dislike the styles of the photographers who are part of the standard canon, then you don't like it. Nothing wrong with that. But it's short-sighted to say that they sucked simply because you disagree with the general assessment of their work. You don't need to like the work on a personal level to be able to understand their contributions to the field in a wider, more objective context. I recognize William Faulkner's work as having advanced the form of the American novel and writing styles of later writers, but quite frankly, reading even one of his sentences is something of an annoyance to me. I don't like his writing style personally, but there is a difference (and I know that difference) between bad writing and good writing that I just don't like.


----------



## Ballistics

Derrel said:


> People who have very little understanding of film, or B&W image making, in ALL its aspects, love to weigh in on how horrible master photographers like HCB and Cindy Sherman were. They took a college class and cannot see what the difference was between Cindy Sherman and the thousands of other shooters in the 1980's. I lived through the 1980's. I was exposed to Cindy Sherman in university fine arts classes before she was "a big name". At the time, I was uncertain about why everybody raved about her work. But of course, I was then just a kid, still wet behind the ears. I love how a young guy with no film experience to speak of can talk about how crappy the work of the masters of fine art photography is. Good stuff! Oughtta be on Comedy Central. Sponsored by the fine dining kingpin, McDonald's.
> 
> I get a kick out of young college students who have shot a couple of rolls of film trying to tell all of us what B&W film is "all about". It's amusing. Unable to answer even a simple, very basic question about film developing, and on this forum,proclaiming that the masters of the past could not compete with the digital newbies of this day and age....the Facebook brigade versus The Masters. Hilarious!
> Again, who one listens to is based on multiple factors. THose who have never done, talking about how "bad" the masters were. Cute!
> 
> In a thread about the differences between common, widely-used film developers and one of the "self-styled new young hotshots" cannot even make a single comment about film except, "I have zero experience in film"??? Yeahhhh....this is not "personal", this is about personal experience. ANd one party has NONE, and yet, opines as if he's an expert, or even a journeyman, but is not even a beginner or novice-level practitioner in B&W photography...



What's cute is, you're offended that I don't like Cindy Sherman's work. So offended, that you make incorrect assumptions about my age (I'm 30, although I'm more than sure you just say it out of passive aggressive indirect insult, because you're such a b*tch),incorrect assumptions about my photography education(2 year photography degree), and assumptions about how much I give a sh*t about your block headed opinions. 

Derrel, every interaction that I have with you, always comes down to you trying to force your self appointed superiority because you think I'm a 21 year old with no life experience. The best part is, photography is *your* life, and you're not even that good at it. That's why you're so bent out of shape. Because you've been doing it for so long, and you're still a nobody in the photography world. "You need to have 20+ years experience shooting film in order to even have an opinion about it." Right. Effin moron. 

Photography is a hobby to me. I got a degree in it for fun because I could. You can try to tell me what I don't know, but the fact of the matter is, you really have no clue what I know. You want me to worship your "amazing" photographers, but I won't. It's got nothing to do with knowledge of film. The final product is all I care about. I've been that way before photography, and I'm still the same way even after almost 2 years. Stop trying to cram your opinions down my throat, and cram them up your A**. You're a middle aged dead beat nobody, and the only thing you have left is this forum.

Edit: As for me expressing my opinions, never even mentioned that I was an expert, or a journeyman Derrel. You just talk straight out of the pooper. You have your opinion and I have mine. After seeing your "work", I couldn't believe the audacity that you pretend to be an expert yourself. You're no better than these idiot hipsters I went to school with that swore by B+W film. Shooting with film does not make your photography good Derrel!


----------



## amolitor

Sherman's forte seems to be in pursuing an idea to its conclusion.

Her "Untitled Film Still" series proved to the art world that she could a) have ideas b) execute those ideas and c) produce a consistent body of work based on those ideas. She has shown over and over that she can do this. It happens that I don't much like her ideas. Still, the point is a, b, and c. This is *hard*. Not everyone has ideas, even bad ones, that naturally play into a portfolio that makes any sense. Most of us just run around shooting whatever looks cool.

Shooting an actual portfolio of related images that thoroughly explores and theme and some ideas without being incredibly dull and repetitious is actual real labor, and that is a big part of what sets Artists apart from dilettantes like me.

Nobody wants to represent some jerk who made a good picture, or who had one idea. If I am going to give you a show, you gotta be able to produce a show's worth of material (hard) AND I have to believe that you're going to be around and you're going to continue to produce significant bodies of new, fresh, work. As a gallery owner, curator, or agent, I am making a serious investment in you. I'm not going to bother unless I think I'm going to be rewarded.

I still don't much like Sherman's ideas, but I respect the work.


----------



## Josh66

o hey tyler said:


> I went out of my way by clicking a button.



By going out of your way to make people think it was film, I meant that you actually said it was film (not talking about whatever PP you did).  With no reason to assume that it was some experiment to see if people would think it was film, why would anyone have thought it wasn't when you said right in the first post that it was?

Just saying, the only thing it proved is that if you say something was shot on film, most people aren't going to automatically assume that you're lying.


----------



## amolitor

I basically don't care when people say whether they shot it on film or digitally. I award no points for shooting film. It's not even harder to shoot film now that we've moved on past glass plates, it's just a different way of working. Given that there are as many ways of working as there are people with cameras, at least, it's kind of a moot point.

It does irk me slightly when people claim that they can see the difference, and there's just no way to replicate the look of film etc etc. Whatever, they think they're seeing something and they enjoy it. Why should I pee on their party? Audiophiles think they're hearing something -- they're not, but the fact that they think they are makes them happy, and it legitimately enhances their enjoyment of whatever they like to listen to. More power to them.

Drinking beer enhances my enjoyment of listening to music, and pretty much everything else too. Nobody's going out of their way to tell me that beer drinking doesn't make pictures look better or music sound better, at least not yet. I sure wouldn't like it if they started.


----------



## o hey tyler

O|||||||O said:


> By going out of your way to make people think it was film, I meant that you actually said it was film (not talking about whatever PP you did).  With no reason to assume that it was some experiment to see if people would think it was film, why would anyone have thought it wasn't when you said right in the first post that it was?
> 
> Just saying, the only thing it proved is that if you say something was shot on film, most people aren't going to automatically assume that you're lying.



With the amount of people on this forum that "know film" and can "immediately tell the difference." I was expecting to be called out. I'm not talking about you, btw. I think we both know who I'm talking about.


----------



## timor

amolitor said:


> I basically don't care when people say whether they shot it on film or digitally. I award no points for shooting film. It's not even harder to shoot film now that we've moved on past glass plates, it's just a different way of working. Given that there are as many ways of working as there are people with cameras, at least, it's kind of a moot point.
> 
> It does irk me slightly when people claim that they can see the difference, and there's just no way to replicate the look of film etc etc. Whatever, they think they're seeing something and they enjoy it. Why should I pee on their party? Audiophiles think they're hearing something -- they're not, but the fact that they think they are makes them happy, and it legitimately enhances their enjoyment of whatever they like to listen to. More power to them.
> 
> Drinking beer enhances my enjoyment of listening to music, and pretty much everything else too. Nobody's going out of their way to tell me that beer drinking doesn't make pictures look better or music sound better, at least not yet. I sure wouldn't like it if they started.


Cool.
 But there is a snag; since I switched from national brands to micro breweries my enhancement cost me double.  No matter, it's worth it.


----------



## amolitor

The microbrews are OBVIOUSLY worth it.

I mean, there's the warm tones, for one thing. And the soundstage is rendered in true 3-D for another. And then there's the translucency of the shadow tones, there's just no way to reproduce that with Budweiser.

Audiophiles and film buffs are idiots, but microbrew drinkers just have more refined tastes.


----------



## Mike_E

amolitor said:


> The microbrews are OBVIOUSLY worth it.
> 
> I mean, there's the warm tones, for one thing. And the soundstage is rendered in true 3-D for another. And then there's the translucency of the shadow tones, there's just no way to reproduce that with Budweiser.
> 
> Audiophiles and film buffs are idiots, but microbrew drinkers just have more refined tastes.




I don't know about all of that but a good single malt..


----------



## limr

Mike_E said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The microbrews are OBVIOUSLY worth it.
> 
> I mean, there's the warm tones, for one thing. And the soundstage is rendered in true 3-D for another. And then there's the translucency of the shadow tones, there's just no way to reproduce that with Budweiser.
> 
> Audiophiles and film buffs are idiots, but microbrew drinkers just have more refined tastes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about all of that but a good single malt..
Click to expand...


Mmmm, single malt...

If I drop a single malt into a microbrew, does that mean it's a really refined boilermaker?


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I basically don't care when people say whether they shot it on film or digitally. I award no points for shooting film. It's not even harder to shoot film now that we've moved on past glass plates, it's just a different way of working. Given that there are as many ways of working as there are people with cameras, at least, it's kind of a moot point.
> 
> It does irk me slightly when people claim that they can see the difference, and there's just no way to replicate the look of film etc etc. Whatever, they think they're seeing something and they enjoy it. Why should I pee on their party? Audiophiles think they're hearing something -- they're not, but the fact that they think they are makes them happy, and it legitimately enhances their enjoyment of whatever they like to listen to. More power to them.
> 
> Drinking beer enhances my enjoyment of listening to music, and pretty much everything else too. Nobody's going out of their way to tell me that beer drinking doesn't make pictures look better or music sound better, at least not yet. I sure wouldn't like it if they started.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.
> But there is a snag; since I switched from national brands to micro breweries my enhancement cost me double.  No matter, it's worth it.
Click to expand...


Your drinking the wrong beers then, most beer i drink from micro breweries is cheaper


----------



## gsgary

amolitor said:


> The microbrews are OBVIOUSLY worth it.
> 
> I mean, there's the warm tones, for one thing. And the soundstage is rendered in true 3-D for another. And then there's the translucency of the shadow tones, there's just no way to reproduce that with Budweiser.
> 
> Audiophiles and film buffs are idiots, but microbrew drinkers just have more refined tastes.



This was on where i drink a while back


----------



## timor

gsgary said:


> Your drinking the wrong beers then, most beer i drink from micro breweries is cheaper


 That's why I like Europe, good stuff is cheaper. 
Be happy with that, don't mention this again if you don't want to make us angry, please.:lmao:


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your drinking the wrong beers then, most beer i drink from micro breweries is cheaper
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I like Europe, good stuff is cheaper.
> Be happy with that, don't mention this again if you don't want to make us angry, please.:lmao:
Click to expand...



Every Friday and Saturday i'm going to take a shot of the beer im drinking with my phone and send it to your inbox


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your drinking the wrong beers then, most beer i drink from micro breweries is cheaper
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I like Europe, good stuff is cheaper.
> Be happy with that, don't mention this again if you don't want to make us angry, please.:lmao:
Click to expand...


 By the way i don't live in Europe, i live in England


----------



## o hey tyler

gsgary said:


> By the way i don't live in Europe, i live in England



I hope that's a joke.


----------



## gsgary

o hey tyler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way i don't live in Europe, i live in England
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that's a joke.
Click to expand...


No joke


----------



## o hey tyler

gsgary said:


> No joke



Living in England I would expect that even though you are not part of the EU, you still reside in the continent known as Europe.


----------



## limr

o hey tyler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> No joke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living in England I would expect that even though you are not part of the EU, you still reside in the continent known as Europe.
Click to expand...


Not the same, though. Not to an English person. And those on the Continent too would also likely make the distinction between "English" and "European".

And the UK is part of the EU, but doesn't use the euro.


----------



## o hey tyler

limr said:


> Not the same, though. Not to an English person. And those on the Continent too would also likely make the distinction between "English" and "European".
> 
> And the UK is part of the EU, but doesn't use the euro.



I didn't realize that English people were so unnecessarily pretentious.


----------



## limr

o hey tyler said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same, though. Not to an English person. And those on the Continent too would also likely make the distinction between "English" and "European".
> 
> And the UK is part of the EU, but doesn't use the euro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that English people were so unnecessarily pretentious.
Click to expand...


The English can be pretentious about some things - every culture can - but this one is less about that and more about historical, geographical, and cultural divisions that go back much further than any of our American memories.


----------



## amolitor

Last time I checked my history England was basically a french province, or vice versa depending on when exactly you checked in, for considerably longer than it's been its own thing.


----------



## o hey tyler

http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/countries_europe_map.jpg


----------



## limr

What the map says and what the English and Europeans say are entirely different things. When the English say they don't live in "Europe", they are not referring to the literal continent.


----------



## o hey tyler

limr said:


> What the map says and what the English and Europeans say are entirely different things. When the English say they don't like in "Europe", they are not referring to the literal continent.



What the map says is that England is in Europe.


----------



## limr

*shrug* You believe what you want but you're never going to convince them with a map. Or with much else, either.


----------



## timor

gsgary said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your drinking the wrong beers then, most beer i drink from micro breweries is cheaper
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I like Europe, good stuff is cheaper.
> Be happy with that, don't mention this again if you don't want to make us angry, please.:lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way i don't live in Europe, i live in England
Click to expand...

Too bad for you, Europe is beautiful. O, BTW, This first picture of the tap, I wonder about that name: Stormin' Norman. Is that related to golf ? Or to the fact, that 1000 years ago England was stormed and taken over by Normans ? From Europe. That why we include England in Europe. 
On the sad side: beer only on Saturday ? I drink beer every day (however not in bars, have my own girl :cheer: ).


----------



## o hey tyler

limr said:


> *shrug* You believe what you want but you're never going to convince them with a map. Or with much else, either.



It's not my fault they're unfamiliar with geography.


----------

