Film black and white vs digital black and white

[Josh66]

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

Yes.

Easier in what way?

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]

Yes.

Easier in what way?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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? ;-)

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]

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? ;-)

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? ;-)

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?

 

[timor]

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

Yes.

Easier in what way?

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]

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.

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.

It took about two minutes from importing it.

 

[o hey tyler]

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.

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

No need to get all butthurt Joshua.

 

[limr28 1]

"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]

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]

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.