Film black and white vs digital black and white

[ann]

... 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]

... 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

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]

... 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

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!"

ah no wonder,

 

[unpopular]

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

 

[Derrel]

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.

 

[dxqcanada1]

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.

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.

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.

 

[dxqcanada1]

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]

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]

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).

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

 

[Arpeggio9]

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.