Film black and white vs digital black and white

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

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?