Film black and white vs digital black and white

[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.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

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]

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.

 

[Ysarex83 77]

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

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]

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).

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.

 

[MartinCrabtree106]

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]

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).

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.

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]

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.