Film Vs PS B&W??

[domromer]

I haven't shot any b&w film in maybe 5 years. I often hear that is has more "range?" What does this mean to an actual image. The pic below was converted in PS with the channel mixer. How would the pic look different if it was shot with 100iso film then scanned?

 

[bhop]

Honestly, as a b/w film shooter, it probably wouldn't be too much different. Your sky might be lighter, you might have a little more contrast, but these days, digital can be made to look like film b/w easily.

One thing you do have with b/w film is more control as the image is shot, using colored filters and such. Personally, I just enjoy shooting and developing b/w film and using older manual cameras.

Nice shot btw.

 

[MichaelT]

If you've done b&w film work, you realize that a negative can be printed dozens of different ways on dozens of different papers.

Digital b&w can be converted dozens of different ways too, and printed several different ways also.

Because of these variables, your question of how it would it look different is way too vague. It can look as different as you would like it to look!

 

[domromer]

Ok, More to the point. What is better about making a print from a b&w neg vs converting a color pic in ps?

 

[Ihaveaquestion]

I still shoot 3200 flim for that super grainy look digital cant match.

 

[terri]

How would the pic look different if it was shot with 100iso film then scanned?

Who knows? You were there, and you could have used that TLR in your avatar to find out.

What is better about making a print from a b&w neg vs converting a color pic in ps?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were fishing for a film vs digital debate. But since we don't allow these debates on TPF, I know that can't be your angle. :sun:

If you are pleased with your final output, then your process works for you as a photographer. This is all any of us work towards. "What is better..." type questions can only be answered subjectively on an internet forum.

 

[domromer]

Who knows? You were there, and you could have used that TLR in your avatar to find out.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were fishing for a film vs digital debate. But since we don't allow these debates on TPF, I know that can't be your angle. :sun:

If you are pleased with your final output, then your process works for you as a photographer. This is all any of us work towards. "What is better..." type questions can only be answered subjectively on an internet forum.

I guess you don't know better since I'm not fishing for a debate. SInce I shoot both slides and a d80, I guess I'm just not wording the question right. I've read that digital has 5 stops of exposure while b&w film has 12. How does that translate to what the actual image will look like. Will there be a lot more shades of grey?

More to the point, I'm I'd like to to shoot more B&W and was thinking about doing it with film but was wondering if there is any point, or can I do the same thing with PS.

Yeah I guess the only debates allowed are Nikon vs Cannon or Mac vs PC.

 

[domromer]

Never mind, just delete the entire thread. The answers are all subjective anyway. I'll go buy some b&W scan it and see what happens.

 

[bhop]

I've read that digital has 5 stops of exposure while b&w film has 12. How does that translate to what the actual image will look like. Will there be a lot more shades of grey?

Since you put it that way, I do notice a difference when I scan a b/w negative and when convert, which is one reason I like b/w film over b/w digital conversions. I don't have darkroom access, so I use photoshop for adjustments and such. To me, it's easier to get more shadow and highlight out of a properly exposed b/w negative than a digital file.

 

[domromer]

Since you put it that way, I do notice a difference when I scan a b/w negative and when convert, which is one reason I like b/w film over b/w digital conversions. I don't have darkroom access, so I use photoshop for adjustments and such. To me, it's easier to get more shadow and highlight out of a properly exposed b/w negative than a digital file.

Thats exactly want I want to do.

 

[Alpha]

Sensors have increased sensitivity at some light wavelengths, which is what often makes skies so dark in digital b&w.

 

[Battou]

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were fishing for a film vs digital debate. But since we don't allow these debates on TPF, I know that can't be your angle. :sun:

This debate you speak of. It will never end, It is entirely preferential, both have advantages and disadvantages. To be honest, I don't understand why yall don't just hang the dead horse in the town square and let the every one beat on it untill they realize it is in fact dead.


Bact to the topic now.....

AS far as the BW shooting goes, I prefer to shoot straight to BW as opposed to converting later. This can be done with both formats so it's not film vs digital. As far as the range goes, yes BW film generally has better range (even in comparison to color film), how ever a properly exicuted HDR converted should cover that fall back.

My issue with that though is HDR's are litterally three times the work, seldom are properly exicuted and over done (numarically). So in my honest oppinion you would be better off shooting it onto film.

To find out for your self truthfully the only thing you can do is take two cameras and a tripod out and shoot the exact same shot with both and compare.

 

[terri]

Never mind, just delete the entire thread. The answers are all subjective anyway. I'll go buy some b&W scan it and see what happens.

That was my only point, and that's why we guard against fruitless debates. Since you found a way to rephrase your question and were able to get a constructive answer, there's no reason to delete the thread.

Thanks for understanding from a 'moderator' side. Good luck with your shooting!