How to spot a fake B&W?

[EhJsNe]

I personaly loved that B+W flea claimed was fake.

And how can A B&W be fake in any way shape or form?

It just doesnt make sense. There isnt a way to make a fake black and white image.

It is in fact, only consisting of shades of black, and white, isnt it?

 

[flea77]

Well since you want to talk about me, might as well put in my two cents.

My definition of a fake B&W is when you take a image that is captured in color and convert it to B&W. If you had all read what I wrote instead of just jumping in referring to me as a snob, you would have seen that I clearly stated there was noting wrong with doing that, I am just not a fan of them, and to each their own. But then if you had read that you might not have had the fun of joining this thread to call me a snob, now would you?

Next, no, we do not see the world in color as such, we see the colors reflected by objects, or the color transmitted through objects, not the actual color of objects, so there! :mrgreen:

Next, yes, there are differences between images shot on film, and those done by digital. If you think there is not then you inhaled too much in the sixties, heh. Sometimes those differences do not matter, sometimes they do. Sometimes digital does a better job, sometimes film. Some people prefer the look of film for some things, some don't.

I never claimed the picture in the other post was a fake, I flatly stated it was, by my definition. I never said it was bad, as a matter of fact I said I would love to see the color version of it as I thought it was a nice shot which, in my opinion, was ruined by trying to make it look like a real B&W.

And Marc, if you would bother looking in the other thread, you might understand that IT DOES MATTER when the OP specifically asked for C&C, so he wanted my opinion, which I gave. Insinuating that I do not know how to make a good image because you do not respect my opinion is just childish and I would expect more from someone your age.

I also find it interesting that no one in this thread has yet to actually answer the OP's questions, so I will:

rfosness88, you can tell several ways. First, instead of grain you have compression which causes blur in the details instead of sharpness. If you have shot a lot of film you can see it instantly. If not, zoom in a look at the details, you can see the artifacting at minimal zoom.

Second, good film and good lenses as a general rule have sharper details all around. This gets a little harder to tell once you start getting into 20+MP. Here I am talking about really nice film and cameras, nothing you get from walmart.

Thirdly, in general film has a nicer tonality and latitude than digital, as a general rule. Once again cheap film and really nice digitals get tougher to distinguish.

I think that also answers your pros and cons questions, if not, PM me and I will be glad to explain more.

Lastly I have to express my despair. I would have thought that people would at least take a minute to read the referenced thread before calling me names, then they would have seen I have far more digital equipment than film, so it would be hard to classify me as a film snob. So much for my faith in human nature.

Allan

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Am I right in thinking that this is a film vs digital discussion? Some might wish to check to FAQs on that.

 

[Dcrymes84]

This post made no sense....

 

[abraxas]

...

So much for my faith in human nature...

Actually, I think it's your indiscretionary use of the word 'fake' that negates anything of value you may say later in your posts. You probably make some valid points, but the personality- whew! Maybe put as much thought into your tone as you do your arguments and you may find yourself more convincing.

 

[flea77]

Actually, I think it's your indiscretionary use of the word 'fake' that negates anything of value you may say later in your posts. You probably make some valid points, but the personality- whew! Maybe put as much thought into your tone as you do your arguments and you may find yourself more convincing.

Well then, like a good C&C, tell me how to fix it. Since I sincerely consider converted color images as fakes, what word should I use? Counterfeit? Forged? Fudged? BS? Phony? I do not see problems when someone C&Cs some way over processed HDR and uses the term "fake looking" to describe it. Why not?

When you say tone and personality, did you read the referenced post? What exactly did I say wrong other than use the word "fake"?

Honestly curious,

Allan

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Unnatural?

 

[NateWagner]

It seems that they are not saying that your word is wrong, they are saying that your idea is wrong.

You are free to consider digital B&W photos as fakes if you want, but that does not make what you think correct.

Beyond that, as the world is in color, anything is going to be a conversion. You are merely calling a films conversion to black and white to be real, versus a computer/digital conversion of color to black and white to be fake.

In addition, my understanding is that different black and white films will produce different black and white images. With that in mind, it seems to me that the film is then doing the conversion, in which case it would still be a fake as it is inherently doing a conversion.

But, hey, whatever.

 

[bchalifour]

What's the point anyway?
Isn't it a waste of time? Shouldn't the matter be whether you enjoy the photograph or not?
Isn't a BW photograph a color photograph when one only uses black and white? ;o)

 

[flea77]

It seems that they are not saying that your word is wrong, they are saying that your idea is wrong.

You are free to consider digital B&W photos as fakes if you want, but that does not make what you think correct.

Nor does it make it incorrect. As I stated, it was my opinion, and my opinion is correct to me and that is all that matters.

Beyond that, as the world is in color, anything is going to be a conversion. You are merely calling a films conversion to black and white to be real, versus a computer/digital conversion of color to black and white to be fake.

You misunderstand. A B&W image from B&W film is not a conversion. The film only responds to the values of light intensity. If you were to take that original exposure and colorize it, that would be the same as taking a color image and converting to B&W. The original design of the capturing medium is what matters, not whether it is film or digital.

In addition, my understanding is that different black and white films will produce different black and white images. With that in mind, it seems to me that the film is then doing the conversion, in which case it would still be a fake as it is inherently doing a conversion.

Yes, different B&W films respond to light values differently, as do color films, digital sensors, and for that matter, people's eyes. It is all about how the original medium captured it.

But, hey, whatever.

I agree! As I have stated repeated this is just my opinion, I never said it was the correct answer to anything. I, personally, do not like the looks of most images captured on digital sensors that have been processed to B&W, regardless of what you want to call it. No amount of discussion will make me like them. I have however stated that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, and to each their own. But if you do that and then ask for my opinion of the image, you should not get upset when I give you my honest opinion.

Allan

 

[Marc Kurth]

Allan,

First, I publicly apologize if I hurt your feelings, that was not my intent at all. Yes, I did read both threads and yes I read your multiple attempts to convert people to your way of thinking. We all understood your opinion the first time.

I find it interesting that you call me out for childish behavior. I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath, step back and take an objective look at the wording you have used in the posts we are talking about.

Did it ever occur to you that there might be a reason that so many people reacted so strongly to what you said? I would suggest that you are well aware of the negative connotation of what you are saying, yet you continue to play the victim. Sorry, but it's transparent to most of us.

With all due respect, I am finished with this conversation and for the record: I will always defend a persons right to believe whatever they want - seriously.

Marc

 

[tsaraleksi]

Every time there has been a seismic shift in photographic capture technology, "purists" clung to the old media and accused those who had moved on to be inferior and not as 'true.' Good to see that people haven't changed.

An image that is captured on anything other than a tin plate is a phony not a true representation of the scene!

Flea, if you must know, digital images are originally captured by the sensor in black and white and then colorized by the image processor. So by converting a digital image to black and white, you are actually placing it back in its correct space, according to your asinine categorization scheme.

Digital reacts differently to light than film, but different films react differently to light than each other as well. To fuss and moan about the medium to me reveals a real bankruptcy of actual artistic output or thought. Crowing about "true" or "fake" black and white is a fairly transparent effort to define yourself as the superior photographer.

Finally, if we are comparing images in a digital context (as in, on the internet) ALL images are digital, regardless of the capture method. Perhaps your camera's files reveal artifacts but a scan of similar quality is going to reveal the same problems.

 

[flea77]

Every time there has been a seismic shift in photographic capture technology, "purists" clung to the old media and accused those who had moved on to be inferior and not as 'true.' Good to see that people haven't changed.

Once again, I refer you to my sig, which shows I have far more digital equipment than film. I shoot approximately 90% digital, so I am far from a purist, sorry. Especially since I am in the IT industry, I have been using digital cameras since 320x200 $500 cameras were here, of course I was using film as well.

Flea, if you must know, digital images are originally captured by the sensor in black and white and then colorized by the image processor. So by converting a digital image to black and white, you are actually placing it back in its correct space, according to your asinine categorization scheme.

Actually I believe that is incorrect. Each photosite is colorblind, however cameras have a stationary permanent filter over the sensor so that each photosite reads information from one color, that is then processed to give "true color" to the final image from the sensors, which is color. There are many places online that describes this in great detail. I am of course referring here to digital cameras with single sensors, not something like a three CCD video camera (which also captures in color).

Digital reacts differently to light than film, but different films react differently to light than each other as well. To fuss and moan about the medium to me reveals a real bankruptcy of actual artistic output or thought.

I completely agree, as I have stated before, the end result is all that matters. My preference is for B&W that was shot in B&W, film, and I do not like images shot on digital and converted to B&W as a general rule. I have never fussed or moaned about it, in fact, I have repeatedly stated there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, I just do not like the looks of it. I would have the same objection if you took a really nice film B&W, scanned it in at extreme resolution, then compressed the heck out of it. I am assuming you are not telling me what I should and should not find aesthetically pleasing?

Crowing about "true" or "fake" black and white is a fairly transparent effort to define yourself as the superior photographer.

Once again, I have not crowed about anything, just stated that I find converted B&W displeasing to my personal taste. I have never suggested or hinted that I am superior to anyone. I think I have a small amount of talent at a very specific tenet in photography (which by the way is digital, NOT film). Other than that I find far more flaws in my work than other people seem to.

Finally, if we are comparing images in a digital context (as in, on the internet) ALL images are digital, regardless of the capture method. Perhaps your camera's files reveal artifacts but a scan of similar quality is going to reveal the same problems.

I am not sure I follow you here. Yes, all images on the internet are digital. If you are saying that one can not tell the difference between pictures taken by a film camera and one taken by a digital camera once they are posted on the internet, I strongly disagree in most cases. If that were the case, then how in the referenced post did I know the image was from a digital camera and not film in the first place?

Let me once again try to explain this: I personally do not like the look of most images captured by a digital camera and then converted to B&W. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone doing this, I just do not find the image appealing to my personal taste. I do not think an image shot on one media is any better/worse than one shot on any other media unless the actual final image is actually superior to my taste. I think that digital has some advantages over film, and I think film has some advantages over digital. I think that the photographer is far more important than any media. I think Ansel Adams could kick all of our collective rear ends if we had 8x10s and he had a $5 walmart special no-name camera.

Allan

 

[flea77]

Allan,

First, I publicly apologize if I hurt your feelings, that was not my intent at all. Yes, I did read both threads and yes I read your multiple attempts to convert people to your way of thinking. We all understood your opinion the first time.

Apology accepted. I would however point out that at no time have I knowingly attempted to convert anyone to anything. I am just attempting to explain my personal taste and opinions, preferably without being called a snob or having people allude to me not being able to create a descent photograph which is what I felt you were doing. I firmly believe that we all see things differently, and we all have different views on what is appealing in a photograph. None of which is "right" to anyone other than ourselves.

I find it interesting that you call me out for childish behavior. I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath, step back and take an objective look at the wording you have used in the posts we are talking about.

I will do that. I will point out again that I have seen the word "fake" used many many times to describe a heavily processed HDR with no one taking offense.

Did it ever occur to you that there might be a reason that so many people reacted so strongly to what you said? I would suggest that you are well aware of the negative connotation of what you are saying, yet you continue to play the victim. Sorry, but it's transparent to most of us.

I am sure there is a reason, but why someone would throw personal attacks at another person for what they find appealing in a photograph is beyond my comprehension.

With all due respect, I am finished with this conversation and for the record: I will always defend a persons right to believe whatever they want - seriously.

Marc

I fully support your right to disagree with my opinions as well. I can only hope that in the future neither of us takes our disagreement personally.

Allan

 

[William Petruzzo]

First, instead of grain you have compression which causes blur in the details instead of sharpness. If you have shot a lot of film you can see it instantly. If not, zoom in a look at the details, you can see the artifacting at minimal zoom.

Second, good film and good lenses as a general rule have sharper details all around. This gets a little harder to tell once you start getting into 20+MP. Here I am talking about really nice film and cameras, nothing you get from walmart.

Thirdly, in general film has a nicer tonality and latitude than digital, as a general rule. Once again cheap film and really nice digitals get tougher to distinguish.

?

Seems like saying a digital black and white image is a fake is the same as saying any digital image is a fake, especially since almost no one using a digital camera uses the B&W settings (or at least no one I've ever known). But also, these methods for picking out a fake black and white image didn't really have anything to do with the color, or lack there of. They had more to do with picking out a digital image. But, even then, it would seem like those methods would never work on the original image in question. It's just too small.

I dunno. I've worked with both formats for a long time and as of late, distinguishing the two just isn't that easy, or at least not where it counts.