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
