Some of my first b&w images - critique needed :)

[gordon77]

Hey ppl of TPF - these are my first images on here and only the second post so here goes. these are some images ive taken on my 400D with a 17-85mm IS USM. these origionally were in colour but shot in raw and converted to monochrome. i have seen some of the awesome b&w's ppl post on here and am after the same affect however im not to sure how to get 'film' restults out of my dslr. please suggest anything i can do better

1.

2.

3.

 

[ANDS!]

What do you mean by film? High noise?

 

[nomade]

There is no way for digital to reach a film result(not for now at least), we need to accept that as a fact.

If you want film result, go buy a film camera and B&W film and have fun...

 

[Goldeeno]

I find shooting RAW alot better, if thats any help..

 

[gordon77]

nomade - thats what i was thinking and the reason i kept my slr when i got the dslr those were shot in raw and converted over to monochrome in the camera software

 

[Jeff Canes]

Not ture, it maybe easier with film, but it can be done digitally, first it is best to shot in RAW (color), convert is PS by using Channel Mixer it works better that De-saturate most of the time, or use an add on B&W Action or Filter, google “PS Action” you will find several for cheap or free, add grain, play with the contrast, all to your liking

 

[gordon77]

thanks Jeff i just have the normal photoshop cs with no plugins - ill check it out

 

[dmccarty10]

There is no way for digital to reach a film result(not for now at least), we need to accept that as a fact.

If you want film result, go buy a film camera and B&W film and have fun...

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree. Digital is not film. This much is true. But you can do many things to make digital look like many different types of film. Possibly more than you ever could do with film. One such option is a plugin called Exposure® by Alien Skin.

Today's darkroom is a computer. It's not what you do with the camera, as much as what you do after the shot is taken. Great photographers were always great printmakers. Learn the digital craft.

 

[mwct]

I like #1 and #3. #2 not so much the sky is flat... I think I remember someone say you have to use some kind of filter when taking b&w pics and a sky is in it. But if forget which filter that is.

 

[hudsonp]

1.

i love this photo

 

[snownow]

thanks Jeff i just have the normal photoshop cs with no plugins - ill check it out

check out
http://optikvervelabs.com/

The plug in they have does mimik some film look. Nice shots.

 

[PerfectOptics]

The principle differences between film and digital are

dynamic range
non-linear response curve
color fidelity

With black and white, you can relax about color. The best way to get a film image in my opinion is to do a 'mild' HDR stitch. Film has 'bout 13 stops DR, digital typically has between 9 and 11. Take 3 pics bracketed by 1 stop and you'll get an extra 2 stops which will help you put more detail in your shadows and highlights. Just enough to give you a bit more 'film' quality.

Second, once you stitched your image, give your print a bit of a curve to make sure your highlights aren't 'clipped' and your shadows arent 'crushed', both are hallmarks of digital formats.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1050/687351290_b8b6934692_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1339/655275729_ae873d459c_o.jpg

these are some of my attempts to shoot digital to look like color reversal film.

Those PS plugins typically mimic film 'errors', as in the visibility of the medium in the image. Its a little like making film prints look like digital by pixelating them. They teld to have filters like "grain", "sepia", "defuse glow", etc. If you want the quality of film (as in 'film makes good quality pictures'), you have to feed your computer MORE information, not less.

 

[nomade]

If you want the quality of film (as in 'film makes good quality pictures'), you have to feed your computer MORE information, not less.

Define quality.

Today's darkroom is a computer. It's not what you do with the camera, as much as what you do after the shot is taken. Great photographers were always great printmakers. Learn the digital craft.

I know what it is today, but film remains unmatched, they are just not the same material. You keep working to simulate something, why do that?? Just get something you like out of it. If you want it to look like film, shoot film. And you are still gonna spend sometimes on your computer with it.

Explain to me how do you get a tremendous and totally uncalculated random grain?? How do you get that?? Yes you can add grain on your computer but it's only a simulation to normal grain a film can have, but sometimes film break the limits. Specially when it's expired.

Explain to me how do you get scratches you never wanted from the presence of dust in your camera, or some problem with the processing chemicals, or mishandling of your film that would sometimes add up to your work and not distort it. You cannot simulate that in a natural way...

Explain to me 1000 more things, how do you do that and make them look natural...Actually you don't.

We can talk about this all day and night, but digital fans always react defensively, it's not like that, you can make good photos with digital cameras, but they are digital quality, and you can make others with film and they will be film quality.

What has more quality I donno, it depends on what you like.

Computer simulation is only a mathematical process, film is a chemical process that is calculated. You can simulate but how far ??

 

[PerfectOptics]

Define quality.

Explain to me how do you get scratches you never wanted from the presence of dust in your camera, or some problem with the processing chemicals, or mishandling of your film that would sometimes add up to your work and not distort it. You cannot simulate that in a natural way...

You aren't wrong, organic artifacts from film and film processing are beautiful if thats what you want. However, this argument reminds me of when photography hit the field and had to compete with painting as a 'fine art'. People would print images via liquid emulsion on canvas, they'd colorize parts of an image with paint, they'd do everything they could to imitate the old medium.

The 'plastic' quality of digital is pretty, and i dont remember people saying 'every image should have grain, because its beautiful' before grainless images were available.

When I want to 'imitate' film, i dont want to add grain or lightleaks or scratches, I want 13 stops dynamic range, 15 megapixels, lightning sharp, and perfect color fidelity with natural looking highlights.

but everyone is different