Monochrome but not just film...

[john_g]

A quick question...

Why is this forum almost exclusively given over to film photography? Monochrome isn't limited to film, so why aren't there more posts from digital photographers here?

[beejaybee]

so why aren't there more posts from digital photographers here?

Two possible reasons:

1. Digital photographers may not think of monochrome when shooting - just convert to monochrome in post processing, if they can't get the colour balance right

2. The relative difficulty of getting acceptable monochrome prints from digital formats, compared with wet processing.

[John_K]

Isn't there enough on the forum about the dreaded 'D' word without it infiltrating here? No, I have yet to see a digital B&W the equal of a traditional wet process print.

[john_g]

The relative difficulty of getting acceptable monochrome prints from digital formats, compared with wet processing.

When I used film I worked almost exclusively in mono. Since switching to digital (after a long break) I've found myself doing more colour, simply because that's how the camera shoots. But I think my mono digital shots exceed the older film pictures in terms of tonal smoothness, sharpness and lack of grain/noise. Not to blow my own trumpet, but to make clear that I wasn't completely useless handling film and working in the darkroom, I used to use a T90 with a range of prime Canon lenses and won awards at county level.

Here's a photograph I took recently using my Samsung GX-10 which is, I think, every bit as good as could be achieved using film. And, although the only significant processing that's been done is to darken my wrist so as to make it 'invisible', even this would be difficult to do as effectively in a darkroom.

[John_K]

Here's a photograph I took recently using my Samsung GX-10 which is, I think, every bit as good as could be achieved using film. And, although the only significant processing that's been done is to darken my wrist so as to make it 'invisible', even this would be difficult to do as effectively in a darkroom.

.




Yes it isn't bad, actually quite good - but will not have the extended range of tones of grey that a good film based image can bring. I have seen some excellent B&W digital prints but they left me feeling a 'cold'. As if something was missing - no real soul! If I can use that term.

I would have no problem darkening the wrist down in the darkroom, it was a skill I learned very early on. Yes there is guess work involved and I can't just go back and redo the original if I balls it up, but that is where skill comes into it knowing what to do to get the thing right the 1st time or......perhaps the 2nd.

Also will the digital image you have last any length of time? Some people may not want this but I have negatives almost 50 years old which will print as well now as the day I took them on my Halina 35X!

I also have 2 'Cartes D'visit' which have protraits of my maternal great grandparents and without them I would have lost a link to my past. I doubt if a digital print or digital information on a Hard Drive or CD will last that long but we will just have to wait and see.


Do you think Ansel Adams prints would look so good if they had been taken digitally? - I have my doubts; he was a true master of the silver image. Sorry butI am not convinced.

[Woolliscroft]

When I used film I worked almost exclusively in mono. Since switching to digital (after a long break) I've found myself doing more colour, simply because that's how the camera shoots. But I think my mono digital shots exceed the older film pictures in terms of tonal smoothness, sharpness and lack of grain/noise. Not to blow my own trumpet, but to make clear that I wasn't completely useless handling film and working in the darkroom, I used to use a T90 with a range of prime Canon lenses and won awards at county level.

Nice picture. I think, though, that if you wanted the look of creamy tonality from your film B&W and want to make prints of any size, your mistake was to use 35mm. The format has many strengths, but this is not one of them. The difference you get with medium (let along large) format is staggering. I find that my own digital efforts don't yet match my 6 x 7 negs, but if you're happy with the digital versions, that's all that matters.

[Zou]

why aren't there more posts from digital photographers here?

Because they tend to post in the Digital Darkroom forum.

[Neal]

Nice image.......but looks digital......I love mono digitals....but when you compare it to the "feel" of a B&W film image there's no contest......better toning and the grain just works.......photoshopped grain looks just that.....photoshopped, no matter how good it is.

[Lounge Lizard]

Nice image.......but looks digital......I love mono digitals....but when you compare it to the "feel" of a B&W film image there's no contest......better toning and the grain just works.......photoshopped grain looks just that.....photoshopped, no matter how good it is.

Huh? Wouldn't a scanned film image look just the same on-screen? Have you seen a BW print produced from a modern pigment printer on fibre-based paper - you'd be be hard-pressed to tell it was digital assuming that the author processed the image sympathetically.

[Lounge Lizard]

I like that John and I reckon it looks even better as a print on the right paper.

[Lounge Lizard]

I think Zou summed it up. There are probably lots of digital monochrome workers but we don't post here.

[silverback]

also, until recently, print paper quality was not good for hard copy output from digital, but there are now specialist papers appearing that can do the tonal range. I get the 'grain' point, if you want grain, but for me it was just the tonal range that was lacking. Having now seen some results from a canon D1 Mk111 on to top quality paper tho, I have to say it is getting very very very (etc) close.

[Lounge Lizard]

Definitely. A lot of people have been producing poor prints with poor technique and blaming digital. They may have been competent in the darkroom but because they weren't skilled with the new media they were only too willing to write it off and claim that film is better. I'd say that digital is better except if you want a transparency where you can't beat shooting on film stock.

[Benchista]

Of course it depends how you define better...

[Lounge Lizard]

Of course it depends how you define better...

I thought we had well-defined this in the past so it doesn't need a further airing here.