B&W: digital vs. film

[Alex Wilson]

This topic came up in this thread but I thought It might be worth its own discussion.

Normally I am loathe to get into any type of film vs. digital debate: I'm much more concerned with whether the final image is good, and exactly how you got there is only a matter of process, not merit.

I don't do the convert the colour photo to B&W route because it is not I how I believe you shoot B&W.

I'm not sure I buy that. There has always been an element of translation between what you see and what the camera captures. The closest you can get to "seeing" in B&W with the camera would be to compose with a colour filter over the lens, but even then, what is captured would be changed by the response curve of the film to different wavelengths.

If you shoot digital as colour and convert to B&W, all you are doing is gaining the flexibility of essentially picking your colour filter after taking the shot. It's much like being able to take multiple film captures of the same shot, each with a different colour filter, and then picking the best negative to use for printing.

Since you don't see in B&W, and even if you did, film would not capture it exactly as you see it, I don't think there's any real distinction between a film or digital camera. Digital gives you more flexibility, if you want it. But no-one is making you use it.

That said if you put the effort in you can do very good B&W with a DSLR, just takes time to learn, but that goes with any aspect of photography. And you need to look through the view finder with a different out look.

I agree with that, but I don't think there is really a distinction between film and digital. You look through the camera the same way. With either, what you see isn't going to be exactly what is captured -- but it's the experience that adds up so a good photographers knows what they are going to get even though it is different than what they see.

Serious black and white is also dead. I have seen very little black and white of any quality anywhere on the net in any photographic forum. Beginners do not seem to realize that black and white requires considerably more work behind the camera and in postprocessing than colour and produce really poor quality work. Bottom line is if you do not do the detailed work necessary for a quality black and white shot, then you are just producing garbage.

I think it's more a signal-to-noise ration problem than anything else. With so many people shooting digital, and shooting so much, there is just a huge volume of colour images out there. A lot of amateurs will play around with B&W with mixed (but often poor) results, so there's a lot of chaff to sift through. I don't think serious B&W is dead, it's just harder to see the tree for the forest.

But when you consider the added flexibility of digital:
-colour capture, being able to weigh the colour channels when post-processing
-more advanced B&W conversion techniques, including masking and selective mixing of channels
-much more sophisticated abilities to re-contrast an image (more precise dodge/burning, shadow/highlights, HDR, etc.)
then I think that the future of B&W art photography gives its photographers a lot more to work with.

Does digital mean there's going to be more crap B&W? Sure. But I think it also means the good stuff is better (and is going to get even more) than it ever could with film.

[cdanddvdpublisher]

I think it's more a signal-to-noise ration problem than anything else. With so many people shooting digital, and shooting so much, there is just a huge volume of colour images out there. A lot of amateurs will play around with B&W with mixed (but often poor) results, so there's a lot of chaff to sift through. I don't think serious B&W is dead, it's just harder to see the tree for the forest.

But when you consider the added flexibility of digital:
-colour capture, being able to weigh the colour channels when post-processing
-more advanced B&W conversion techniques, including masking and selective mixing of channels
-much more sophisticated abilities to re-contrast an image (more precise dodge/burning, shadow/highlights, HDR, etc.)
then I think that the future of B&W art photography gives its photographers a lot more to work with.

Does digital mean there's going to be more crap B&W? Sure. But I think it also means the good stuff is better (and is going to get even more) than it ever could with film.

The bright side of this of course is that there are fewer people who aren't serious about photography to any extent that would think to try black and white shooting...

[Travis]

As a noob shooting digital. Is their any advice that could be offered as to how to prepare in camera settings and/or pp to optimize B&W?

I see a lot of talk about how hard it is to get quality b&w digital verses film. I have done both shooting b&w in camera, and converting a colour shot.

What should I be paying extra attention to?


tks

[Alex Wilson]

As a noob shooting digital. Is their any advice that could be offered as to how to prepare in camera settings and/or pp to optimize B&W?

I see a lot of talk about how hard it is to get quality b&w digital verses film. I have done both shooting b&w in camera, and converting a colour shot.

What should I be paying extra attention to?


tks

For taking the picture, just shoot colour. Depending on your subject, a polarizer may be a good option.

The fun (and the flexibility) is in the post-processing. There are a lot of different ways to handle the conversion, and which is best depends on taste, the subject, the look you want, and the individual image.

In general, the easiest ways (converting the colour mode to grayscale, or desaturing the image) are going to give you the most bland results.

Some starters:
http://digital-photography-school.co...ack-and-white/
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...lack-white.htm

[Travis]

Thanks for the links and advice Alex....

[slapshot™]

Interesting topic.

For years I flipped back and forth with Kodak T-Max and Ilford film and chemistry. Now, I'm currently at a loss (having just bought my first DSLR) and not sure how to approach B&W photography.

With film I shot mostly with a red 25 filter (given the lighting conditions) metering off a grey card. Now, with digital, what do I do? Do I still employ a red filter and assume white balance is going to take care of my metering?

Additionally, when out in the field I thought in B&W. There were instances where some shots just didn't work and you needed colour to capture the image. Resigned if I didn't have colour film to switch over...or, my extra body loaded (just in case!). There was a definate thought-process when composing the shot as I visualized in tonal greys and atmospheres, so to speak. Never, when viewing my colour slides, did I think, "that woulda made a good B&W". My thought process either shooting colour or B&W, is vastly different.

Is this making sense?

[tirediron]

Interesting topic.

For years I flipped back and forth with Kodak T-Max and Ilford film and chemistry. Now, I'm currently at a loss (having just bought my first DSLR) and not sure how to approach B&W photography...

<snipped>

I can identify - very much the same for me (Although I have to say, "T-Max? - Pan-F and Perceptol all the way baby!). Better part of five years with DSLRs and I've still yet to be able to routinely produce B&W images that I'm happy with.

[Marko]

With film I shot mostly with a red 25 filter (given the lighting conditions) metering off a grey card. Now, with digital, what do I do? Do I still employ a red filter and assume white balance is going to take care of my metering?

I don't think this will work. The picture is likely to turn out red.
I know that I have both a black and white option and red filter option in Camera. You may want to see if you have the same. If not you can achieve similar result in P.shop

Marko