Digital Mono

[jtk]

Graininess is not a bad thing, necessarily. Many of my favorite photos (mine and by others) are tremendously grainy--that is part of their appeal and character. I find digital noise, on the other hand, to be rather nasty.

"rawther". Said with a fake upper class accent ....

 

[jtk]

A plug-in like Silver Efex Pro will give control over the grain effect it applies to the file, from size to hardness, etc. While it is not the same as film and a wet print, it does take some of the digital "curse" off the image.

SFEX doesn't "apply" grain unless ordered.... if instructed it can modify grain in a scan. As a mostly 35mm shooter I've always chuckled at fear of grain (never used developers with grain solvents) .

 

[reddesert]

The sealion photo that rknewcomb posted looks irritatingly unnatural, but it doesn't have anything to do with the grain or lack of grain. There, it's unnatural light values and contrast enhancement, as several people noted. It looks as if the maker was going for a sort of glistening Sebastiao-Salgado-like effect and way overshot the mark.

There was / is a trend of using HDR (high dynamic range) to produce striking but unnatural digital photos. I usually see these in color, but perhaps overusing HDR in monochrome produces this kind of effect. I think one HDR photo is neat, ten are annoying, and hundreds are grotesque. The HDR trend may have died back a little now that every real estate agent is using it.

 

[jtk]

Graininess is not a bad thing, necessarily. Many of my favorite photos (mine and by others) are tremendously grainy--that is part of their appeal and character. I find digital noise, on the other hand, to be rather nasty.

Digital noise is the result of careless use of the technology...or use of inferior cameras.
..

 

[Auer]

The problem with digital sensors is that they produce the same old grain or lack of it every time. At least with film you can effectively change the sensor by changing film and/or developer.

For digital, grain is best added in post.

 

[blockend]

Experience suggests a 35mm negative can be printed to about 15" on the long side, before grain becomes noticeable. Depending on film, developer, processing and to some extent, paper. Older 35mm lenses began to give up on absolute resolution at a similar size, but grain gives the illusion of sharpness. Which is why printers add extra grain to soft photographs. Given a sufficiently sharp enlarging lens and viewing distance, a small negative can be printed to any size, and appear sharp.

Modern lenses are very sharp by comparison, sometimes aided by in camera processing. With a high megapixel digital camera and a modern lens, an image can be printed much larger without any hint of texture. A clear blue sky in digital monochrome will print as solid grey, with only a change in density near the zenith. That may work aesthetically in counterpoint to a highly textured subject. More often it will be dead space, devoid of interest. A black and white photo is necessarily an abstraction, for which grain or noise provides a key for the eye to latch onto. Warm or cool toning fulfils a similar role, adding abstract qualities to an image based in reality.

 

[CasperMarly]

A good photographer can produce B&W digital that is every bit as good as a B&W from film.
Have seen many top photographers images, both film and digital and they are very good.
Take a look at Sebastao Salgado and the images he has from his digital cameras.
It may take some work but it can be done.

 

[wahiba]

Surely all digital images are black and white, 0 and 1?

Colour, tone etc. are based on the digital data in 0s and 1s.

The image is a result of the technology converting the real object image to digital data and then turning the digital data back to represent the real. Monochrome or colour, it is all in the hands of the user and the tools available. I have many digital monochrome images by the simple expedient of digitising the analogue image into a digital image and as the original is monochrome so is the digital.

Nothing has changed, it is always the photographer in control, with digital or analogue camera or digital or analogue processing.

Personally I like using black and white film and processing it myself. I do not miss the enlarger and darkroom, scanning and the computer screen for me.

For practical image recording digital wins on cost and convenience.

Each to his own and enjoy it all.

 

[grain elevator]

A good photographer can produce B&W digital that is every bit as good as a B&W from film.
Have seen many top photographers images, both film and digital and they are very good.
Take a look at Sebastao Salgado and the images he has from his digital cameras.
It may take some work but it can be done.

The Salgado who overprocessed everything terribly as soon as he could, with digital? Not a great example... But I do concur that great b&w can be made with digital.

 

[jvo]

i have a friend who went to paul caponigro' 5 day intensive digital print workshop. think - print all day, very little photography, unlimited supply of paper, any size, and surface, and an expert to guide a class of 8 students! (oh yeah - no small price tag).

what she came away with is a lot of knowledge and the ability to make digital b+w prints sing! if you were 6" away from a 20x30 print you might be able to identify the digital print, but you'd never be sure. so it can be done, and since that was ~2 years ago things have evolved further and will only improve.