Digital Mono

[blockend]

Is it just me, or does digital black and white look awful? I recently looked at someone's review of their Fujifilm GFX 100, including B&W shots they'd taken. The GFX is a stellar 100 megapixel medium format digital camera, colour rendition and tonality are superb, somewhere between medium and large format in film terms. The monochrome looked no better than a small sensor point and shoot.

This is born out by my own cameras. M43, APS-C, full frame, it makes no difference, without serious intervention the files look lifeless in a way colour does not. B&W digital fans routinely add artificial grain to counter this flatness, which raises the question why not just shoot film?

So what's going on? Is there something about digital imaging that kills a mono shot stone dead?

 

[Paul Howell]

I get really good mono from my Sigma SA 9 and 10, might be the FAVON sensor, as I don't like the mono I get from either my Sony or Pentax. Sigma new full frame L mount is a standard CMOS so may the end.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Is it just me, or does digital black and white look awful?...Is there something about digital imaging that kills a mono shot stone dead?

It's just you. That is, it's entirely a matter of taste. There is something about digital that makes it look very different than most film. Which is not the same as "killing it."

I've been able to achieve the best looking -- to me -- black and white prints in my half century of photographing since originating images digitally and printing them on Hahnemuhle Fineart Baryta Satin using a Canon PRO-100. The only reason to use the darkroom -- from my aesthetic viewpoint -- is that even inkjet prints with the longest life expectancy can't hold a candle to fiber-based silver gelatin prints' probable longevity.

 

[Kino]

"Digital" is not monolithically experienced by everyone.

Your monitor calibration, color space, viewing conditions and cultural conditioning play a huge role in how you see and experience a digital image.

Just as a crappy scan can or bad lighting in a gallery can kill the experience of viewing a fine print, viewing a painstakingly crafted (for sake of argument) digital image on a badly calibrated monitor in sRGB colorspace from a compressed file in a room with mixed lighting sources can be just as bad for properly evaluating the intent of the photographer.

Those who grew up without grain may find it distracting and annoying; those who did may find grainless imagery flat and lifeless.

 

[blockend]

Those who grew up without grain may find it distracting and annoying; those who did may find grainless imagery flat and lifeless.

That's part of it but not the whole story. Most of us have looked at an Ansel Adams black and white landscape, which is to all intents grain free. Love them or loath them, AA landscapes lack nothing in tonality. The best I can do with digital mono is high contrast in a Daido Moriyama way, or print on a surface where texture overlays any blandness in the source. To my eyes the fad for shallow depths of field compound the issue, with sharp details surrounded by blank mid-tones.

 

[MattKing]

I think you are simply running up against the choices made by the firmware programmers. The resulting files are highly malleable, so your concerns can be dealt with, even if the files out of the camera aren't to your taste.
This is a link to a friend's website - northernexposures.com - http://northernexposures.com/
Take a look through the images there - he is very good at using post-processing tools.
I believe that all the images started out as colour digital files. In many cases he adjusts the individual colour channels, before converting to black and white.
He is also a very good digital printer - I've seen many of the website images printed quite large.
He also shoots film and does darkroom work, but not as often as digital.

 

[Kino]

That's part of it but not the whole story. Most of us have looked at an Ansel Adams black and white landscape, which is to all intents grain free. Love them or loath them, AA landscapes lack nothing in tonality. The best I can do with digital mono is high contrast in a Daido Moriyama way, or print on a surface where texture overlays any blandness in the source. To my eyes the fad for shallow depths of field compound the issue, with sharp details surrounded by blank mid-tones.

Well, it sounds like you need to dive deeper into process and learn how digital represents images vs how film does the same.

If you want filmic images from a digital device, or images you perceive as having good tonal range, then you'll need to learn how to impose a logarithmic interpretation on a intrinsically arithmetic sourced image.

Once you get beyond the generic and/or "brand" imposed interpretation of the raw data, you will find much more flexibility. It might not be easy, but it is possible and many examples are available online.

 

[blockend]

Well, it sounds like you need to dive deeper into process and learn how digital represents images vs how film does the same.

With respect, I do know my way around the three types of editing software I use, and mess around with curves and independent colour values, routinely. The best I can do with black and white falls short of what I can do with wet print. This may be because I'm well off the pace of the best digital jugglers, but I'm hanging on to the belief that the sensors are lacking.

 

[Kino]

With respect, I do know my way around the three types of editing software I use, and mess around with curves and independent colour values, routinely. The best I can do with black and white falls short of what I can do with wet print. This may be because I'm well off the pace of the best digital jugglers, but I'm hanging on to the belief that the sensors are lacking.

Well then it sounds like you've already made up your mind. Have a good day.

 

[blockend]

Well then it sounds like you've already made up your mind. Have a good day.

Not at all. There may be something in monochrome only sensors of the Leica M kind, that offer a more film-like rendition. Or I may simply be crap at turning colour files into black and white images - both are possible. The point I clearly failed to make is I've spent hours messing in post, and have yet to emerge with anything that makes me go "wow". Looking at other people's digital monochrome stuff, generally gives me a similar response to my own. I haven't looked at Matt's link yet, but will study them in due course on a big screen.

 

[David Brown]

Is there something about digital imaging that kills a mono shot stone dead?

No.

 

[George Mann]

No.

One thing I have noticed when comparing film and digital images is that film presents a true 3-dimensional image that digital poorly imitates at best.

Could this be one of the OP's complaints?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...film presents a true 3-dimensional image that digital poorly imitates at best...

This is photo-babble. Two-dimensional film and two-dimensional digital sensors both "present" two-dimensional images.

 

[George Mann]

This is photo-babble. Two-dimensional film and two-dimensional digital sensors both "present" two-dimensional images.

You have obviously never seen a positive or negative under a high quality loop!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

You have obviously never seen a positive or negative under a high quality loop!

Nonsense. I've seen them all. And, by the way, the word is "loupe." Loopy is attributing three dimensionality to a planar object.

 

[George Mann]

Nonsense. I've seen them all. And, by the way, the word is "loupe." Loopy is attributing three dimensionality to a planar object.

Whatever!

 

[markjwyatt]

I like some of the monochrome I get out of Fujifilm XT-2- usually from RAW, but sometimes using the Acros sims. Unless you add grain, you do not get that effect, but usually I do not like adding significant grain. Simulated grain is usually just added noise, while in silver emulsion photography, grain creates the image. My understanding is the Fujifilm ACROS sims do somehow use grain in a more realistic way in images (maybe manifesting noise as grain?). When I PP monochrome images from RAW, I do use the color sliders a lot to mimic filtration. Don't know if anyone else agrees with me. Here are a couple of sample shots:

https://flic.kr/p/RDmGhM

https://flic.kr/p/2iZet5E

On the other hand, given that one was of Joshua Tree, I still prefer film here in many cases, as in this example:

https://flic.kr/p/RWgw86

 

[Paul Howell]

I just remembered the black and white mode in my old trusty Pentax K2000. Somewhat buried in the menu, shot with it this morning does a really nice job. Unlike desaturating a color image I can see the preview on the back LED and make adjustments to the exposure. Not quite the same as film, very smooth, if it were film it would be Tmax. Contrast is easy to fix in post, but in Corel Paint, the filter effects for black and white are turned off when the images starts as a black and white. The sensor is CCD, only 10mp, might make a difference.

The K2000 has been one of my fav travel camera, 4 AA batteries, no charger or voltage converter, light, if not shooting action a reasonable camera to carry.

 

[rknewcomb]

The OP is not the first one or the only one to feel that digital b&w is lacking. I was reading yesterday how Sebastiao Salgado felt that digital b&W was flat and he worked two years with skilled people to get them to look like his film images.
For more "normal" people it can be a lack of knowledge of how a b&w print should look ie: not just a color image with no color, uncalibrated monitors or the lack of any grain texture. One person I heard say that a digital print is a tattoo on paper because of the lack of depth I guess. Digital definitely draws differently than digital, the answer for the OP may be to shoot film.
Robert

 

[Billy Axeman]

A digital photo that looks like film is fake, and the effort to reach that goal is a sign of bad taste. Instead of trying to imitate film spend your time discovering the strong points of digital, or stick to film.

Pentax K5-II, Pentax DA 21mm f/3.2 Lim.

Nikon 1 V2, 1 Nikkor 10 mm, f2.8

 

[jtk]

If one cannot whip film with digital, that demonstrates lack of personal skill.

 

[Pieter12]

If one cannot whip film with digital, that demonstrates lack of personal skill.

Prints from film and digital are not exactly the same, so I don't know what "whip" might mean. But if you are talking about image quality, I just had a book published that was entirely shot digital, the raw files converted to black and white with Silver EFX. The originals are certainly not flat nor lacking in depth, and I have had Cone Editions make some 20x20" prints that are stunning.
.

 

[markjwyatt]

If one cannot whip film with digital, that demonstrates lack of personal skill.

You certainly have more information and manipulation available with digital (RAW), but I am not sure it "whips" film. It is more flexible and a given decent RAW can go a lot of directions. Film usually gives a film look,which is a product of format/camera/lens, the emulsion, developer, exposure and, if printed those same factors repeat at print level, other factors. Emulsions being used to day have had something like 150 years of development to achieve the quality level achieved, with probably most of the advances in the last 70 years or so, and accelerating advances in the 1970s/1980s until digital hit the scene. At that point convenience killed a big part of the film market. But we have not gone backwards with film (I know, with the possible exception of losing Kodachrome, as well as some other good emulsions, but I am talking about in general).

 

[George Mann]

The OP is not the first one or the only one to feel that digital b&w is lacking. I was reading yesterday how Sebastiao Salgado felt that digital b&W was flat and he worked two years with skilled people to get them to look like his film images.
For more "normal" people it can be a lack of knowledge of how a b&w print should look ie: not just a color image with no color, uncalibrated monitors or the lack of any grain texture. One person I heard say that a digital print is a tattoo on paper because of the lack of depth I guess. Digital definitely draws differently than digital, the answer for the OP may be to shoot film.
Robert

You are basically saying the same thing as I am. There are qualities in film that differ from digital, and vice versa.

The 3 dimensional depth is hard to miss.

 

[George Mann]

If one cannot whip film with digital, that demonstrates lack of personal skill.

I have yet to see a digital image that could whip film when both were at their best!