Just a thought. Across at the other side, many people including myself shoot a lot of b/w with film. Re: digital how much of it roughly off your head do you post process the images into b/w?
Cheers
Cheers
Other than snapshots - how often do you do b/w?
-
D
- Thread starter rayonline_nz
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
None in digital, all black & white and color are with film.
Almost everything I do is B/W on film, which is about 95%. The other digital 5% is shot 50% B/W in-camera and 50% in color from which most is converted to B/W in post-processing.
I don't think digital is a natural environment for B/W. I briefly tried to implement it, but you need too many tricks to get a pleasant result. Not recommended.
I don't think digital is a natural environment for B/W. I briefly tried to implement it, but you need too many tricks to get a pleasant result. Not recommended.
I also find B&W conversions from a digital camera rarely look as good. I have an old CFV back for my Hasselblad for snapshots (mostly photos of my son), and while a few B&W conversions look nice, the majority just don't have the soul that non-linear B&W film produces. And I would argue the CFV back is much more "film-like" than any other digital camera I've used. It does take nice color photos though... (not as nice as Potra in my opinion, but still nice).
There is a "plastic look" that digital conversions from color to black & white have that is not a pleasant look.
What is "snapshots" - "shoot a lot of b/w film"? What snapshots have to do with bw?
Cheers.
Cheers.
I have not taken snapshots since I was 12.
I was meaning casual pictures, surely there are photo's of people having a gathering with a brunch together or afternoon tea. Or just sightseeing, people standing in front of a famous bridge or well known waterfront or that nice restaurant or cafe etc. At the beach with friends etc. Having a picnic ....
There is a thing with in-camera or in-phone including dSLRs, mirrorless and even digital medium format that can teethed to the phone or tablet or simply the in-camera processing. Or even the instagram filters or the apps like Adobe Photoshop Express (for phones).
There is a thing with in-camera or in-phone including dSLRs, mirrorless and even digital medium format that can teethed to the phone or tablet or simply the in-camera processing. Or even the instagram filters or the apps like Adobe Photoshop Express (for phones).
Hi,
I newer use a digital camera for b&w. I like the images with MF and 4x5" film better, so no need to do that digital.
I've just read a special edition of the german digital photo magazin on digital b&w (Meisterkurs Schwarz&Weiss Fotografie) - 90% of the pictures look soulless and/or over manipulated.
Anyway digital is fine for videos and if a huge number of exposures is needed to capture something.
Best
Jens
I newer use a digital camera for b&w. I like the images with MF and 4x5" film better, so no need to do that digital.
I've just read a special edition of the german digital photo magazin on digital b&w (Meisterkurs Schwarz&Weiss Fotografie) - 90% of the pictures look soulless and/or over manipulated.
Anyway digital is fine for videos and if a huge number of exposures is needed to capture something.
Best
Jens
Never.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 302
- Format
- 35mm
This is your third pointless comment on a thread that is tagged as digital. Why would you bother? By your own admission you do not shoot digital, you do not like digital as is reinforced by the juvenile third line in your signature and you have not, to my knowledge, ever made a positive comment about anything digital. Your mischievous posts are helpful to no one.
On its own shooting B/W with a digital camera is an intriguing option, notably when it is done in-camera with only a limited amount of post-processing.
Why is it that a digital B/W photo looks different from an analog photo and what is needed to make it look natural with a pleasant tonality, without imitating film.
This is perhaps an interesting project to try various options in post-processing which indirectly could lead to answers to this question, and at the same time avoiding too much theory.
My experience is that adding some blurred noise is the only thing you need to make it look much better. You can interpret that as an attempt to imitate film, but when I look at (oil)paintings they all have a structured surface from the brush so perhaps this is a universal law how an image is processed in our optical system.
On the other hand, when I see an image on screen from medium or large format film, I also see a clean surface, almost looking digital, which is less attractive because the grain is invisible.
Of course you always need corrections for contrast and tuning the level of shadows, mid-tones and high-lights, but that is a standard procedure in any digital or hybrid process. So, perhaps it's much simpler than we might think.
Why is it that a digital B/W photo looks different from an analog photo and what is needed to make it look natural with a pleasant tonality, without imitating film.
This is perhaps an interesting project to try various options in post-processing which indirectly could lead to answers to this question, and at the same time avoiding too much theory.
My experience is that adding some blurred noise is the only thing you need to make it look much better. You can interpret that as an attempt to imitate film, but when I look at (oil)paintings they all have a structured surface from the brush so perhaps this is a universal law how an image is processed in our optical system.
On the other hand, when I see an image on screen from medium or large format film, I also see a clean surface, almost looking digital, which is less attractive because the grain is invisible.
Of course you always need corrections for contrast and tuning the level of shadows, mid-tones and high-lights, but that is a standard procedure in any digital or hybrid process. So, perhaps it's much simpler than we might think.
As often as it looks good. Some scenes scream B&W and some scenes require vibrant color. Sometimes, muted color is what is called for. Sometimes I get home and look at the results on my computer and a photo that looks mediocre in color looks engaging in B&W. So why not convert it? At the same time, why convert photos to B&W just for the sake of having B&W photos? The beauty of digital is that you can go both ways really easily.
As for film, I mostly shoot B&W due to development costs and control. Plus, I don't have a color enlarger. But I still shoot a fair amount of color. I always try to bring both kinds of film with me on journeys because you never know which you're gonna need. For most scenes, I'll know how I want the final print to look, but occasionally I shoot the same shot with both.
As for film, I mostly shoot B&W due to development costs and control. Plus, I don't have a color enlarger. But I still shoot a fair amount of color. I always try to bring both kinds of film with me on journeys because you never know which you're gonna need. For most scenes, I'll know how I want the final print to look, but occasionally I shoot the same shot with both.
... and over 24,000 of them! Where does one get the time?
I previsualize almost all shots as B&W, even when I intend a color print. I rarely make "casual" shots.
I don't need to view chimp-screen or proofs to know how my prints will look. I knew that when I previsualized.
I do, however, use NIK Silver Efex in post-processing, which helps me determine something about printing contrast and, sometimes paper selection (e.g. high gloss Vs matte).
If I've shot, film I scan and print via Canon inkjet with OEM pigments...usually B&W. Otherwise I shoot digital.
Comments about "soul" demonstrate poor ability to communicate. Film results in "plastic" look as readily as does digital.
On Photrio the heavy bias against digital has resulted in infinite repetitions of the same rocks/trees/water, travel, and "architecture" photos. It's old. Digital shooters see more and do more.
I don't need to view chimp-screen or proofs to know how my prints will look. I knew that when I previsualized.
I do, however, use NIK Silver Efex in post-processing, which helps me determine something about printing contrast and, sometimes paper selection (e.g. high gloss Vs matte).
If I've shot, film I scan and print via Canon inkjet with OEM pigments...usually B&W. Otherwise I shoot digital.
Comments about "soul" demonstrate poor ability to communicate. Film results in "plastic" look as readily as does digital.
On Photrio the heavy bias against digital has resulted in infinite repetitions of the same rocks/trees/water, travel, and "architecture" photos. It's old. Digital shooters see more and do more.
Last edited:
Low ISO shots look weird in digital mono, kind of lifeless. They improve for having a bit of noise, unlike colour noise which is horrible. Not too much or it gets unpleasant, like an out of tune television. This depends on the digital format and age of the camera, but somewhere between 1600 and 3200 ISO works for me, plus an editing pre-set to pump up the contrast and deepen the blacks. I've had some excellent B&W results with iPhone apps. It takes a lot of work to get a digital file looking interesting, most are over-sharpened and over-saturated and shot through clinical modern lenses.
The trick to doing black and white with digital is to use the "Black and White" adjustment in Photoshop so that you're not just doing a straight grayscale conversion. That gives you much more control. Then it also helps to add a tint to the black (I like to do it as a monotone, or even a duotone), so it's not a straight black, but a warm or cool black. That is how you keep it from looking plastic and lifeless.
Now I generally shoot film when I do B&W. I enjoy the process more, and it gives me more options to print them. I can scan them to post, inkjet print, or create a negative for alt. process, or do a silver gelatin, which I can't really do with a digital photo (the silver gelatin part). I also like the look of developers and the look of the grain.
In reality, I almost never shoot black and white from a digital camera. I will, however, do some processing to desaturate the image to near black and white, but leave just a smidgen of color information to give it a bit more character. I like it to look like a black and white image when it's next to a full color image, and only really see the color when it's next to a black and white.
Now I generally shoot film when I do B&W. I enjoy the process more, and it gives me more options to print them. I can scan them to post, inkjet print, or create a negative for alt. process, or do a silver gelatin, which I can't really do with a digital photo (the silver gelatin part). I also like the look of developers and the look of the grain.
In reality, I almost never shoot black and white from a digital camera. I will, however, do some processing to desaturate the image to near black and white, but leave just a smidgen of color information to give it a bit more character. I like it to look like a black and white image when it's next to a full color image, and only really see the color when it's next to a black and white.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
OP it really depends
sometimes i convert it to bw sometmes i don't,
it really depends on my mood and the intent of the final image.
and other times i might add my own color ( color stripping the color channels
and adjusting the tint and reassembling the file as a color one, its kind of fun / addicting )
ive converted color to b/w for IDK 20-23 years and never noticed it, and clients never noticed it either.
sometimes i convert it to bw sometmes i don't,
it really depends on my mood and the intent of the final image.
and other times i might add my own color ( color stripping the color channels
and adjusting the tint and reassembling the file as a color one, its kind of fun / addicting )
people say this stuff constantly but i have never been able to figure out what it means that converted b/w images have a plastic / unpleasant look
ive converted color to b/w for IDK 20-23 years and never noticed it, and clients never noticed it either.
All of it.
I've always only "seen" in black and white." Having recently obtained a D810, I use it like a view camera, shooting on a tripod and in color, thereby preserving the option to use "digital contrast filters" later. RAW files are opened using Nikon Capture NX-D, which preserves any features/settings included by the camera in its NEF format, then saved as TIFFs. I open TIFFs with Serif PhotoPlus X8 and process (including 16-bit monochrome conversion) to taste.
I'm extremely pleased with prints subsequently made on Hahnemühle Photo Rag Ultra Smooth using an Epson P600. At similar sizes, they're comparable in detail and tonality to the 8x10 contact prints I make from film negatives, but don't have the annoying excessive shine that virtually all air-dried glossy fiber-base papers exhibit today.
I "returned" to film for B&W. Digital B&W when digitally printed came out looking like gray peanut butter soup, and while the photo itself might otherwise look fine, I didn't like the lack of texture... aka "grain" that livens the photo up. The more I've shot, the more the process of film works for me and gives me an aesthetic I like better in the printed image (digitally printed). Post-processing (yes, I'm hybrid and ONLY print digitally 'cause I develop but don't have a darkroom) is much easier. I'm now headed to shooting color with film.... much to my surprise. I like the look better, too. I am so OVER the digitally crystal clear sterility of the digital image.... that I almost forget how it annoys my eyeballs. I like to print on Red River's Duro Etch high rag content paper for more "bite" in a matte finish. The smooth thing just got me. Maybe I'll recover in a few years?
Snaps...? Whatever works. Indoors... with natural light only... digital has a place. But I"m shooting more film here, too, as time goes on. Cranking the ISO with Delta 3200 and CineStill 800 pushed to 1600.
Snaps...? Whatever works. Indoors... with natural light only... digital has a place. But I"m shooting more film here, too, as time goes on. Cranking the ISO with Delta 3200 and CineStill 800 pushed to 1600.
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
I sometimes shoot in b/w mode on my Fuji XT-1. But it is a conscious choice to do so. None of the images I make in color or b/w are truly casual anymore.
Back when I was using my digital camera more, I occasionally tried to shoot just black and white. It was rare I was satisfied with the outcome. I generally chalk this up to my own shortcomings, but I've wondered if there wasn't something about the unique spectral coverage film has over digital and my mind was more accepting of the former over the latter. The grey tones were skewed relative to what I was expecting ... or not.
When I had my Fuji XT-2, I shot B&W jpegs and Color RAW.
I do not take snapshots. I only take photographs of things that I want to remember or to print.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |