Black & White -- Which Cameras?

<p>One weirdness is that B&W images in JPEG look a lot better with 1x1 chroma than with 2x2 chroma subsampling. Photoshop makes this switch between Q 6 and 7. Seems like chroma would not be involved in a B&W image, but the difference is easily visible.</p>

<p>Robert, I am looking at my TMX 67 24"x36" prints and they have no visible grain. I haven't used Tri-X but a 2x enlargement (this is a 2" print) begins showing grain is weird.<br>

Go to my website and pick a B&W scan and print a crop to simulate a 16"x20", a 20"x30" and a 30"x40" print. Tell me how/if you perceive grain.<br>

Also sharpness comparisons against a 5D are strange, you can give a print any sharpness you want. If you were referring to detail, it is understandable, yet the results are far different from mine.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>TMX is so good we should never use digital again. We are so not worthy. Tri-X should be thrown out too. What a pity we've been hoodwinked into using it for the last 50 years. All that and 24x enlargements too. You must be using a Leica - how else would grain disappear and detail rivaling large format be achieved? I get dizzy just thinking about it.</p>

<p>Ha ha, TMX on XTOL is quite something... (I meant 24" from 6x7 not 135 but yep, impressive it is).<br>

Regarding a 2x enlargement of TriX can showing grain I was being sarcastic - Of course it won't.</p>

<p>Even with a lot of sharpening I don't see grain at 11x14 or 16x20 from 35mm film:<br>

Give a try at printing these (35mm):<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/4811519_F9MBv#427771770_c45Yh-O-LB<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#422413447_UDaff-O-LB</p>

<p>Or print these from 6x7:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#278813765_H9aF6-O-LB<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/4811519_F9MBv#286378736_Sqezo-O-LB<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#381562277_6tLrM-O-LB</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This I printed at crop at 30x40 - no grain:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/4811519_F9MBv#286378736_Sqezo-X3-LB</p>

 

<p><em>Even with a lot of sharpening I don't see grain at 11x14 or 16x20 from 35mm film:</em></p>

<p>I see grain at 16x20 from medium format film. I must clean my glasses better, or at least focus the enlarger better. Besides, you would need 240 lp/mm resolution in both the camera and enlarger to produce a critically sharp print at 30x40 inches. Your examples compare print scans to direct digital images - a little misleading IMO. Just who are you trying to fool?</p>

<p>You just don't get it! It doesn't matter how good TMX is or is not. (a) Resolution is not everything, (b) not everyone is interested in Titian-sized prints and © proving (questionable in this case) that something is better in one respect does not mean it is better in others, nor d) that everything else is unworthy. We can concede that DSLRs have a finite limit to resolution, which doesn't matter as long as that limit is not exceeded. We are not saying film is better than digital, or vice versa, merely that it's OK to use either, each with its advantages and disadvantages.</p>

<p>I think APUG is sending out teams in neat, black suits to proselyte film throughout the world. Sorry, there are no heavenly rewards to be earned here :-)</p>

<p>Edward, my examples are just film scans with the Coolscan, not from prints.<br>

Which film shows grain on your 16x20 prints from 6x7? Are these from your Coolscan or wet prints?<br>

Agree resolution is not the key since you can tell a B&W from a DSLR even at the small sizes posted in this thread. I laid out my therory on why B&W from digital doesn't look crisp, or appears to be missing something, but it is just a theory, I would love to truly understand the reason/s.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding a 2x enlargement of TriX can showing grain I was being sarcastic - Of course it won't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's fairly easy to see the <em>onset</em> of visible grain for Tri-X at 2X to 3X enlargements. Shoot the same scene with 6x7 and 135. Print the 6x7 1:1. Print the 135 to match size (basically about a 2X linear enlargement.) Side by side, what do you see?</p>

<p>I do use Tri-X in 135. The grain on a 6x9 print is noticeable, the usable resolution is not spectacular, and the tonality is not exceptional. That's okay. It's understood to be part of the vernacular of small format photography, and especially when done with a fast traditional emulsion. These characteristcs can give the print a specific, sometimes desirable look. However, this has more to do with a half century of cultural expectations and programming than some inherent technical strength of the recording media.</p>

<i> I laid out my therory on why B&W from digital doesn't look crisp, or appears to be missing something, but it is just a theory, I would love to truly understand the reason/s.</i>

 

<p><p>

It's hard to know where to begin.

 

<p><p>

Let's start with the resolution business. The TMX vs 40D comparisons are grossly distorted. Furthermore, using a resolution target exaggerates certain types of deficiencies. The 40D is a 10.1 MP camera and the Coolscan only has about 30% more resolution. I would not expect to see such great differences in pixelation, much less resolution. I think a natural scene provides a more practical basis for comparison, since the level of detail is continuous down to the microscopic level. If textures are reproduced well, the photo looks "real".

 

<p><p>

The following sample compares film (Reala) with the same scene with a Nikon D2x (12.3 MP). The film image was taken with an Hasselblad using a 180 mm lens and scanned on a Coolscan LS-8000 at 4000 ppi to produce an 8500x8500 pixel file. The digital image was taken with a Nikon D2x with a 28-70/2.8 lens set at 70mm (the same FOV as the Hasselblad 180) from roughly the same position. The leaves had fallen so the light is different, but it is otherwise as close as I can practically make it. The tree hasn't changed much over the years (it is an old, familiar place). The D2x image was resampled to the same absolute resolution on the long axis - 8500 pixels, which is reasonable with a DSLR. I was careful to use an heavy tripod, mirror up and a remote release with both cameras. The overall scene is shown in conjunction with pixel-pixel crops of the same area, shown as a red box.

<p><p>

 

The Hasselblad has at least twice the resolution of the D2x, largely due to the film size. However a factor of two is often the least increment of significance in resolution, as in sound levels and computer performance. Notice also that the grain is clearly visible in the film.

 

<p><p>

I don't make a practice of test comparisons. It is time consuming and of value only as a learning/teaching tool. Many characteristics, even resolution, are subtle - only obvious in aggregate over a period of use. I'm of the school that "If it works, do more of it. If not, try something else."

I will try again to send the image...

That isn't working. Let's try this...

<p><p>

Tree Bark Comparison (color) (http://www.photo.net/photo/8538055)

<p><p>

Same, converted to B&W using Tri-X emulation with red filter (http://www.photo.net/photo/8538084)

<p><p>

 

Tri-X shot with a Rolleiflex E2, decades ago, scanned on an LS-8000. It's not a particularly artistic shot, but it's the best I can come up with on short notice (most of my film work is buried in Cretaceous rock) and is technically adequate to illustrate my point. Notice that there is grain, and the tonality and resolution is not strikingly different than the rendered color shots (http://www.photo.net/photo/8538056)

OK! The new text editor is doesn't work consistently for me. You could just open my gallery to view these examples, or paste the links shown above.

OK! The new text editor is doesn't work consistently for me. You could paste the links shown above, or just open my gallery to view these examples.

<p>Thanks for the examples. The medium format looks very soft (nothing close to what my medium format scans I posted look like at 100%), the D2x seems better other than the smudging expected from upsampling. It is possible your Coolscan may be defective?<br>

Look at this scan at 100% (on a nature subject with my Coolscan for comparison), little or no sharpening was applied (I can't remember):<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#421825839_CPsRV-O-LB</p>

<p>Regarding the look of B&W from digital... what is your theory? How come you can tell even from a small downsampled posting? Really beats me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>The medium format looks very soft (nothing close to what my medium format scans ...</em></p>

<p>I don't agree. Your scans are busy but not particularly sharp. There is an halo around the branches, which is either due to sharpening or JPEG artifacts. There is extreme contrast but, sadly, no shadow detail nor any indication of superior dynamic range over digital. The scans and images I posted are clearly grain-sharp, representing a broad dynamic range in the subject.</p>

<p>My theory? I can do as well with medium format digital as with film, and nearly as well with a 12.3MP DSLR. That's not what you wanted to hear.</p>

<p>I am not basing this statement on a few web-sized samples, certainly not yours, but several decades of experience and tens of thousands of images spanning all media. Examples are just that - tools to illustrate a particular point in a particular context.</p>

<p>I can't explain what you see because I'm not you, and you have an history of putting your own film-biased interpretation on everything. You've made your points, I've made mine. Let the readers sort out fact from fiction.</p>

<p>Edward, although I post examples of my experiences, I don't take it as a personal discussion. When I commented your scanned picture looked soft (and softer than you digital) I didn't mean to offend you. It could be due to focusing point, film used, the scanner and many other reasons that do not imply you did anything wrong.</p>

<p>My scans using the Coolscan look sharp and full of detail at 100%. Look at this crop, the focusing point is the left shoulder of the puppet (right on your monitor), look at the patterns in the clothing:</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6523007_CpbPd#418270130_eEt3u-O-LB</p>

<p>This is the entire picture:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6523007_CpbPd#414593695_QxkHH-X3-LB</p>

<p>Also I always try not to be bias but to show what my experience and the examples I post show me. Both digital and film have their advantages and never try to discount that. Digital is very practical.</p>

<p>In this particular thread I was looking for more understanding on the B&W from digital.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comparison, Edward. I agree that the differences are smaller than the similarities. Film has a bit more detail, the digital is smoother with less extraneous data (noise). </p>

<p>In another thread on the V700 vs dedicated film scanners I saw that sharpening the heck out of the scan could almost equalize the difference between the two bringing a very soft scanner near to where a dedicated film scanner is with normal sharpness.</p>

<p>To properly show your image, how much resolution do you need? Does any of this matter for real world purposes?</p>

<p>Both the film (scanned) and digital images are sized to print at 16x20 inches, with 8500 pixels in the long dimension. The 100% cropped panels are what you would see on that print using a 6x loupe. In practice, both are "critically" sharp to the unaided eye. You can see what I'm talking about by ripping the example and printing it, without resampling, at 425 ppi. The full-sized Hasselblad print hangs on the wall at my wife's discretion (usually around Thanksgiving).</p>

<p>I recently was showing my brother all my cameras because he wanted to get an idea of which camera to buy for himself. I excitedly showed him my Canon 20D and 5D along with a bunch of expensive L series lenses such as a 50mm, 135mm and 24-70mm L zoom. I also showed him my Nikon F2 film camera as well as some old Mamiya C3 TLR film cameras. I had recently sold my Hasselblad stuff.<br>

Then we took some pictures with the Canon digital and opened them in Photoshop on the computer. I showed him how to convert the photos to B/W images using channels and B/W mode in CS3.<br>

Then I happened to open some old B/W photos that I took a few years ago with the Mamiya C3 (6cm film) camera. What surprised me was that in a direct side by side comparison the scanned B/W film images looked markedly superior to the digital images in every category. The film images had better and more subtle tonal ranges and also appeared cleaner and less fuzzy. The digital images which had appeared so perfect while in color mode suddenly seemed to look fuzzy and with crude tonal shifts from dark to light. The film images appeared so much more three dimensional than the digital images.<br>

I tried all sorts of tricks that I have read about to get the digital B/W images to match the sharpness and tonal complexity of the film images. The digital images had even started from RAW files. And, I was using $1200.00 Canon lenses. So, I was really surprised how crude and ugly the digital images looked compared to the film images. And, the film images had only been scanned at the local camera store with no special equipment or instructions. And, the Mamiya C3 is not really considered a great camera system or lens -- just average stuff.<br>

My brother and I ended up agreeing that if he wanted to learn B/W photography he should just get a medium format film camera such as a RB67 or a used Mamiya camera. And, he was so impressed with those B/W film snapshots that he went ahead and bought a used RB67 system off eBay. And, that was after playing around with all my best Canon digital bodies and lenses.<br>

If you remember the earliest digital cameras that took those images which looked like there was always some kind of stray light reflecting around all the edges of the photos and the pictures simply looked odd and bizarre in hard to explain ways -- that's how I felt about my digital B/W images when placed side by side along a scanned film image in Photoshop. In other words we normally never see film and digital images side by side in one window. We normally see digital images and then later see film images. Some people never look at film images on their computer and so they just assume that their digital B/W images are awesome. But, that direct comparison seems to just point out how awful the tonal range of digital B/W images really are compared to B/W film images.<br>

I think that it's partly related to the fact that digital cameras are designed really as purpose-built color cameras. They have the sensor that sees mostly green filtered pixels using the Bayer filtering system. then the camera has to interpret the rest of the image. I think that from my experience I am convinced that digital cameras produce much richer and more exciting color images than film cameras (all other things equal). And, digital cameras are far superior to film cameras for low light work -- especially with color images. But, . . . I think that current digital cameras produce images that look absolutely horrendously bad once you strip away the color and see just that naked B/W image that remains. You suddenly see all the weaknesses of the digital capture. It looks like a 10,000 piece puzzle that was put back together with a few pieces mixed up.<br>

This observation is based on me viewing numerous images on my computer screen. Now, I know that some people will say this is biased because I'm not judging prints . But, in my experience, the flaws you see on screen are real flaws. Flaws you can spot on a computer screen at full resolution may not always show up in small prints. But, the flaws observed on a screen view are real flaws which experience has shown make their way to the print in some manner or another.</p>

<p>I recently was showing my brother all my cameras because he wanted to get an idea of which camera to buy for himself. I excitedly showed him my Canon 20D and 5D along with a bunch of expensive L series lenses such as a 50mm, 135mm and 24-70mm L zoom. I also showed him my Nikon F2 film camera as well as some old Mamiya C3 TLR film cameras. I had recently sold my Hasselblad stuff.<br /><br />Then we took some pictures with the Canon digital and opened them in Photoshop on the computer. I showed him how to convert the photos to B/W images using channels and B/W mode in CS3.<br />Then I happened to open some old B/W photos that I took a few years ago with the Mamiya C3 (6cm film) camera. What surprised me was that in a direct side by side comparison the scanned B/W film images looked markedly superior to the digital images in every category. The film images had better and more subtle tonal ranges and also appeared cleaner and less fuzzy. The digital images which had appeared so perfect while in color mode suddenly seemed to look fuzzy and with crude tonal shifts from dark to light. The film images appeared so much more three dimensional than the digital images.<br /><br />I tried all sorts of tricks that I have read about to get the digital B/W images to match the sharpness and tonal complexity of the film images. The digital images had even started from RAW files. And, I was using $1200.00 Canon lenses. So, I was really surprised how crude and ugly the digital images looked compared to the film images. And, the film images had only been scanned at the local camera store with no special equipment or instructions. And, the Mamiya C3 is not really considered a great camera system or lens -- just average stuff.<br /><br />My brother and I ended up agreeing that if he wanted to learn B/W photography he should just get a medium format film camera such as a RB67 or a used Mamiya camera. And, he was so impressed with those B/W film snapshots that he went ahead and bought a used RB67 system off eBay. And, that was after playing around with all my best Canon digital bodies and lenses.<br /><br />If you remember the earliest digital cameras that took those images which looked like there was always some kind of stray light reflecting around all the edges of the photos and the pictures simply looked odd and bizarre in hard to explain ways -- that's how I felt about my digital B/W images when placed side by side along a scanned film image in Photoshop. In other words we normally never see film and digital images side by side in one window. We normally see digital images and then later see film images. Some people never look at film images on their computer and so they just assume that their digital B/W images are awesome. But, that direct comparison seems to just point out how awful the tonal range of digital B/W images really are compared to B/W film images.<br /><br />I think that it's partly related to the fact that digital cameras are designed really as purpose-built color cameras. They have the sensor that sees mostly green filtered pixels using the Bayer filtering system. then the camera has to interpret the rest of the image. But, to put things in perspective: I think that from my experience I am convinced that digital cameras do produce much richer and more exciting <em>color</em> images than film cameras (all other things equal). And, digital cameras are far superior to film cameras for low light work -- especially with color images. But, . . . I think that current digital cameras produce images that look absolutely horrendously bad once you strip away the color and see just that naked B/W image that remains. You suddenly see all the weaknesses of the digital capture. It looks like a 10,000 piece puzzle that was put back together with a few pieces mixed up. There is a fuzziness that I can see in the faces. I don't see it in the color image. I only see the flaws in the B/W converted images.</p>

<p>I know some people are going to suggest unsharp masking. Well I have used unsharp masking a lot in the past and I know that it really is just an illusion that highlights and darkens the edges within the photos. If you sharpen an image too much you'll see that it's really a gimmick compared with just using a better lens and capture device.</p>

<p>These observations are based on me viewing numerous B/W film and digital images on my computer screen and having them open side by side in one window. Now, I know that some people will say this is biased because I'm not judging actual prints . But, in my experience, the flaws you see on screen are real flaws. Flaws you can spot on a computer screen at full resolution may not always show up in small prints. But, the flaws observed on a screen view are real flaws which experience has shown make their way to the print in some manner or another. And, the tonal wekaness problems will always be seen in any size print. To give my observations credibility I have experimented with various B/W enhancement techniques including dodging and burning and channel mixer adjustment layers. I've also used RAW capture and top notch Canon L lenses (which look awesome in color images).</p>

<p>The B/W enhancement techniques will give a person much higher quality B/W photos than a person who is using digital capture without using advanced B/W conversion techniques. This is true of course. But, the digital B/W image is still a flawed capture compared to a B/W film capture if all other things are equal assuming you have normal lighting conditions. And, if you took a good B/W film capture and scanned it and used all that Photoshop magic on it I imagine it could surpass the digital capture in an even more huge manner.</p>

<p>The photo of the bike messenger in a comment above from Benjamin is a great example of a digital capture B/W image. It's a nice photo and appears to have a nice dynamic range at first glance -- <em>especially</em> to the eyes of a person who only uses digital cameras. But, if you hold up a nice B/W film image to the screen or if you save the photo and then open it next to a nice scanned B/W film image on your computer you'll see that from a zone system frame of mind the bicycle messenger image is actually very limited in tonal values. It's a classic digital B/W image which looks high contrast but shallow tonal availability.</p>

<p>You can try to make the digital B/W images appear like they have high dynamic range by boosting the contrast. But, then you decide it's too contrasty and you lower the contrast and it just looks flat. Then you realize it's going to be a compromise because you just don't have a file with enough tonal information to produce a great B/W image. That always seems to be the case with digital B/W. The messenger photo looks like it has fabulous tonal range when compared to other <em>digital</em> B/W images. And, that's all most people are comparing them to. But, a film image of that same scene in the same light would have so many more zones to choose from in a zone system frame of reference.</p>

<p>Will the monochrome Channel Mixer techniques help to make an average B/W image look even better in the hands of a Photoshop expert? Of course it will make a better image with greater tonal range. But, even the best efforts still fall short of a great film based image. You're simply starting out with more tonal zones in film. If you applied the Channel Mixer and Layer tonal boosting techniques equally to scanned film image as well as the digital captured image then you could widen the quality gap even further in favor of the film image. The photoshop tricks and techniques on digitally captured B/W images are just a game of catch up to the film that always falls about 15% short of the film quality.</p>

<p>Not all photographs require a large tonal range or dyanmic range. Sometimes the photographer may prefer a high contrast image for specific reasons. But, what I'm saying is that many photographers agree that a film based B/W camera will give you the widest available choices of dynamic range and the smoothest transition of continuous tones in your photographs compared to any digital camera currently made for the public. And, imagine if you took an already superior B/W film captured image and additionally used all the Photoshop B/W enhancement techniques on it that you'd normally use to make the digitally shot image look better.</p>

<p>There are scientific digital cameras which utilize a B/W only sensor without the Bayer filter. Those cameras, or a future consumer camera designed with that principle like the old Kodak DCS 760M, probably offer the best hope for a digital camera that rivals a B/W film camera. Until then if you want quality B/W with the most artisitic choices available I would prefer film capture. If you want speed, convenience and excellent low light abilities then I would use any quality digital camera from Canon or Nikon in conjunction with the B/W conversion software. If you used the digital capture route then within Photoshop you'd also rely on things like Channel Mixer adjustment layers as well as adjustment layers based on selections of the image using varying layer blending modes and opacities to achieve the control of tones. There are a number of books devoted solely to B/W digital techniques such as "Black and White Photography In The Digital Age" and many others. I don't think any in camera conversion will match a systematic B/W conversion done in desktop software after studying a book and analyzing the individual photograph.</p>