Black and White from Digital Cameras vs. Film Cameras

Any info about your B&W film choice and processing?

...and your use or otherwise of filters with the Leica?

 

No real surprises that I can see - the Leica has a sharper lens, and the film records a wider gradation of tones, but you could have used at least a yellow or even orange filter with the second film shot to bring out the clouds. There appears to be a significant exposure difference in the third shot - the film seems a little overexposed.

I went to go take a walk around our town square to take a few sets of pictures with a digital camera and

with a film camera. The plan was to take the color pictures from the digital camera and use the Photoshop

channel mixer to create black and whites. That way I'd see how digital black and white would differ. I did

do auto contrast in both pictures to punch them up. The Digital camera was a Konica Minolta 5D with the

kit lens at 50mm, the film camera was a Leica CL with a late model 50/2 summicron.

 

I'll post a few of the sets of pictures. The picture at the top or the left is the KM5D converted to black and

white. The other is my Leica CL image.<div></div>

Second picture<div></div>

Third picture<div></div>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5708792-lg.jpg"><p>

Here's another one, converted from color. Anyone like to hazard a guess at the workflow on this one?

What's interesting to me is how little tonal difference there is between the two. Although it's hard to tell without seeing prints.

 

As for me, I still prefer to use a small film camera for low light work as I get better image quality than I would with a small-sensor digicam.

 

http://www.gonecity.blogspot.com/

I suspect that, other than images that exceed the available dynamic range of the digital camera, it would be quite possible to closely match the tonality of the two. You may need to adjust each RGB channel separately with the curves function and combine with the channel mixer to really nail it. And of course, you would only have it nailed for a given film, development, and printing process on the Leica compared with a given raw processing, digital darkroom, and printing process with the digital. I'm fairly confident that instrumented testing could define the relationship, if anyone wanted to go that far as a demonstration (which I think would make a very worthwhile magazine article--see how closely you could match the tonality of, say, Tri-X in D-76 with an XTi).

 

Remember too that the KM5D's sensor, with its 1.53x factor, will give you about 1.25 stops more depth of field than the Leica will, for a given angle of view and f-stop.

And I'm not a photoshop expert either (and I'm still using photoshop 7 until I upgrade

computers later this year). I've always been a Tri-X shooter. I know there are better films, but

I've always liked Tri-X. I was interested to know what you might lose using a digital image as

a source of the black and white. It did seem to be a bit different but not really worse.

You don't "lose" anything rendering B&W from digital capture vs shooting B&W with 35mm

film. Someone well familiarized with their camera and image processing will net more tonal

range and equal image detailing with digital capture, given comparable lenses.

 

Godfrey

Film is Tri-X, developed in D76 1:1 10 minutes. No filters. The conversion using the channel

mixer seems to favor the red channel, and I like that too. Probably should have been using a

red filter when I was shooting but I almost never use filters. Not sure why.

I had so much trouble in the past getting proper scans from B&W film with my Coolscan, that I gave up entirely. I started using convert to BW Pro, to convert from colour to B&W, and now I am a happy camper.

 

Nice shots, BTW.

you converted the digital image with different rgb settings than the rgb conversion of the tri x. you could have matched it, or not. and thats the advantage of color images over b&w images. your choice. a red print on a blue pullover could be invisible with a b&w film. or you can make it more or less visible in the conversion from an color image. and this is nothing a filter on the camera can emulate.

 

and of course the leica is better in all aspects. hehehe

 

D.

Also my scanner is just a Minolta Scan Dual III (so not the absolute best scanner on the

planet, but still works).

>>The conversion using the channel mixer seems to favor the red channel,<<

 

Of course, it defaults with RED=100!

Not sure if anyone's interested, but I downloaded a free plugin for PS called BW Plus. There

are different color filter emulaters available but I chose red. When you apply it to a BW scenic

photo with a blue sky and clouds, it's just like having used a red filter with film. I've tried

various ways to do this with color channels etc. but when I used this program it seemed to do

it a little better.

Scott

Isn't there a new "convert to black and white" tool in CS3? I guess I'm lucky I have the channel mixer in Photoshop 7.

I like digital better, because it's like having an infinitely variable set of color filters. I always

hated screwing around with filters. Now I don't have to.

I see very little difference between the two cameras, which was surprising. I expected the Leica to be head and shoulders over the KM (good lord, I USE a KM and here I am saying this!)

 

I agree with Andrew. Photoshop CS2 allows me to break any rule I want to in terms of dealing with rgb, and without using chemicals or a darkroom. The channel mixer allows you to essentially make your own custom filter for what you want to see. No film camera can do that, unless the person holding it is Ansel Adams!

>>I like digital better, because it's like having an infinitely variable set of color filters. I always hated screwing around with filters. Now I don't have to.<<

 

Exactly!

 

When I started using a darkroom I used the tools available at that time. I didn't try to emulate daguerrotypes...anymore than I try to emulate my old darkroom prints with digital. Use the tools you have to achieve the image you want.

"Also, on any reasonable size print and the obvious difference in resolution would be readily

visible."

 

You're funny. On any reasonably sized print the grain in continuous tone areas looks like

crap.

"On any reasonably sized print the grain in continuous tone areas looks like crap."

 

This is actually easy to visualize, just look at a patch of well done scan of 35mm film at 1:1 on your monitor. Compare the same from the a low ISO DSLR image (appropriately upsampled.)

 

As far as tonality goes, I personally much prefer the DSLR output.

It is funny. This issue was settled years ago. 6MP is as good as 35mm, 10MP is better.

 

You can trawl through the thousands of threads here on photo.net and read about it for

yourself if you want.

Andrew, Les!<P>

 

Please, can we drop the zealotry for a minute and recognize that the issue is <I>a lot</I> more nuanced than this? I mean, 35mm <I>what</I> compared to <I>which</I> 6 MP / 10 MP? And (as Les rightly points out), are we looking at resolution? Grain / noise? Exposure latitude?<P>

 

I'd submit to you that if you want to equal the resolution of 35mm T-Max 100 with a Bayer-sensor DSLR, you probably need around 16 to 24 MP. On the other hand, if you want to equal the resolution of 800 or 1600 speed color negative film, or most transparency film, you only need 6 to 8 MP, and 10 MP will almost certainly do it.<P>

 

I'd submit that if you want to equal the dynamic range / latitude of most decent negative film, you just can't do it with a DSLR--even with different raw conversions composited together. Maybe some good MF digital backs can do it, but I don't know personally. On the other hand, a decent modern DSLR seems to have more dynamic range / latitude than almost any transparency film.<P>

 

Anyone who claims that any photographic tool is 'best', without reference to the application, or who claims that tool x equals / exceeds / whatever tool y, without reference to the test conditions and measured parameters, is at best engaging in a gross oversimplification--often one that is quite misleading.

There is resolution, and there is acutence. Our eyes see a photograph with lower acutence

and higher resolution as being 'fuzzier' than a photo with higher acutence and less

resolution. So, if your goal is to make an aerial photo with the objective of picking out the

smallest details, you would choose resolution over acutence. If your goal is to make a nice

large print and show it to people and have them be pleased, digital wins because of higher

acutence and smoother tonality.

 

So, by that metric, 35mm is equal to 6MP and 10MP is better.

 

I have been shooting film and digital for years now, and without exception people like

large prints from digital better than they do film. I have had several photographers ask me

what medium format system I use, because the print looked far smoother and 'sharper'

than 35mm.

 

Almost all the ultra high resolution films like Tech Pan (if you can even find it any more)

look softer than a 6MP image, even though Shannon would say the film image contains

more information.