digital black and white

I am aware that this is a "film" forum but I don't know who else to ask. I've switched to digital photography

a year or so ago (but I still have my film camera). I am using a digital SRL and i'm having a bit of trouble

getting the results I want with black and white images. I am working on a black and white essay on rural

areas in Argentina (where I live).

 

I need to know where I can study a bit more on black and white conversion. Are there special schools in

the US? What about Internet resources? Also, what is the best software to do this? Right now I am using

Adobe Photoshop CS3.

 

Thank you very much!

Try the "Digital Darkroom Forum."

Use Raw. The PSCS3 have the best tool I've seen on Raws... I have a RebelXT and the Adobe CameraRaw is better than canon software...<div></div>

"Also, what is the best software to do this? "

 

Tri-X in D-76 printed on Ilford Warmtone fiber

<I>Tri-X in D-76</I><P>No, no, it is Agfa 100 in Rodinal.

<i>"Tri-X in D-76"</i><p>

 

I think Kodak recently issued an action plugin upgrade to D76.1

"Tri-X in D-76"

 

"No, no, it is Agfa 100 in Rodinal."

 

Bah, you guys are nuts, Pan F in PMK Pyro...

"I am using a digital SLR and i'm having a bit of trouble getting the results I want with black and white images."

 

The simple solution is use film. I'm sure there are lots of people who get satisfactory results with digital B&W but I've never been happy with it. True, I've only recently bought a DSLR and I've been shooting and printing B&W film for over 30 years. Digital just seems to be made for color whereas B&W seems better suited to film.

Hola Pia, You can try this basic info: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-black-white.htm

 

Best regards

Dear Pia:

 

There are two areas to consider.

 

First, the infomration content of digital is much less than that of film. This is because digital is a discreet, well digital, format, usually limited to 256K, due to the current state of A/D converters used to read our the CCD chips. This limitaion will probably improve with time but it hasn't yet.

 

Second, the inks used to print digital images are organic based, while the printing medium for film is usually metallic silver grains. Again, this makes for differences between the two media.

 

Please don't think I'm bashing digital - I'm not. I use it professionally all the time for portraits, weddings, etc. However, just like the differences between painting and photography, the differences between film and digitnal will probably always exist.

 

Having said that, I suggest (as did anopther poster) that you shoot in "Raw" format. This will severely reduce the number of images per card, but it gives you the maximum amount of information to work with. Also, you might consider having your monitor matched to your printer, so that "what you see is what you get".

 

Finally, check out the forums posted by others; you may find some valuable hints there.

 

Good luck.

Jim

<small><i><blockquote>

 

The simple solution is use film.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Yes. Let's use film... and then what? Process it yourself? Drop it off at the local film shop which sends it off somewhere else? How does it get printed? (Digitally, probably.) How much does it cost? How much control do you have over the results? (Not much.)

 

Yes, so simple, so very, very simple.

<i>"How much does it cost? How much control do you have over the results? (Not much.)

Yes, so simple, so very, very simple."</i><p>

 

Yes, it <u>is</u> very SIMPLE to get COMPLETE control relatively INEXPENSIVELY. It's easy

to develop B&W at home without a darkroom in about an hour, 4+ rolls at a time, at a cost

of about $1-2 per roll, using whatever developer/dilution/temp/timing you desire. Decent

film scanners, monitor calibration tools and printers are quite affordable these days. I do it

all the time. Also, I've calculated that I would need to shoot about 1200 rolls of 36-

exposure film (over 40,000 images) before digital became more economical. I will concede

that downloading files to a computer is much more time efficient than developing and

scanning... excluding the time you would then spend working PS...<p>

"Yes. Let's use film... and then what? Process it yourself? Drop it off at the local film shop which sends it off somewhere else? How does it get printed? (Digitally, probably.) How much does it cost? How much control do you have over the results? (Not much.) Yes, so simple, so very, very simple."

 

Exactly. Lots of choices, really.

No answers to my questions about time, complexity and cost. Simple... or simpolistic?

Z-ster. Why did you come to the "B&W Photo--Film & Processing Forum" with the attitude? I mean, after all--this is where people discuss using black and white film.

 

I realize most neophyte photographers believe photography was born with the digital sensor and this website is full of brand new experts whose vast knowledge is beyond question. Despite these facts, this forum is designated for those who want to discuss aspects of black and white film. Do you wish to contribute to the discussion or are you here simply (speaking of simple) to troll for reaction?

 

But you did ask about simplicity of using black and white film. It's easier and takes less time to process film than it does to bake bread. I know because I processed four rolls yesterday while the bread I was baking was on the rise. It's really quite simple.

 

By the way, the word you were looking for was "simplistic". I'm not surprised you misspelled it since you failed to read the forum in which you made the comments.

 

Have a pleasant day and shoot a roll of Tri-X for the Gipper.

actually, I think time, complexity and cost were all covered. Its simple, it does not take long and its very inexpensive. And it delivers unmatched results. I spend less on chemicals and film than I do on getting coffee at work, and even the printing side of it can be done on the cheap, in limited space.

But, alas, here is the crux of the matter: you DO have to learn how and no, you can`t apply the same skill set as you use at work with MS Office...

<i>"No answers to my questions about time, complexity and cost. Simple... or

simpolistic?"</i><p>

 

I'll type slower this time....<p>

<ol>

<li><u>Time:</u> 1 hour to develop 4 rolls, 1-2 minutes per frame to scan (I only scan

the 1-2 keepers per roll, little if any time fiddling with Photoshop.</li>

<li><u>Complexity:</u> I taught myself to do this (minus the scanning) when I was

about 10 years old, 30 years ago. Not sure what else to say about that.</li>

<li><u>Cost:</u> About $4.50 per roll, including developing. So divide that into

however much you've spent on digicams (including upgrades) + spare batteries + memory

cards + card readers + external backup storage/HD drives + CD/DVD burners etc and you

can calculate how many rolls and images you could shoot on film before your digital setup

becomes economical.

</ol>

Happy shooting.

Lee, just because this is a film forum doesn't mean that pro-film bias is permitted to stand untouched.

regardless of time, complexity or cost I'll choose bw film over digital original anytime. I can do a lot more with film pre-exposure than can be done with digital. Then I can still scan in my sharper neg full of more tonality and information and do whatever I want with it in photoshop.

 

Z boy, you are only revealing your boundless ignorance of bw film, rather than impressing anyone with your viewpoints. A viewpoint, I might add that is the only bias here since it is not based on fact, but rather your ego.

Mark, when you can discuss like an adult without resorting to inappropriate (and photo.net-inmpermissible) putdowns, I might pay attention to something you might write. Until then, ta ta.

<i>"Lee, just because this is a film forum doesn't mean that pro-film bias is permitted to

stand untouched."</i><p>

 

What the heck is this? A high school pis_ing contest?<p>

 

Shoot both media. I do. They're not mutually exclusive! Or shoot just one. Whatever works for

you. Who cares what others think about your choice of materials???? Grow up.

It's not a matter of caring what materials use, but correcting errors, FUD and bias. If people cannot deal with disagreement or corrections, then they indeed need to grow up.

.[.Z: It is you who needs to grow up if you feel the need to persist in "correcting errors" about

others' choices of materials.

So says Asher, trying to correct me, in an amusing display of baldfaced hypocrisy.

I'm not trying to correct you, ".[.Z". You're the one who seems intent on "correcting errors"

of others. But I really don't care what your psychological problem is.<p>

 

Whatever... I'm not interested in petty mud-slinging with adolescents like you or anyone

else for that matter.