film BW vs digital BW

Hi,

 

I have a question about conventional BW (film) vs digital BW.

if and Why film BW is better or superior to digital BW?

 

Can you give me some reasons?

 

PS: I am a film fan that uses digital as well. But I think film BW is superior

to digital BW but I need solid reasons.

For many pictures, it makes little or no difference at all. For some pictures, film may be

better, and for other digital. It depends on a number of factors such as format. 35 mm

film, for example, is quite different with respect to quality than a contact print from an

8X10 view camera. The biggest benefit from film may be a larger tonal range. One of the

potential disadvantage of digital is the temptataion to over use or poorly use digital

software resulting in posterization, increased noise, and over sharpening or other digital

artifacts. Digital printers also vary considerably and the limiting factor may be the quality

of the printer. For me, the advantage of film is not necessarily quality, but being able to

work in a dark room which I find somewhat more interesting than playing on a computer.

The biggest advantage of digital is convenience. I used to think that film had a certain

punch to it that could not be obtained with digital, but I have seen some incredible digital

black and white pictures as well. Others may have a different opinion.

They look pretty different (depending on which film you use) when blown up. It is, of course, aesthetic.

<i>PS: I am a film fan that uses digital as well. But I think film BW is superior to digital BW but I need solid reasons.</i>

 

Why would you think one was superior to the other unless you yourself had found solid reasons in your own work? If you're looking for reasons, you don't know which is better and shouldn't presume.

 

It's a more complex question than you present. That means which is best can vary based on the situation. For a lot of people, which is best turns on criteria which have nothing to do with the final image. Some like B&W film because they can develop and print in a darkroom, others like digital because they can develop and print on a computer. Some like B&W film because they have a treasured film camera, while others like B&W digital because their investment is in digital.

 

So you need to at least narrow your options a bit when asking which is "best". Best in what way, or for what purpose?

One reason, I, my self did not post any reason was "not to put words to the people."

 

- One very very good reason is dynamic range. As we all know is digital cameras dynamic range is still worse than film.

 

- One Other good reason is image/negative size (especially you are doing medium format or larger.)

In terms of flame bait, this ranks right under "Why Nikon is better than Canon". I'll leave the thread up as long as it stays civil.

Film is superior when I'm in the mood to shoot a cool old camera. I'd rather be caught out in the rain with a mechanical film camera than a DSLR. 4x5 quality is still significantly cheaper in film than digital. I used to think there had to be reasons why film was better than digital. Then I bought a DSLR. Man, I'm glad I'm over that.

Kevin Bourque: You are literally too kind! Who sent this guy?

One problem with B&W on digital, as I understand it, was the difficulty of getting really good B&W prints out of the usual computer printer. Newer printers like the Epson PHOTO series do prints that look (to me anyway) just like B&W paper prints, so this difference is at least less serious than it used to be.

I'm sure people will give answers in favor of one or the other.

 

But from what I've gathered in talking to lots of very successful fine-art B&W artists, the best solution right now for fine art B&W prints is film capture and digital output. I always point people to this guy's outstanding work: www.nickbrandt.com. According to LensWork, he uses Pentax 6x7 in TMax-100 and digital inkjets.

Here's a visual aid to help out a bit. The shots are identical, more or less, with one shot taken on Rollei Ortho 25 and the other taken on a Canon 5D and then run thru the Black & White module in CS3.

 

Below is the Ortho 25 shot.<div></div>

and the 5D.

 

one thing i did notice is that the film picks up more details in the wooden fence<div></div>

I don't care which is better. I enjoy darkroom work and I like the results. So I use film.

Burak,

 

My take on it reveolves around two factors.

 

First, I belive that the best prints are obtained on traditional paper. I don't think that the digital papers and printers are as good as the best conventional papers.

 

Secondly, I like to put in a B&W film, and switch (myself) to B&W mode. I produce my best work this way, and using digital capture delays the colour or B&W decision, detrimentally.

 

However, I do use scans to play around with prints, before doing it "properly", which can save time and expense.

 

Steve

<p>First: hi everybody. Longtime reader, first time poster.</p>

 

<p>I'm a shooter who uses and likes both film and digital black and whites. These days I prefer film because of the grain and tonality, and because I'm looking for a 'classic' or 'retro' kind of look. But some of what I consider to be my very best black and whites are photoshop conversions. They're very different -- especially in terms of how people look. I tend to use the channel mixer in photoshop and lean heavily on the red slider, then use curves to make skin tones very light, and shadow areas very dark. It's a different style -- a different aesthetic. And both I think, have their own place.</p>

 

<p>Observe:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/wadam/1209261596/">This one</a> is a digital conversion. And <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/wadam/1217883813/">This one</a> was taken with Rollei Retro 100 and processed by a local lab. I don't know that I like either better in every circumstance. They both have their own charms.</p>

Hi Adam, when you indicate "This one is a digital conversion"...Do you mean it is a scan of a

negative or print from a negative? For myself, I don't mind digital for color, but I will strictly

shoot film for B&W, as I find the nuances and characteristics b/w TechPan, Tri-X, HP4/5,

PanF etc are outstanding.<div></div>

B&W film example<div></div>

Fab -- The 'digital conversion' was shot with a DSLR, then converted to black and white in photoshop. And as for shooting color versus black and white, I sort of feel the opposite of you. I don't mind digital black and white, but for color, I have a strong preference for film. I feel a little bit like digital cameras don't reproduce color very well, and take a lot of tweaking on the computer to produce a pleasing color image. On the other hand, with much less effort, it is possible to produce what is, to me at least, a very pleasing black and white image. Not to say that I don't often use digital color, but I find that all things considered, digital lends itself better to black and white.

Adam, I think your two images make a very strong case for film. The tonality in the film image is luscious but the digital conversion simply looks washed out and unnatural, at least to me.

 

I realize that these two particular images don't settle the matter, and perhaps the digital file could have been processed to have film-like tonality and the film image could have been printed in a less literal style.

 

I also realize that here we are in the realm of taste, and you might like both your results equally.

 

Still, if I knew nothing about photography and you showed me these two images and asked which process processed "better" results -- whatever that might mean -- and which I would want to learn, film would win, hands down.

<p><i>The tonality in the film image is luscious but the digital conversion simply looks washed out and unnatural, at least to me.</i></p>

<p>

I totally agree, at least, that there is an enormous difference. And that is part of what I was trying to say. To me, it's almost no use making a comparison between black and white in film and digital, or color either for that matter. To my taste, they are useful for expressing two very different kinds of aesthetics.</p>

"For me, the advantage of film is not necessarily quality, but being able to work in a dark room which I find somewhat more interesting than playing on a computer."

 

What I like about B&W Digital photos is the lack of white spots caused by dust and other artifacts and the convenience. However, if done well in a spot-free environment there is 'hardly' any difference between Digital B&W and classic B&W. I say hardly because they do have a different look to them. The thing I hate the most about classic B&W is that you can ruin an entire roll of film if your processing is off by a couple of factors.

 

I've seen some great Digital B&W photos on this forum, but most of them look like desaturated color photos, totally smooth and plasticky. On the other hand, it is very hard to get smooth transitions when Scanning B&W film unless you do a Drum scan. The grain really comes out when converting B&W film to Digital.

 

I love the look of my B&W photos taken with my Medium Format Mamiya camera. I get consistent smooth transitions, very detailed and sharp results and an almost 3 dimensional look. So when it comes to B&W, I stick to what I know best, which is film and the Dark room.

 

Classic B&W still offers a pretty wide range of papers and ISO.

One thing I discovered from using b&w film in the studio with strobes, altho I haven't done much of it - is that b&w film tends to be harsher on the skin, revealing more imperfections and such. Maybe it was my film choice - Agfa 25 and Ilford Pan F+ - but digital shots on the 5D were smoother.

J-P, I think that's one of the reasons why people who do character studies like film, while people who shoot headshots and fashion have largely switched to digital.

 

Smoother isn't always better -- but, sometimes, it is!

People who shoot headshots and fashion switched to digital because commercial workflow is digital now. One can find plenty of people doing "character studies" use digital - a great example is Lauren Greenfield - or film, but any kind of general characterization is bound to be a general characterization.

Okay, let's be specific.

 

Whatever "plenty of people" may be doing, Jean-Paul stated that, in *his* studio experience, he was getting more skin texture with film than with digital.

 

While I do not shoot digital, I have had occasion to see a great many headshots. My experience viewing such pictures had been similar to Jean-Paul's when taking them: the new generation of digital headshots seem to show less skin texture than film headshots in years past.

 

(The old film ones were almost always b&w, while the new digital ones are almost always color, but that's another issue.)

 

The difference is more pronounced with men, since women have always worn heavier make-up in their headshots than men have and women's headshots are most often lit to minimize skin texture anyway.

 

I don't doubt that, under studio conditions, you can get similar results from film and digital by playing with the lighting, make-up and post-processing. However, as a generalization, and with all other things being equal, I think you are more likely to see texture in skin when shooting with a fine-grain film than when shooting digital, as Jean-Paul observed.