Is digital B&W "good enough"?

Hi All,

 

I am looking for some specific advice re: making B&W images using my DSLRs (specifically Nikon D70s and D50). I

shoot mostly in color but want to do more B&W work as I have a strong appreciation for the B&W medium.

 

Background:

 

-I have shot 35mm B&W film (mainly BW400CN (C-41), Neopan 100SS, APX 100) for many years on Nikon film

equipment. I have started developing the film on my own and scan the negatives using a Plustek film scanner. I get

prints on Kodak color (matte) paper.

 

-I have also been shooting digital B&W (on DSLR) for the last three years or so. I convert to grayscale and post-

process in Lightroom.

 

Issue:

 

-To me, *my* digitally captured B&W images consistently look better than those made using film. I know this is

heavily dependent on my scanning technique and I may be missing the subtle differences. I am not generalizing to

anyone's experiences, just an observation on my own (and limited) experience.

 

Question:

 

-I may be w_a_y off here and I understand that I probably do not yet understand what "truly good B&W" means. So I

ask: should I focus my emergies on building my B&W darkroom skills (i.e. printing on my own) or just move on and

shoot digital for B&W too? In other words "is digital B&W using the DSLR bodies that I have going to be good

enough"?

 

(No intent at starting a flame war or a shouting match. I have nothing against film or digital and am not abandoning

either. I am genuinely at a crossroads and need advice deciding which path to take).

 

Thanks!

Arun

I shoot both digital and film. But all of my B&W work is done with film and printed in my darkroom. I have seen some very nice digital B&W so, yes, it can be done. It does look different from a silver gelatin print, though, so it really comes down to personal preference. I know that I won't give up darkroom work simply because I enjoy it and because I like the results.

I don't think that you can get a good sense of what B&W film is capable of image wise using C-41 B&W film and scanning. If there is somewhere near that has a darkroom (community college) I'd suggest trying shooting some B&W film, developing and printing in a wet darkroom. There is a unique sense of accomplishment from watching a quality B&W print slowly appear in the developer. That being said I haven't worked in a darkroom myself in three years and have been amazed at the ability of the Epson 3800 for B&W printing.

Digital B&W is very good if done as post processing and not the in camera way. With processing, a decent quality printer and with the papers available today excellent prints can be made that rival just about any wet lab process you can think of and at least the longevity of a wet print. A lot of the LF good and great photographers today though shooting film have gone to scanning and post processing and printing their 30X40 and larger prints pigment on paper (inkjet).

If you try the in camera B&W setting you'll find that the images are very flat. That is because this is basically a gray scale, like that old B&W TV standard.

Your best will be to shoot the best color image you can and process that to the degree you want then convert to a B&W where you can work with the reflectance of the various colors to bring out the variations of tones that you wish.

The papers and ink sets play a major part in the whole process. I'm partial to the Ilford/Harman line that to me not only do have that "silver" look (in most cases better) but even smell like the old papers.

For myself I either shoot digitally and go from there or shoot LM, develop as I have from 1955 then a high quality scan and all PPing is done digitally ending up with a pigment on paper print.

 

Take an look at guys who were traditional wet lab artists like Jay Dusard who has I believe gone over to the scan/pigment on paper route for the most part and you'll see no degradation at all in the final product. One can do the same with a digital camera.

 

Just like in the wet lab, it's all in the processing.

I am a black and white diehard fan. I attended a workshop with John Sexton when I was printing in the darkroom and learned what a black and white print can be. I also collect black and white prints from him and others.

 

 

That said, it was only until I got an Epson 3800 and used Harman Gloss Baryta Al paper that I have achieved a black and white print that has reached my tough standards. It is the closest thing to a silver gelatin print I have ever seen,

I'm lucky enough to have access to a darkroom, so I've used both methods. I think it comes down to which method you

prefer. Black and white photography has always been considered a fine art medium, and so like fine art, it's subjective.

It's supposed to invoke a feeling or emotion to the scene. If your images are doing that, than I would be way off base to

tell you that either B&W medium is superior.

 

I WILL say, however, that as a photographer, you'll appreciate your images much more by printing in the darkroom. In

my opinion, the printing process is part of the craft, and I think there is no higher standard of our art form or medium than

the print on a wall...kind of like giving birth to your image (editorial note: I haven't given birth, so it's just one man's

shallow view). Think...nobody invests in digital files or negatives at art house auctions, they are buying the print.

 

So, if your print satisfies you, that's the standard you've set. Embrace it! When I've seen B&W photography on the wall,

I haven't thought about how it was created...I look and think about the image. I can't say the same thing about looking at

an image on a web site. I WILL add this final thought, and it's my opinion only...I'm much more tolerant of lower

technical standards at time of capture with B&W and less tolerant of sloppy printing. Much of the best B&W was shot

from the hip, out of focus, super-grainy, underexposed, etc. and I know my brain has been trained to appreciate that

aspect. Maybe this is why so much digital B&W lacks depth to me...it's too perfect.

 

Now...out the door with an F6 and Tri-X!

To me, the answer is a resounding no. Whenever I need to shoot something that I want to be in black and white, my F5 or F3HP will come out. While some digital cameras can replicate the richness close to films like Velvia, black and white is a whole different story.

 

But like others, I think it has in part our love with darkroom processing that makes film black and white that extra special.

Very few of today's photographers can shoot black and white film and get better results that they can achieve with a good DSLR. Darkroom technique is developed through years of practice. I shot black and white and printed in a darkroom for 40 years. The results that can be obtained today with a digital camera and a good printer are as good as 95 percent of prints from black and white film, IMO.

It's about whether you enjoy the process. It's not about which approach is superior.

I've really enjoyed converting some of my digital images into black and white. I've not printed them out as of yet, but they look pretty nice on the screen.<P>

 

<img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/186059506_U66Zs-L.jpg"><P>

Interesting responses! It seems to me that most of you conclude that digital B&W is indeed... good enough.

 

I thought I had a sub-par film B&W workflow, but maybe even with a much better workflow I will not be able to *dramatically*

improve my results?

I think it`s way easier to get a good image with a digital camera than with a 35mm camera. Bigger formats have

different issues. Tonal range with a D700 seems to me much better than with any of my usual films like TX or TMZ.

Post processing digital archives is even more easy, it is far from the very difficult control you get with an enlarger. I

think many top photographers jumped to digital, at least in the PP chapter, just because it`s far more easy and

convenient.

 

The issue is on the final printed product. Barita based papers are beautiful. Probably (I actually don`t know) with

superexpensive printers and exotic dyes and papers (=$$$) you can get top level results. Color papers, resin based

for wet processing are ugly in b&w. Intermediate solutions could be the way to go, at least for learning.

 

Unless you are decided for whatever the reason on wet printing or film shooting, I`d forget it. If you shoot film you`ll

need a very good scanner. Save your money for a better digital camera. My advice is to buy a reasonably priced b&w

printer and paper, dedicated b&w PP software, and go with it.

Lots of good advice above.

 

On your point about understanding what "truly good B&W" means: If you haven't done this before, I would

recommend (if you're courageous) going to a museum or gallery and looking at original prints by some of the

masters - Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham, etc. You have to see real prints - even very fine

reproductions in a book aren't the same. While it's a joy to look at these works of art, it isn't necessarily encouraging

for the aspirant. The harsh reality is that you probably can't do what those folks did. Almost nobody can. (I printed in

a darkroom for decades but knew, after seeing some of those prints, that I was about as likely to make one that

good as I was to dunk a basketball or play the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto or be selected to go on the first mission

to Mars.) But if one can accept that, you can go along, do your best, and enjoy the process.

What really stumps me is:

 

i. I look at some of my digital B&W images and swear 'I could not have done that on film'

 

ii. I look at some of my film B&W images and swear 'I could not have done that on digital'

 

I hope this is my fertile imagination at work. Or maybe I don't know nearly enough about B&W in either medium.

<i>I thought I had a sub-par film B&W workflow, but maybe even with a much better workflow I will not be able to *dramatically* improve my results?"</i><p>

 

Don`t know how your results are but, as Wayne says, a good darkroom technique ask for years of learning... I think it is a highly difficult task. Surely most of us can have any wet print easily but only a very few ones a really good fine art darkroom print. I have been wet-printing for so many years (my father was a printer) and I can say that anyone using digital gear could get far better results after two weeks of practice.<p>

 

Anyway, if you like to learn "traditional photography", there is no reason to avoid it.

As another poster noted, using C-41 film and a mediocre scanner, it is not surprising that DSLR black and white looks better. Were you to use 6x6 or 6x7 real (eg silver, such as TMax 100, or 400, and scan it with a real film scanner such as a Nikon 9000, you'd be w_a_y ahead of anything a decent DSLR can produce. I have used Lightroom and CS3 to process some images from my DSLR as black and white, and while they are pretty good, my 6x7 Mamiya 7II and 4x5 negatives have detail even a good DSLR cannot produce. I realize this is a quite different set up and workflow, but for "fine art," whatever that is, real film and an excellent scanner are still the king in black and white.

 

Eric

Unfortunately, this thread has evolved into the B&W version of the film vs. digital debate, which we have already had over and over, very much like Canon vs. Nikon.

 

As usual, my suggestion is use whatever medium you prefer. If you are not sure, experiment with it yourself and then pick your preference. There is no point to keep debating here. There is no clear definition for "good enough." Something "good enough" for me is not necessarily good enough for you.

I still somehow prefere my film based darkroom printed B&W albums but I can get pretty good from digital.<div></div>

FWIW, "Fine Art" refers to any kind of art that requires highly developed techniques and skills. Some definitions refer

also to "art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility". I like to think that both definitions are welded

in the "Fine Art" concept. Just a thought.

You revealed your problem early in your first post. You are having black and white images printed on color paper. Those results have always been well below par for me. If you are going to scan negs invest in a half decent printer. I've gotten not bad results on a $150 printer and epson paper. Better equipment and materials will help yield better results but you need to develop skills just as you would in a darkroom. Good papers, enlargers and lenses will also help get good results in a wet darkroom but you still need to work up your skills. There's no better or worse, just different toolboxes.

 

Rick H.

Interesting discussion. The real question is "good enough" for what purpose. If the purpose is for personal enjoyment,

digital B&W is certainly 'good enough', it offers as much enjoyment and possibly gives less frustrations than darkroom

printing. Ditto if the work is for commercial assignments, magazine or newspaper advertisements, et.

 

However, if the work is for exhibition or selling as fine art, traditional darkroom prints have definite advantages that are

often overlooked. A good traditional B&W prints is a one-of-a-kind work of art representing the artist's true ability. Unlike

digital prints, which can be mass-produced by anybody using your file, a darkroom print cannot be exactly duplicated even

by yourself, let alone by another person. A more accomplished printer may make a better print from your negative, but

your darkroom prints are YOUR VERY OWN work.

Realize that the dynamic range of negative BW film is dramatically wider than our digital sensors. You can capture both deep shadows and bright highlights in a way that you can't using current digital cameras. So in a technical sense a digital BW image can not be made equal to a BW negative.

Go to the Yahoo group digitalblackandwhitetheprint and search the archives. It's the most knowledgable group of people I am aware of on this topic.

 

Many of them use a hybrid workflow of film capture (often large format) and digital printing.

I agree with Janne and Sun Dance. The camera sensors maybe for medium format digital can give you more dynamic range than the cameras mentioned in the question and that may be good enough. But only good input from the sensor can give you the range of gray that you need for wide latitude like B&W film. If they made a sensor tailored to B&W instead of color it could be just as good. If you are waiting to be able to get Ansel Adams results no its not going to be their yet.

 

I wonder if there is the equivalent in digital photography of the Zone system which made for exceptional B&W results with the chemical darkroom and spotmetering.

I won a photographic competition once with a color DSLR image that I desaturated to B&W and printed on my Canon

inkjet - it took me about 2 minutes all up. I only found out about the competition literally at the last minute

and had no time to properly prepare for it. I was told I won "hands down" - not because it was a hastily

printed digital B&W, but because of its content and impact on the viewer.

 

That said, I still shoot film - 35mm and 6X7, exclusively B&W and do my own developing and printing. The only

thing digital in my darkroom is the timer. My RB67 has no electronics or batteries. Why do I bother? Because I

enjoy the process. If I was doing B&W commercially I'd do it digitally. I recently took some photos of my niece

and her new daughter. Most were digital but some were B&W film. She already has the digital files but is

waiting with eager anticipation for the B&W prints. She said she loves B&W and for her to receive a genuine

darkroom print is something special. Others probably wouldn't care.

 

So in answer to your question, is digital B&W good enough? Probably "yes", but that won't stop me from shooting

film.

 

Cheers, Bob