Photo of the week: puzzle_me BW by Evgeniy Shaman

The current photo of the week is a b&w portrait. I would have put

money on it being shot on film but, no, it was taken on a D70. This

is one of the best b&w digital shots I have come across. I've never

been able to get a colour digital image to look this good in b&w,

even using PS channels etc.

 

This is quite important for me, because the only reason I haven't

switched entirely to digital is that I have seen nothing to convince

me that digital can replicate b&w film anywhere near adequately.

 

What do other people think?

I had exactly the same feeling you have when seeing this beautiful pow! I am as curieus as you are but have already noticed that most people remain silent when it comes to black and white PRINTS from digital camera's.That was the main reason why I went to the Photokina in Cologne.And even there I saw nothing that impressed me.The pictures that really hit my heart were the prints from Oscar Barnack's original negatives in the Leica stand.I didn't have time left to hold the digilux2 and oh no I didn't regret it at all !

So I am building my new wet darkroom since than and round december she will be finished!I am even thinking of printing colour prints as well...

kurt

It certainly is a nice image as it is but on another level it still lacks in being a convincing

imitatiion of the characteristics of B&W media.

 

The shadows are very blocked up with little to no detail present - a little more checking

indicates that the shadows are actually serverely clipped. I also find just looking at this

image it has the appearance of either digital or convertred slide with the skin tones being

more remenisent of digital conversions.

 

I have a number of converted slides and colour negs myself which sit along side traditional

B&W film (all in scanned form) in an image database. Just casually scrolling through pages

of 2" x 3" thumbnails, I find a very big difference between the general appearance of the

converted colour images versus the traditional B&W where the B&W, for lack of a better

technical discription, have a beauty and depth in the tonality that no other media

currently delivers.

 

my 2c worth...

Craig

I agree he's done a nice job, but it's still not the same. Digital has a narrower latitude, a shorter tonal scale, so you have to compromise somewhere. Usually, the compromise is that the dark tones drop off into black too soon and the image gets that inky look.

 

Some images convert very well to b&w from digital -- I've seen some nice prints done that way. But by and large, it's not going to look as good as a well-executed b&w film shot.

 

Above all, I like the texture of traditional film. I don't like that "grainless" look you get from digital (or even from C-41 films). Some people use software to simulate the grain structure, but it never looks very good -- it does look like film, but usually like badly exposed, badly developed film.

I must need a new monitor. The photog could tell me it's Agfa 100 and I'd believe him. Actually, unless I saw it and held it printed on fibre, he could tell me anything and I'd believe him.

Agree with Beau 100%, also the sole reason why I dropped digital.

 

Besides fixing is fun.;)

If he'd told me it was shot with a D70, I'd believe him.

Film or digital?

<center><img src=" http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2875446-lg.jpg"></center>

Film or digital?

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2875442-lg.jpg"></center>

Film or digital

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2875433-lg.jpg"></center>

Eric,

 

The question isn't whether one can identify in any picture what capture method was used (grant tends to push this fallacy in his arguments too).

 

The truth is that very few film images make the most of film's advantages. 80% of film images could have been done with similar results using digital.

 

That being said, there are b&w images that could not have been done with digital. That's the reason even guys like grant still shoot a lot of b&w film.

Eric~

 

Your images are at extremes - verging on either high key or low key at very small size. All

of this combined is going to make to make it difficult to identify as digital or film as you

have already limted the exposure lattitude presented. There is much more to the equation

than this, even though these are great images... :))

The shadows in that image are "blocked" and inky only because the photographer wants

them that way. There's no way the original capture looks like the photograph as

presented. The file was manipulated to give the photograph the look that it now has, and

could have been treated differently to extend the tonal range. It seems a moot point,

though, as even a film photographer could do the same thing. This was just a matter of

choice, and not a technical limitation.

 

Digital can give very beautiful B+W. It just doesn't "Equal" film. Not that it's better or worse

- it's just difficult to get it to look like the film-based results we're used to. Different,

though, doesn't mean 'inferior.' And, over time, instead of comparing digital to film,

Digital will eventually be the standard, and it'll be the other way around. Especially for the

newest generation(s), who will be more accustomed to seeing digital files than analog,

Film will eventually look 'wrong.'

"Especially for the newest generation(s), who will be more accustomed to seeing digital files than analog, Film will eventually look 'wrong.'"

 

I expect it to be just the opposite. The more "standard" digital images become, the more "special" film will look. Just like the saturation of synthesizers caused Hammond B-3's and Wurlitzer electric pianos to become so prized.

<i>there are b&w images that could not have been done with digital. </i><p>

 

It's true of the opposite also.

Eric,

 

They're all digital now....

Eric-

They're all digital.

"there are b&w images that could not have been done with digital."

 

"It's true of the opposite also."

 

No argument there. In fact, the sheer number of different things you can only do with digital will always be way more.

"They're all digital now...."

 

Exactly Bob. How anyone can make judgements from a digitized monitor is beyond me.

I agree entirely. I know that my analog pix suffer the tortures of the damned making the

transition to digital, because both my scanner and I suck....

 

No display device other than paper is going to be able to display the quality of even a 3MP

digital image either...

Eric said: "...How anyone can make judgements from a digitized monitor is beyond me."

 

That's what I took to be Eric's point in the first place, rather than the more subtle -- and via computer monitor at low res, indecipherable -- distinctions that are also being discussed (and discussed calmly and intellingently, I must say).

Intelligently, too.

I don't know about all of you, but I like to judge my own black and whites with a print, not on a monitor. Has anybody shot and printed black and white with a digital camera? and how does it look, compared with traditional methods? I really hope they don't look much alike, that way we, as photographers, have one more tool in our arsenal to create unique images. Why should digital look the same as traditional if traditional printing has made so very many great images throughout the years.

 

Anyway, just my opinion, but if I buy a tool, why would I want to replace it with another tool that acomplishes the same thing. I would want it to be different enough to avoid redundancy.

I have no beef with digital but I like film because I understand it.

Why digital is better for some type of snaps is easy to see. Both take a lot of work to be 'done right'.

 

I do believe that a B&W Leica neg printed with a Leitz enlarger and lens will remain King of the Hill for a long time.

 

I do have to get a scanner and will do so soon.

"I expect it to be just the opposite. The more "standard" digital images become, the more

"special" film will look. Just like the saturation of synthesizers caused Hammond B-3's and

Wurlitzer electric pianos to become so prized."

 

**

I think the 'newfound' fondness for B-3s and Wurlitzers is due to the failure of the various

attempts to simulate them with digital synthesizers and VSTi plug-ins. Because the

emulations have put those sounds in the hands of people who wouldn't normally use

them, there's a new popularity for the sounds, but afficianados 'need' the real deal.

 

But, i think the parallel may be more like the CD/Vinyl transition. Teenagers today grew up

with only CDs, and for them, the sound of a needle skipping over grooves, or the

accompanying 'pops' and such from a record are only quaint sound effects.

 

I hope i'm wrong, by the way. I hope the 'film look' remains cherished. Although i can be

objective about digital's positives, i still admit to a prejudice against it. At this point, i

would find unappealing the prospect of purchasing a 'fine art' photograph that i knew was

shot on digital. I still attach more value to traditional processes, even though i love

digital's immediacy and feedback....