Digital B&W vs. Silver process film

[ehaque]

I am wondering how does the b&w mode on digital cameras behave in

relation to b&w films? (e.g. Ilford HP5+)

 

As I understand these films are sensitive to the blue end of the

spectrum, and don't register the red end so much.

 

How does the digital cameras mimic this? or do all digital cameras

produce results similar to that of panchromatic film?

 

Plus I would like to know if any nikon or canon cameras such as

Coolpix 5700, 8700; Powershot G5, G6, do. And what about the dSLRs?

 

I'm looking for a moderately priced digital camera that will closely

mimic silver process films (except the panchromatic ones), in b&w mode.

 

I don't see any information about this anywhere.

[godfrey]

The best B&W photography using a digital camera is done by shooting in RGB color and

then using Photoshop or similar image processing software to mix the color channels

down to a B&W representation. There are various plug-ins and add-ons to Photoshop that

allow tailoring this channel mixing process to emulate various B&W film characteristic

appearance too.

 

Godfrey

[ehaque]

Ah, I knew it. Digital cannot imitate b&w film without a lot of post work.

 

Thanks for the reply. :)

[Spearhead]

<i>Digital cannot imitate b&w film without a lot of post work</i><p>

 

"A lot" is certainly not necessary, especially with the better plug-ins, unless you think three mouse clicks is "a lot".<p>

 

I'd recommend post-processing also rather than a b/w setting in the camera, but I've found with the G5 that it's certainly good enough for certain types of photos.<p>

 

<i>I don't see any information about this anywhere.

</i><p>

 

There's been plenty of posts about this here, just search the archives.

[ehaque]

I did search, nothing came up concerning the blue biased sensitivity of digital sensors.

 

So G5 renders the reds dark?

[andy_piper2]

The new Canon 20D has "filters" built-in (electronically) to simulate yellow, orange, etc. filters in its B&W mode. Also the upcoming Epson rangefinder. Others may as well.

 

My Digilux 2 in "B&W" mode uses a mix about equal to a channel mixer setting of 35R/55G/10B. In general it's a fair match for unfiltered B&W film. Better skies than unfiltered Tri-X; about equal (on average) to HP5+, a bit lighter than Pan F.

 

E.G. fine for photojournalistic reality, but not exactly Ansel Adams.

 

Colored filters over the lens generally have about the same effect as they do on film, perhaps a tad less. A 25a (red) on the Digilux seems more like a medium orange on film. That's based on VERY limited experiments, though.

[godfrey]

<i>"... Ah, I knew it. Digital cannot imitate b&w film without a lot of post work. ... "</i>

<br><br>

Digital capture is not film. It can emulate film in any way you want, but it cannot imitate it.

There is a difference. ;-)

<br><br>

It is also a different medium with different rules, behaviors, and responses to stimuli.

Expecting, desiring it to be the same is expressing a wish for something that cannot be.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[godfrey]

BTW, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ10 and Konica Revio KD500Z have a B&W mode which

does channel mixing in-camera in much the same way as the other poster suggested for

his camera.

 

Both produce images that look a lot like Kodak CN400T does, printed to a #2 grade paper,

when exposure is correct.

 

Godfrey

[klix]

Digital cannot imitate b&w film without a lot of post work...

 

And of course, b&w film does not require a lot of post-work....

[dante_stella]

Andy, I have not had the same experience with colored filters. I have found that DSLR shooting in b/w mode in with an orange filter actually results in blues being lighter - probably because digital cameras still care about color balance, and you have just created a situation in which there is no neutral-colored object. You have to shoot at negative exposure compensation, which is anything but intuitive.

 

With film cameras, it's been my experience that colored filters don't do a whole lot unless you combine them with changing the development. Cameras tend to do weird things when they filter through colored filters, and the filter factors manufacturers give you overcompensate and destroy the intended effect.

[johnlund]

Doesn't this issue really have more to do with paper, ink, and printers than in-camera settings?

[digitmstr]

There's no mimic to speak of: there are MANY emulsions, many chemicals, many papers and many B&W techniques in a wet darkroom. I did for some 30 years and I can't think of any ONE "process". There are grain enlarging soups, toners, etc... Dodgind, burning, contrast masks. It depends how far you take your B&W printing.

 

Having said that ALL of the above can be replicated in digital photography once you LEARN the medium. If you can't print in a wet darkroom it becomes immediately obvious in the resulting work. The good thing with digital is that your learning process is done in daylight in the fresh air and with immediate results.

 

Get to know DIGITAL medium, how it works, what it can do. Just like you SHOULD know your film, paper and soups. Then, take the time to experiment, experiment and then, experiment some more.

 

The "I knew it" comment is a bit silly so, I'll let it go at that...

[ehaque]

Thanks all, but I think most of you are missing my point. I asked how digital cameras manage to respond to the blue-end and the red-end of the spectrum differently like non-pan film does, where red appears very dark.

<p>

The question is: Does blue sky appear black when you use a red filter with the b&w mode? OR, Does a red hat or shirt appear black (with no filter)?

<p>

See this: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/pss00030.htm">http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/pss00030.htm</a>

[luis_bascones]

"Does blue sky appear black when you use a red filter with the b&w mode? OR, Does a red hat or shirt appear black (with no filter)?"

 

Well, there is probably an answer to that for every camera model out there.

 

Digital sensors don't see in color (not yet - the few that do suck at it). They simply have individual filters to make specific pixels sensors sensitive to a corresponding color (RGB), and they are physically arranged following a bayer distribution. Internal algorithms combine the information of clusters of adjacent pixel to build color information.

 

In-camera software filters will be as good as the software written to implement them. You could potentially have a library of filters and color-sensitivity curves in every camera to simulate every film and filter combination available, but this would be silly besides missing the whole point.

 

The beauty of digital is that you can keep *all* the information captured by the camera, and later decide the type of filtering to use, the type of color-sensitivity curve, and the type of grain. This would be equivalent to first taking the photo, and later later being able to decide the filter and film that would would have been the best choice. Not only that - you are not limited by the currently availiable gamut of films/filters, you get to create your own according to your specific vision. You do it interactively, or by batch processing the digital files. It will be *your* choice.

 

Of course, digital has it's own set of limitations - some of them roughly equivalent to those of film.

 

Digital is a complete shift of mindset from film - and that is no exageration. Just like all media, you need to understand it and learn how to use it well before getting results that you like. *BUT* once you get there, the possibilities are mind-boggling.

 

Don't bother comparing film vs. digital, they are just too different. They use different languages, technologies, and skillsets.

 

I know it's hard leaving the comfort of what you know well and are good at, and having to learn something completely new. You most likely do it at some point - just do it when you are ready and do it with an open mind.

 

Good luck,

 

-LuisB