M8 and B&W

[alan_simon]

I hope that this has not been asked and answered before, but...

 

I want to use my M8 in B&W mode with results approximating Tri-X.

 

Any advice as to settings: EV, contrast, etc?

 

And what about post processing? (I shoot DNG + JPEG/fine.) Capture One-what

settings? Go right to PS-what settings to start?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Al

[neilambrose]

<p>You won't get Tri-X results straight out the camera. But you can get a very good approximation of it through post-processing. I've used the M8 to shoot a lot of material <a href="http://36photos.org">(link)</a> designed to look like Tri-X, with realistic approximations of tonality, grain, contrast, etc.</p>

 

<p>I found that out of camera the blacks aren't black enough. But shooting high contrast isn't the solution as the whites blow out too easily. So I shoot with zero exposure compensation, standard contrast, and make all my adjustments to the DNG file in post-processing.</p>

[aplumpton]

For what it's worth, I am carrying a 2nd film body (Voiglander or Leica)

together with the M8, in order to reproduce on film those shots that I care most

about when using the M8 for B/W output (whether using the M8 B/W setting or

the normal colour setting, to be desaturated and modified later using PS

Elements). In time, and with different post exposure experimental

manipulations, I hope to find those conditions that will give best simulation of

what I have been achieving in film base photography.

 

These experiments might take a while, but eventually I am sure that I will not

need to worry about a B/W film comparison shot, as the M8 and post-

exposure procedure will then be "calibrated". This excludes, of course,

situations where I will be employing film as my primary medium, instead of

using the M8.

[funkag]

If you want tri-x, give Alienskin Exposure a try. You can download a free trial that will last 30 days, but then wait for Version II to come out in the fall - they are supposedly adding lots of new film types to the mix.

[marek_fogiel]

Arthur,

I would be very much interested to know how to turn a digital shot into a B&W of a quality that can challenge film, it would save me lots of time and money. So far, I have tried this and that, and my conclusion is, that the digital simply has an insufficient bit depth to challenge b&w film - it is likely to get better as we move to 16 bits, and beyond... Perhaps some MF digital backs are geting close... Keep us posted please...

[carbon_dragon]

My own experimentation showed me I could produce Black and white from digital shots that was just as good as my Tri-X shots as far as I could tell. Maybe it was my scanner quality letting me down, but I tried taking several shots with a decent quality digital (Konica Minolta 5D) vs. my M2 and Tri-X and then tried to get the digital looking similar to the Tri-X. It didn't look identical, but it certainly wasn't worse, especially when HDR (high dynamic range) tricks were used.

[aplumpton]

Perhaps one of the problems we have is that apart from camera and film or

camera and sensor + software, there are other links in the chain that will make

a comparison difficult. For instance, if we scan to digital, the scanner wil have

its effect, perhaps negative unless it is a dedicated super quality one. If we

compare film + enlargement via silver base printing, it may be that all that we

will compare will be the digital print versus the silver base one. The monitor is

out for sure, as it has a degrading effect. Apart from overall impressions of

tonality, obtainable perhaps at low enlargement ratios, prints of 11 x 14 or

greater are needed to make giood comparisons.

 

Whatever links we choose to use betwen the camera (M8 or film M) and the

final print, it will have to be faultless, or it will enter into the comparison and

affect the results.

 

Perhaps some more thought is needed here? What do you think, Marek,

David Neil, Greg, Alan? I will be back at my mac on Sunday after a holiday, to

reap your words of wisdom.

[jtk]

There's a fair amount of good B&W on TV. Why spend $5000 to simulate it?

[marek_fogiel]

I have made an experiment, shooting a simple side window portrait of my daughter with digital (Fuji S3) and with a FM3A and XP2, and Hasselblad and BW400CN. The digital shot on an A3+ print looks cleaner and almost sharper than on 35mm film, and looks still a little bit cleaner, but less sharp than on a 6X6. However, the visual effect goes to film, there is simply better tonality, even from a 35mm XP2 than from digital, and also, even though it wasn't a high contrast shot, you can perceive some difficulty with which the digital renders the highlights. Mind you, Fuji S3 has the best DSLR sensor for dynamic range, so I think it can only be worse with other cameras. I have read some comments from MF digi back users, that apparently there is better tonality and dynamic range coming from latest Phase One backs, but I have no direct experience with this.

[asher]

Sounds like a whole lot of trouble for an unsatisfactory solution. If you want gritty tri-x film

character in your prints, shoot Tri-X. Use digital for what it excels at. The two media are not

mutually exclusive.