Is digital B&W "good enough"?

[philip_maus]

I continue to shoot film (and a little digital when I really want color; just so I can say that I do shoot

digital on some level), with film I shoot exclusively B&W. I have a scanner and also an enlarger/darkroom setup,

so I can choose how I want to process. Digital post-processing and printing is somewhat easier, whether it's a

scanned negative or a DNG from the camera, but there is definitely a learning curve there too, if you want to get

really good at it.

 

More and more, I have been wet printing instead of scanning, postpssg and inkjetting, because I enjoy the process

of wet printing in the darkroom. I feel like I get a nicer, higher quality print when there is no digital

anything in the workflow, but as someone said earlier, it is probably not because the process is so much better

(or even that I'm better at it) it's because it's something I made myself, in the traditional way with simple

materials and processes.

 

And one more plus, I paid about $175 total for everything I needed to set up the darkroom including the enlarger

on "C's" list - definitely one of the perks of everyone going digital -and when I really do manage to get a good

optical B&W print, I bet I'd have to have 10x that amount of money invested in inkjet hardware and other digital

necessities to get a digital/inkjet print that could rival the quality of my optical print.

 

Oh, and I also love using classic mechanical, nothing battery operated but the meter cameras too.

[steve_mareno]

Getting good results in B&W (film) requires a series of steps, and if any of them are suspect you won't get good results. I think your scanner is good enough. Next is a good B&W film, and Tri-X is the classic film for B&W. At least I like it. Then you need good, no, great lenses. I like Nikons for their high contrast, but my Leicas are the better choice in every way for B&W. Then you need a proper way to print your images, and this is the really crucial part. If you are sending out to a lab you may want to try the glossy paper instead of the matte. It has more punch. Or, what I do is print on an old Epson 1280 printer using the black ink cartridge only filled w/ MIS Eboni Black Ink on Epson Velvet Fine Art paper or something similar. This is what separates the men from the boys (or the girls from the women). Printing B&W. If you have the temperament for it it's the only way to go. Otherwise send it out, but you lose control that way too.

 

It's a hard road getting excellent B&W. Harder than most people think and certainly harder than color. But it's worth it.<div></div>

[philip_wilson]

The question of good enough can only be answered by you. If you are happy it is good enough. I shoot lots of film which I process wet and with a Nikon scanner. I also shoot some digital and have a 5D MarkII on order. To be honest I prefer the results of a film / wet process to a film / scan or an all digital. The wet process gives a different result which I prefer although it is not really much cheaper as you can use a few sheets of paper to get the print you really want. The advantage of all wet (especially with a good enlarger) is the ability to fine tune the results. I know that I will draw fire for this comment but somehow the wet process allows me to get a more natural result than I can manage in Photoshop. Somehow my B&W always looks slightly processed if I try and fine tune. Others do not spot it but I know about it!. Scanning B&W film even with a Nikon film scanner never gives me the results of the wet process. It produces fine photographs but they are not the same - I think it is the contrast and dynamic range that causes the differences. Similarly all digital does not work like all film / wet. Of course I am not necessarily comparing like with like as much of my wet work is shot with a Fuji GX680 Mark III which is a gem of a camera and produces 6x8 negatives and has full LF type movements and very high quality lenses. Somehow my Canon Film and Digital SLRs - even with an extensive array of L series glass cannot compare. I guess one advantage of the wet process is that you can have a pretty big "sensor" My Omega enlarger does up to 4x5 but even with the Fuji my negative is over 5x the size of 35mm / Full frame and almost 13x the size of canon APS-C.

 

The simple answer is do what makes you happy - all digital is fast and convenient and allows for lots of post processing to "imporve" the original photo, film scanning works well but probably is a bit of the worst of both worlds as you still need to do wet work as most labs leave tiny scratches on a negative that show up on the scan. Since digital ICE does not work with real B&W film you have to fix them manually or process the film yourself. All wet allows the use of LF and MF cameras and produces a smug sense of satisfaction (and sometimes a lot of frustration). It takes years to get good in the darkroom but in my view is worth the effort.

[lex_jenkins]

Folks, those of you who know I'm also the moderator of the b&w forums on photo.net know I have no biases or agendas regarding the film and digital tools. I use both and enjoy both.

 

Having followed literally hundreds of similar discussions over the years, my instincts tell me this particular thread has gone about as far as it can go constructively. Once seemingly innocuous digression occurs (such as uploading photos taken with non-Nikon equipment on a Nikon Forum), some folks with axes to grind and skewed agendas will take it as an invitation to hijack the conversation and turn it away from the original objective.

 

I understand that moderator decisions to close threads seem a bit heavy handed at times. And it's always potentially risky decision to take. But take a look at this thread in another forum to see an example of what usually happens when an otherwise constructive thread is permitted to ramble long past its peak:

 

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00ROOo

 

Thanks to everyone here for keeping this thread on the Nikon Forum constructive. As far as I know we haven't had to edit or delete a single post. But it does seem like a good time to go out on top before it becomes yet another has-been champion who doesn't know when to retire.