Black & White -- Which Cameras?

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Any camera.! . . . . . A good b/w image, coming out, . . . NOT . . . from . . . the . . . . camera, . . . it is happen in your imagination, in your eyes, in your brain, your visualization, you technical knowledge, and artistic talent. Camera is the first step to the tower.</p>

<p>Best regards; Bela L Molnar</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>How about a Holga?<br>

;)</p>

<div></div>

[bob_king2]

<p>Sometimes I use my Panasonic FZ8 set to B&W. It has a filter adapter that takes 52mm filters - I have a set of yellow, orange, red and green. When using the filters I can see immediately what effect they will have by the live view on the LCD screen and have produced some nice images. I can do much the same thing with my Canon 40D. Mostly, though, I use RAW capture on my DSLR or real B&W film in 35mm or 6x7. </p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[bms]

<p>Bill,</p>

<p>another vote for the LX3 - or in my case D-LUX 4. I usually shoot RAW and then convert but it does pu out nice out of the box JPGs if need be. If computing power is an issue, I would not recommend 14 MB RAW files from a D700 to be converted with PS and I enve really liked the BW JPGs the Nikons produce..... they look flat to me... I would assume Canon is not much better, but I have not tried it.</p>

<p>Ben</p><div></div>

[Sanford]

<p>Nikon D300 has a good B&W mode with simulated filters and many shades of tinting.</p><div></div>

[Sanford]

<p>This is an from old Olympus 5060 in sepia mode. This mode contains red, yellow and magenta so there is some light and dark control using these three colors.</p><div></div>

[starvy]

<p>bill, as it is evident from above, some of the modern offerings from panasonic in particular as well as ricoh and perhaps nikon too can produce acceptable jpeg black and white images. if you are capturing raw, then any dslr should produce a high iq image that you could then manipulate in photoshop. if you have access to it, try the sigma dp1 as well. it produces some very interesting results.</p>

<p>if you have never shot film, i do think that it is well worth experimenting with this medium. personally, i prefer black and whites from film. the contrast and grain can be recreated in photoshop, however, i find the negatives much more fun to scan and then manipulate. if you don't have a film camera, pick up an olympus om range or perhaps a working minolta srt. the prices have come down quite a bit on these and then compare the results. do post some here!</p>

[Brad_]

<p>Jeeez.... Just about any camera. Here's a snap from my 2001 vintage sony point-n-shoot...</p>

<p><img src="http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images39/chinatown.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I am afraid that I have to agree with Edward on film vs DSLR B&W. Comparing a Canon 5DII and Epson 2880 printer output to a film based B&W image for example a Canon F1N or EOS 1V using Ilford FP100 and processing in a wet dark room still shows that digital has a way to go in B&W. This is not a comment on resolution but on the tonal range and quality fo the output. Obviously if I shoot film and want to digitize it I get a similar quality of output to a DSLR. Indeed if I scan with my Nikon 5000 ED scanner I beleive that the DSLR image is better as I have found that B&W does not scan as well as colour - at least with the Nikon which is regarded as being one of the best scanners until you get into drum scanning and certainly costs more than a Digital Rebel. It is just a personal preference and I think the real difference is due to printing the digital image verses the wet process. Digital printing and papers are getting better so I expect that the film advantage will disappear over time. Digital has the advantage of conveneince and the ability to do a lot more post processing - while you can do a lot in a wet darkroom you ultimately have a easier time working with pixels. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>To reiterate, you have not done real B&W photography or weren't very good at it. A trip to The Art Institute in Chicago (or somewhere) might be enlightening.</p>

[dan_kreithen]

<p>OK, well I'm not claiming that I could ever print like Weston. But thank you for your undoubtedly expert opinion. You can crawl back under your bridge, now.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Anyone who says a digital conversion is as good as B&W film can't be speaking from experience, at least skilled experience, unless convenience is the only consideration.]]</p>

<p>Yeah, I'm sure Brooks Jensen doesn't know what he's talking about at all, does he Edward? </p>

<p> </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>a film camera. but one can do excellent work with photoshop, also, attached is a conversion using channels in photoshop</p><div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Brooks Jensen is a recent convert to inkjet printing, and says little about digital capture. Printing is the weak link in the photographic work flow with a dynamic range much smaller than that of any capture medium, film or digital, ranging from about 3 stops for color and perhaps 5 stops for B&W.</p>

<p>That's less of a problem than it might seem, because film compresses the dynamic range of nature into a much smaller space (digital sensors are inherently linear). Skill in the darkroom (or Photoshop) is needed to render even this reduced range on a print. Many of the techniques discussed in "The Making of 40 Prints" by Ansel Adams apply equally to digital processing. However, if it's not on the film (or image), you can't put it on a print.</p>

<p>You can come pretty close to B&W film with medium format digital. This example was taken with an Hasselblad CFV back on a July day in Winnetka, Illinois. Notice that the windows and doors are not simply black holes, and interior details are clearly visible, nor are any highlights blown. The image was rendered with Tri-X tonality, emulating a red filter.</p><div></div>

[Troll]

<p>What does that have to do with answering my original question?</p>

[godfrey]

<p>Edward,<br /> <br /> Brooks Jensen has been working with digital capture using a Sony R1 for a couple of years at least and switched over to inkjet printing, closed down the LensWork silver gelatin processing lab and turned over to inkjet printing about 2005-2006 IIRC. A great deal of the work he's been selling was printed with an Epson 4000 printer, which was recently replaced with a pair of R4880s. During my two visits to LensWork in 2008 (I participated in two of his workshops there), we had many excellent discussions of his capture and printing methodology, and his views on the subject of monochrome rendering from digital capture and print quality. <br /> <br /> I don't presume to speak for Brooks personally, but I assure you that my understanding of his evaluations of B&W photography with digital capture and inkjet printing differ widely from yours, and much more in alignment with my experiences. <br /> <br /> The great watershed in B&W print quality was passed in the past couple of years with the release of today's superb fine art papers from Ilford, Epson, Hahnemühle, Harman and others, coupled with the excellent Epson K3 inks. It is now easily possible to exceed anything B&W (or color) printing in the wet lab could do in terms of dynamic range, gamut and permanence. That is simply a fact. Cameras have been able to exceed 35mm B&W film for some time, and were near traditional medium format film several years ago, with respect to dynamic range and tonal capture. That's a fact as well, reported and supported by many tests and reviews on the web and in print. And by my own experience as a fine art photographer. <br /> <br /> Godfrey <br /> <br /> <em>I invite you to see my work at the Center for Fine Art Photography in Fort Collins, Colorado this month. I have two pieces in the "Negative Space" exhibit. A gallery is available online: </em><br /> <a href="http://www.c4fap.org/" target="new1"><strong><em>Center For Fine Art Photograph</em> - www.c4fap.org</strong></a></p>

[john_lovelace]

<p>Show me a digital configuration -- diddled-with or not -- that will beat my Leica M6 loaded with Ilford. But the above discussion piqued my interest in trying B&W JPEG extraction from RAW in my Canon digital. As for the immediate prior response, if you want Tri-X tonality, shoot Tri-X.</p>

[robert lee]

<p>It's already been mentioned that B&W film has greater dynamic range than small format digital. It's good to keep in mind that the same B&W film can be made to have a much smaller capture dynamic range as well. </p>

<p>Through appropriate choices in exposure and development, a scene with just a stop or two of brightness can be made to exercise the full density excursion of the negative. So, a 16bit scan can actually give a full 16bits of precision. In digicam terms, this means the option of getting a fully fleshed out histogram rather than a single spike even when shooting a frame of an evenly lit white wall.</p>

<p>Placement of tonality is a major consideration in B&W photography. Film provides this additional axis of control. Practically, use LF or a MF camera with changeable backs.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>What does that have to do with answering my original question?</em></p>

<p>Threads evolve. New questions arise.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>if you want Tri-X tonality, shoot Tri-X.</em></p>

<p>This was an useful exercise. If you want to understand digital B&W, learn how B&W responds to color and light. How better than by emulation? If you have an example from your M6, post it. I have a Leica, and more than a mile of Tri-X has passed through it. Perhaps I'll learn something.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>Godrfrey - Was that photo taken with the Panasonic L1?</p>

[godfrey]

<p>Hello Sanford, <br /> <br /> Which photo are you referring to? The photo I embedded into one of my earlier responses to this thread was made with a Panasonic LX1.</p>

<p>My photos currently hanging in The Center For Fine Art Photography <em>"Negative Space"</em> exhibit include: <br /> <br /> <img src="http://www.gdgphoto.com/200901-C4FAP-NS/GDG-NS-01-3213.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br /> made with a Pentax *ist DS and Pentax-A lens (can't remember which lens, unfortunately), and <br /> <br /> <img src="http://www.gdgphoto.com/200901-C4FAP-NS/GDG-NS-04-1070777.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br /> made with the Panasonic L1 fitted with Olympus ZD 25mm f/2.8 lens. <br /> <br /> best,<br /> Godfrey</p>

[dan_kreithen]

<p>Hi John -</p>

<p>Well, here's one combination that, I'm sorry to say, will beat the M6. At least it beats my M6 + 35m Summicron in all meaningful respects except size, volume (sound and otherwise), weight, and the very extremes of dynamic range. In low light, there is no contest, no contest at all. Other manufacturers produce similar if not equivalent equipment.<br>

Before you have a knee-jerk reaction to what I just said, give it a try...really. Rent it or something. Then decide.</p><div></div>

[Sanford]

<p>I was asking about the last one you referred to. I still have a desire for one of these Panasonics for some reason and one recently became available at a local store. It's being sold as used with a warranty but looks flawless and comes packed in a Panasonic brown box (refurbished?) with everything including the zoom. They are asking $575.00. I hope they sell it to someone else before I can no longer resist! The last thing I need to do is to invest in a new system...</p>

[john_lovelace]

<p>One of my fellow Leica-shooters above invites me to post a sample; the other says his D700/Zeiss will beat his own M6+35mm Summicron or my M6+50MM Summicron in low light any time. Could be. Here's best I could come up from files on short notice. Hope this is all helpful to Bill, the original questioner.</p><div></div>