Has Fake Digital Black and White Gotten Better Than Tradional?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NickTrop said:
Your slightly hostile reaction is evidence that your perception of these samples is psychological and a placebo-ish effect on your part. Your devotion has affected your perception. It's okay... not judging. We all do this (though I've done this mostly with women I've dated, who looked better "at the time" and then thought "what was I thinking..." later on... as opposed to imaging technology choices...) If these prints came off your enlarger, you'd be happy with them. (I would be...) You would have gone through many dollars worth of expensive wasted paper to get there. You are looking for blown highlights and you are looking for "plastic-y skin tones" - and finding them, which are usually a function of over-aggressive noise reduction which wasn't used on these photos. If these photos were shot on film you wouldn't be looking for blown highlights and the skin tones would be smooth. You also would probably embarrass yourself if I spread out a bunch of prints - some digital, some traditional, and asked you to sort them out.

Again - not judging. We all do this when we're committed to an idea, technology, methodology that has been or is in the process of being supplanted by something new.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, they look digital. Hard shadows, hard highlights, and flat midtones. Do you forget that you're talking to people who have worked hard on their photography, and made this determination to their satisfaction?

Yours is the only wishful thinking going on here. Do you think anyone would shoot film if digital could do what film does well as well as it does it?

I certainly would, but it doesn't, as you see.
 
-doomed- said:
Nick,
I don't personally find one better than the other. I think digital makes for clean smooth images. I like that black and white film has it's own charms that people like.
It appears you like to analyze peoples responses for your amusement and to kill some time and posit your theories.
If nothing else these posts give some sort of mild entertainment value when a bunch of people take the film vs. digital taste test.
Click to expand...

I think this is of value or I wouldn't have taken the time to respond. Many of us are delivering files or prints to people who pay serious money for our work. A while back during a digital shoot, I went to use the head. The AD was in the stall on his cell phone talking to some one about a French Fashion Photographer who was shooting 8 x 10 film. This kid had never seen 8 x10 film. He thought it was amazing and worth the $6K/day for this guy. I would ask anyone here to compare a Creo scan of a properly exposed 8 x 10 chrome to any "camera generated" digital capture.. If you haven't seen this kind of thing you are in for a big smile.
 
NickTrop said:
Your slightly hostile reaction is evidence that your perception of these samples is psychological and a placebo-ish effect on your part. Your devotion has affected your perception. It's okay... not judging. We all do this (though I've done this mostly with women I've dated, who looked better "at the time" and then thought "what was I thinking..." later on... as opposed to imaging technology choices...) If these prints came off your enlarger, you'd be happy with them. (I would be...) You would have gone through many dollars worth of expensive wasted paper to get there. You are looking for blown highlights and you are looking for "plastic-y skin tones" - and finding them, which is usually a function of over-aggressive noise reduction which wasn't used on these photos. If these photos were shot on film you wouldn't be looking for blown highlights and the skin tones would be smooth. You also would probably embarrass yourself if I spread out a bunch of prints - some digital, some traditional, and asked you to sort them out.

Again - not judging. We all do this when we're committed to an idea, technology, methodology that has been or is in the process of being supplanted by something new. What if I thought a lot of film prints look "muddy" and dull and grainy? I would find muddiness and dullnes and grain in all film prints. That's what I would be setting out to find in every photo that I thought was shot on film if I was trying to "make a case". I would be incapable of objectivity and instead be defending my choice of methodology or ideology - or both.
Click to expand...

You keep saying , I'm not judging as though you aren't convinced .
Reading your comments , you are judging which is totally fine and part of being human. In this case I am judging because I am reading your strange psychoanalysis of forum readers.

You should have called it the NickTrop film v. Digital taste test.
subhead: Bet you cant tell which is which and the test is rigged , or is it?

This theme persists in most of your posts.

I am judging here .


PKR said:
I think this is of value or I wouldn't have taken the time to respond. Many of us are delivering files or prints to people who pay serious money for our work. A while back during a digital shoot, I went to use the head. The AD was in the stall on his cell phone talking to some one about a French Fashion Photographer who was shooting 8 x 10 film. This kid had never seen 8 x10 film. He thought it was amazing and worth the $6K/day for this guy. I would ask anyone here to compare a Creo scan of a properly exposed 8 x 10 chrome to any "camera generated" digital capture.. If you haven't seen this kind of thing you are in for a big smile.
Click to expand...

In your example were talking about making money and larger format, which based upon Nick's other posts contained within is not the issue at hand.
 
Last edited:
@Doomed/PKR - I specifically stated that digital black and white is not nearly as good as medium or large format film. God no. I am referring specifically to small format here.
 
I don't know where I stand on the B&W film versus B&W digital debate, All I know is :

Using my Hasselblad and Fuji GW690III shoot almost exclusively B&W. (some Velvia)
Using my M6 I shoot almost exclusively B&W.
Using my 5D2 I shoot almost exclusively colour.

I'm quite happy to develop C41 and E6 myself, so its not just about the souping - I think it is an unconscious prejudice on my part....In fact I've been thinking that for a while, which is why I bought some Ektar for the Fuji and 'Blad last week.

Also when shooting digital I usually shoot colour as I think 'I can 'make' this B&W later if I want..'

As to quality, for sure, I've taken shots with my 5D2 that, when converted to B&W are superior (In a variety of different ways) to 35mm B&W film shots I have taken with my M6, but also vice versa. I'd agree that sometimes its also very difficult to tell the difference, and at other times there is a gulf.....

...and just to add to my own happy confusion, some of my favourite shots are ones I have taken in Colour with a Hasselblad 120/4 Makro Planar on the front of my 5D2 :)
 
Doomed.. am I missing something? I told a quick story about a non 35mm format.. would it help if I said it was shot on a custom Linhof 8x10 with an attached range finder.. so critical..
 
PKR said:
Doomed.. am I missing something? I told a quick story about a non 35mm format.. would it help if I said it was shot on a custom Linhof 8x10 with an attached range finder.. so critical..
Click to expand...
Yes you are missing something ,
Nick also clarified what I had restated in similar terms . Digital black and white and 35mm. Not medium or Large format or rangefinder specific.

NickTrop said:
@Doomed/PKR - I specifically stated that digital black and white is not nearly as good as medium or large format film. God no. I am referring specifically to small format here.
Click to expand...
Nick I hadn't missed your point about it being small format. PKR has clearly missed that point.
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
@Doomed/PKR - I specifically stated that digital black and white is not nearly as good as medium or large format film. God no. I am referring specifically to small format here.
Click to expand...

Geeze.. It was just a comment.. How about a Sinar with a P25 back.. Phase files will convert to b+w too

p.
 
PKR said:
Geeze.. It was just a comment.. How about a Sinar with a P25 back.. Phase files will convert to b+w too

p.
Click to expand...


The whole thread is another go at small format digital vs small format film.
One of Nick's weird psycho analytical threads.
 
Incidentally, Doomed... FWIW - the first three posts were taken with a used 6 megapixel digicam that has a tiny 1/1/7" sensor that cost $70, shipped. That doesn't buy a Leica lens cap. Why do I mention this? Because had these photos been taken with a certain camera with a red dot, that placebo effect would kick in (for some, not saying you...) and folks would be raving about the creamy skin tones and "glow".

In fact, I might just sign up to a Leica forum somewhere and post these for fun. Say they were taken with my new MP...
 
-doomed- said:
Yes you are missing something ,
Nick also clarified what I had restated in similar terms . Digital black and white and 35mm. Not medium or Large format or rangefinder specific.


Nick I hadn't missed your point about it being small format. PKR has clearly missed that point.
Click to expand...

A phase P25 (or 40) is 6 x4.5.. so compare to 6 x 4.5 film. The newer back is 40 MP.. it still has the same digital artifacts as does Nikon D3x or Canon .. and film still looks like film. What's the problem?
 
NickTrop said:
Incidentally, Doomed... FWIW - the first three posts were taken with a used 6 megapixel digicam that has a tiny 1/1/7" sensor that cost $70, shipped. That doesn't buy a Leica lens cap. Why do I mention this? Because had these photos been taken with a certain camera with a red dot, that placebo effect would kick in (for some, not saying you...) and folks would be raving about the creamy skin tones and "glow".

In fact, I might just sign up to a Leica forum somewhere and post these for fun. Say they were taken with my new MP...
Click to expand...


If thats what gets you by man ....
I don't own Leica glass , but my CV glass does the same thing as most of the Leica glass for hundreds and even thousands less. I shoot with my M4-P and film because I like rangefinders. I also use digital and dont spend all this time worrying which is better than the other -- I've got better things to do with my than obsess over what looks better or the placebo effect.
I like photography, I don't care what it's produced with. If the content sucks who cares how great or smooth and clear a photo is. A bad sharp photo will always be bad ,where a great somewhat out of focus and grainy photo will always be great.

Why psycho analyze forum readers ?
I'm sure you are probably a well educated and intriguing person outside of this need to figure people out.

PKR said:
A phase P25 (or 40) is 6 x4.5.. so compare to 6 x 4.5 film. The newer back is 40 MP.. it still has the same digital artifacts as does Nikon D3x or Canon .. and film still looks like film. What's the problem?
Click to expand...
Were not talking about 645 which seems to be med. format.
The thread is specifically small format.

I agree that film still looks like film, no argument there.
 
Last edited:
Here ya go... Which one is film? Which one is digital? Or are they both film? or are they both digital? Betchya can't tell. And even if you can, does it matter?

n1150326236_30088843_377.jpg


n1150326236_30058651_9071.jpg
 
NickTrop said:
Incidentally, Doomed... FWIW - the first three posts were taken with a used 6 megapixel digicam that has a tiny 1/1/7" sensor that cost $70, shipped. That doesn't buy a Leica lens cap. Why do I mention this? Because had these photos been taken with a certain camera with a red dot, that placebo effect would kick in (for some, not saying you...) and folks would be raving about the creamy skin tones and "glow".
Click to expand...

Keep hoping.
 
Nick,

I don't care what you shot them with.

Perhaps you really are a talented MSpainter and they aren't even photos just artfully crafted MS paint files.
 
- Oops, give away. Maybe the first photo isn't such a good choice. Isn't that a blown highlight in the background there on the right side of the fence near the street? See it? - before and after the tree? - Or is this the film one and I'm playin' witchya? Nah, can't be cuz the highlight is blown? Is it? Or are they both film? Or are they both digital?
 
digital makes you lazy but it is faster, to be sure. is it a fait accompli or just acceptance of a new standard of mediocrity? painters once (still?) scoffed at photography as an art form; do we go backwards and scoff and declare digital the same or see it as a new (?) turn in media expression and image reproduction, idea transmission and art? digital does make new art and has all but eliminated the editing room floor and cut and paste work ethic. it is just different and hasn't quite got the reso right yet. but it will, no doubt. when someone can develop pixels in random worm shapes then we're done, i reckon.

-dd
 
-doomed- said:
Nick,

I don't care what you shot them with.

Perhaps you really are a talented MSpainter and they aren't even photos just artfully crafted MS paint files.
Click to expand...

:eek: Wah!!! What a COP OUT!!! What a wuss! LOL. C'mon sir - you of oh so trained eyeballs that you can zero in on a pic and (snap) tell the plastic-y look of those nasty inferior digital black and whites vs. film black and white... Put up or shut up. :p

At least one person had the testical fortitute to guess thus far.
 
I'm going to say they are MS paint files that you arranged bit by bit to end up with photoesque bitmap files that you then saved as JPG's just to screw with us all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top