why do we have a digital b&w thread?

jan normandale said:
pixel counting, lens critiquing all have little to do with photography and yet everything. Mostly photography is about a personal interpretation of a moment as seen by a photographer. Some use digital, some pin hole, some toy cameras, some use large, format, some 35mm. Then there's the image quality from the source and finally "the print"

Most people have no idea how a photographer made a photograph until they are told. Enjoy the image, that's what this game is about.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I wonder if many younger folks have seen a physical print?

I have tried to see prints at exhibition-- but not lately.

I do have prints made from my files, and give some away or trade, but I do not see many prints made by others.

In my own criticism, I don't physically get out as much as I used to.

Regards, John
 
Roger,

In your view, is there a practical combination of digital equipment, technique, paper that yields what you would classify as a truly fine exibition quality B&W print, extant?

Or are we still shooting at the moving target of "As good as it gets"?

Regards, John
 
Godfrey said:
There're two kinds of statistics: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Click to expand...

Godfrey,

Found your technical analysis of digital in your longer post to be of interest.

I do not know if I am waiting now for further technical development of practical gear I might employ, or for me to develop "the" technique to make a fine B&W print from a file that I would hang on my wall.

Regards, John
 
Going back to the OP question "why do we have a digital b&w thread?" I'm inclined to answer because it is easier to discuss similar questions than going out and shoot a good B&W, film or digital :D
robert
PS: do not take it too seriously, please....
 
i think we have a digital b&w thread because there are some here who produce great work digitally and others here that appreciate it and want to view it as part of a community.
 
JohnTF said:
Roger,

In your view, is there a practical combination of digital equipment, technique, paper that yields what you would classify as a truly fine exibition quality B&W print, extant?

Or are we still shooting at the moving target of "As good as it gets"?

Regards, John
Click to expand...
Dear John,

I do not know enough to answer.

Most of the good digital prints I have seen on manufacturers' stands have been of subjects with short tonal ranges, probably because they're easiest to make.

The principal exception is a process whose name I always forget (EDIT: remembered: Piezography), which uses special software and inks and gives wonderful rich matte prints that do not look like any silver halide print I have ever seen. They're beautiful, but more different from halide than an engraving is from an etching.

Cheers

R.
 
back alley said:
i think we have a digital b&w thread because there are some here who produce great work digitally and others here that appreciate it and want to view it as part of a community.
Click to expand...

That's how I understood it. The film only guys wouldn't except digital B&W without commenting on its inferiority, so the thread needed to differentiate between the two.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Perhaps it's a highly selective version of Sturgeon's Law, that 90% of anything is crap.

90% of digi B&W is crap.

90% of halide B&W was crap, so only the people who were reasonably good at it stayed with halide. As as result, maybe only 75% of current halide is crap.

On top of this, there's more and more digi B&W, and less and less halide B&W, so even if it remained at 90% crap for both, we'd be seeing more and more digi B&W crap, simply because we see more and more digi B&W.


Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Dear Roger,

That's a lot of crap.

Cheers.
 
Blimey. It just occured to me that I have no idea what (thread) you guys talk about. I thought this was our weekly, bog-standard film vs. digital thread.
 
"Originally Posted by PatrickCheung

These are so so awful..."

I do not want to sound like I am trying to pick at anyone, but, if we look at the technical quality of these photos, then to me they ARE awful. Apart from this, there are some nice faces there, but the effect is substantially deteriorated by the horrible tonality.

But I am not a Supreme Judge, and if others like it this way, there's no problem whatsoever.
 
back alley said:
how many times have you read something like...'i use digital for colour but film for b&w'? it's a pejorative statement and it almost always goes unchallenged.
Click to expand...

How is that pejorative? There is not nearly enough context here to make a judgement like that. At most it expresses a preference.

--
Bill
 
JohnTF said:
Roger,

In your view, is there a practical combination of digital equipment, technique, paper that yields what you would classify as a truly fine exibition quality B&W print, extant?

Or are we still shooting at the moving target of "As good as it gets"?

Regards, John
Click to expand...

Well, a couple of years ago one gallery owner told me that greater than 90% of all the exhibitions he's hung for some years then had been printed with inkjet printers, mostly Epson 7000 and 9000 series.

I'm sure this has something to do with the insane current fad that any photo going to a gallery exhibition has to be some gigunda thing larger than 20x20 inches in size. For the life of me, I can't figure out who buys these prints. Once framed and matted, they're just plain enormous and rarely fit in any normal person's home. (This same insane fad is why everyone now MUST have a 36 Mpixel digital camera, but I digress ... ;-)

G
 
JohnTF said:
Godfrey,

Found your technical analysis of digital in your longer post to be of interest.

I do not know if I am waiting now for further technical development of practical gear I might employ, or for me to develop "the" technique to make a fine B&W print from a file that I would hang on my wall.
Click to expand...

Hi John,

There's no need to wait. The gear available for some years now is perfectly capable of producing superb B&W prints.

Presuming you have anything in a current digital camera which can output raw image files (or a good scanner for your film negatives), current software (I use Lightroom 4 and occasionally Photoshop CS5), and a decent printer with pigment inks (Epson R2880 or R3000 currently, or similar from Canon or HP), you're there.

Technique is what you need, once you have that baseline of equipment capability. Then it's all skill and practice: improving the craft and vision of your photographic efforts.

It's much better to be working on learning technique and making photographs now than waiting for some unknown quantum leap in technology to happen. The stuff that's available now is good enough. I've hung work in exhibitions, competitions and gallery shows since 2005 right alongside silver gelatin work made with far more expensive equipment than I use, and not a single person has ever commented to say that my print quality wasn't up to snuff with the other photos in the exhibition. Even those friends I trust to be hyper-critical ... :)

Godfrey
 
Roger Hicks said:
...
The principal exception is a process whose name I always forget (EDIT: remembered: Piezography), which uses special software and inks and gives wonderful rich matte prints that do not look like any silver halide print I have ever seen. They're beautiful, but more different from halide than an engraving is from an etching.
Click to expand...

Piezography .. I remember that stuff. Their quadtone inkset ruined three printers I used working with it. It did produce nice results, but that's 2002-2004 technology.

The real question to me, implied by your comments, is this: "Is the goal of producing monochrome images with digital equipment solely limited to making them look like silver halide photographic prints?"

I contend that it isn't. Monochrome renderings can be much broader than just what film and silver halide prints can produce. And then there's mixed mode rendering which has a different aesthetic as well...

​

Godfrey
 
Roger Hicks said:
Perhaps it's a highly selective version of Sturgeon's Law, that 90% of anything is crap.

90% of digi B&W is crap.

90% of halide B&W was crap, so only the people who were reasonably good at it stayed with halide. As as result, maybe only 75% of current halide is crap.

On top of this, there's more and more digi B&W, and less and less halide B&W, so even if it remained at 90% crap for both, we'd be seeing more and more digi B&W crap, simply because we see more and more digi B&W.

Of course you can get good digi b&W. I've even made a few digi b&W pics myself that I've liked. But a lot depends on subject matter. I just find it easier to get good B&W from film. Why would anyone regard "I shoot digi for colour and film for B&W" as pejorative? For me (and no doubt for many others), it's a simple statement of fact.

Finally, and this is the only part of my argument that depend on pure opinion, are we talking about on-screen, or prints? On screen, I doubt it matters a damn. On paper, I've seen a lot more halide prints that I like. Yes, I've seen many excellent digi B&W prints. But I've seen many, many more halide B&W prints that I like.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I just hate the way you call it "digi B&W"... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top