SausalitoDog
Well-known
Because that's all that people should be allowed to shoot !!!
Just think how much faster your computer would run if everything was grayscale !!!
Roger Hicks
Mentor
No dispute there. In fact, 100% agreement. As I said, I liked Piezography. On the other hand, to limit what can be produced in monochrome only to what can be produced with digital strikes me as akin to lunacy. It is as if we should allow only charcoal, and exclude silverpoint, pencil and every other monochrome option.
Cheers,
R.
leicapixie
Well-known
my computer runs way faster on grayscale.
i've caught it panhandling for more, if i don't do.
i love digital B/W. Maybe not same as film. My last batch of film was/is defective..yes small "holes" or gaps in the emulsion.
I can fix in Photoshop, but won't. I'm a purist.
i use one or two old digital cameras with terrible color,
in one case that deliver fabulous B/W.
Anyway why are there color threads.
Color gets in the way of profound thinkers and doers.
i've caught it panhandling for more, if i don't do.
i love digital B/W. Maybe not same as film. My last batch of film was/is defective..yes small "holes" or gaps in the emulsion.
I can fix in Photoshop, but won't. I'm a purist.
i use one or two old digital cameras with terrible color,
in one case that deliver fabulous B/W.
Anyway why are there color threads.
Color gets in the way of profound thinkers and doers.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
We must be in agreement, or I wouldn't have recently purchased, what?, four more film cameras ...
I really must find my Impossible Project Silvershade film packs. I thought I had two more to go before I needed to order more.. sigh.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
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
Godfrey I go to many exhibitions, have owned (and still do) some of the printers you mention, I have the equipment and technique. I don't see this pigment ink is a good as silver paper (let alone the fact silver bromide paper is cheaper)
I go to many exhibitions, most often with digital but some film and traditional prints and the difference is huge especially with low key lighting. With most digital papers and inks if you move your head off axis you'll see what I mean.
It may be good enough for most, but it really is just OK rather than being excellent.
I've never seen a mono ink print that I didn't feel would be better on silver paper.
The technology is there DeVere have a digital printer that prints to conventional paper- it's just too expensive....
I have to agree here .... these a poor representation of what can be done with digital black and white.
JohnTF
Mentor
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
I agree with what you said about the size of gallery prints, some would not fit in my Deville.
I have made good scans of 11x14 prints made by a master photographer and printer-- and did get some excellent prints made from the files on RA4 materials.
I was a bit vague, but I have had my moments in the past 50 years of photography, -- it is just while I was waiting for the early digital to progress, I learned RA4 printing and was happy with my work resulting in prints from 35mm and various MF up to 6x9cm, in making up to 12x15 prints that I felt I could show to someone who knows what a good print should look like. All my enlarging lenses are APO in good marques, and I was confident with the quality of the Beseler / Minolta color heads.
I tried to get good scans even from C41 film shot with an M7, and was disappointed.
I want to get over the "good enough" hump and know when I put in the requisite effort, I have the files I need to get those 12x15" quality prints, in color and B&W.
I have been to exhibits of wonderfully composed work, perhaps ten years ago, with an experienced colleague. They had been made for the same organization I occasionally contribute to. The sponsors were very impressed, but my friend and I simply noted from the door way that they had a pasty digital look to them, and even the photographer wondered if he should have made the images in film. "Good Enough" was good enough for viewing on a screen or in the print media.
Certainly the files of all decent cameras produced today have far surpassed what was available then, and I no longer doubt that excellent color work today is a far cry from those days.
I just have not seen any great B&W digital work in person that has far surpassed the "good enough" mark. It may well be that I just do not get out much, hence my question directly to Roger, who does get out. I believe we have corresponded for more than 20 years? Going back to Compuserve days.
I did shoot B&W almost exclusively when shooting for myself, until I started printing RA4 myself. I just could not get others to print to my view, even so far as cropping and certainly not to color balance or tonality.
Now I want to have the option of producing B&W files that can be printed by commercial printers to a fine quality. It may well be the time to come back and work on that again.
Sorry for the long post, it somehow seemed necessary, I did not want it to be so much about me, but this thread has addressed the problems I have also found.
Regards, John
emraphoto
Mentor
i have an epson 7900 in my gallery and recently printed a show shot on HP5, by a photojournalist friend of mine, and it looked absolutely superb. sold some prints as well? thank you for clearing up our participation in an 'insane fad' as i never realized. the 7900 has been listed on Craigslist in exchange for ADOX classic arts in a more reasonable size
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Roger Hicks
Mentor
It's also worth pointing out that there are different interpretations of 'absolutely superb'; that different printing styles suit different subjects and photographers; that trying to emulate the tonality of silver halide in an inkjet print often requires quite significant skill; and even then, it cannot always be done.Thanks for your opinion. Needless to say, we're not in agreement. Which is ok.
Cheers,
R.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
LOL!
I have nothing against the insanity of gigunda prints, really, but the notion that we must make such hugenesses simply because we can is appalling. However, this was beside my point; sorry for the digression.
My point was that the technology to make excellent ink on paper B&W prints is already there. Those who want to do so simply have to acquire it and learn how to exploit it. Those who feel it isn't up to snuff for their work through having worked with it and finding it to fail for their standards ... Well, continue with the darkroom.
The only way to know, for you and your work, whether the technology meets your work is to dig in, become as expert in the task of printing as your motivation permits. And then be objective about what your goals are and whether you achieve them.
back alley
IMAGES
LOL!
I have nothing against the insanity of gigunda prints, really, but the notion that we must make such hugenesses simply because we can is appalling. However, this was beside my point; sorry for the digression.
My point was that the technology to make excellent ink on paper B&W prints is already there. Those who want to do so simply have to acquire it and learn how to exploit it. Those who feel it isn't up to snuff for their work through having worked with it and finding it to fail for their standards ... Well, continue with the darkroom.
The only way to know, for you and your work, whether the technology meets your work is to dig in, become as expert in the task of printing as your motivation permits. And then be objective about what your goals are and whether you achieve them.
this sounds far too practical...
emraphoto
Mentor
LOL!
I have nothing against the insanity of gigunda prints, really, but the notion that we must make such hugenesses simply because we can is appalling. However, this was beside my point; sorry for the digression.
My point was that the technology to make excellent ink on paper B&W prints is already there. Those who want to do so simply have to acquire it and learn how to exploit it. Those who feel it isn't up to snuff for their work through having worked with it and finding it to fail for their standards ... Well, continue with the darkroom.
The only way to know, for you and your work, whether the technology meets your work is to dig in, become as expert in the task of printing as your motivation permits. And then be objective about what your goals are and whether you achieve them.
i am glad you understood the good hearted poke my friend. indeed, there are indulgences on either side of the fence. content, content, content was literally drilled into my head in the beginning stages of my career. as a result i can understand perfectly well where you are coming from.
thegman
Mentor
I agree with the bulk of what you're saying, but I shoot film only, and I'm rubbish. So maybe the truth is nearer, those who like it, stuck with it?
In fact, my first real camera was digital and I moved to film, so the digital crowd lost a crap photographer, and the film crowd gained one.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Found the two boxes of SilverShade film I thought I had left ...! Ah, photography again at last.
Snappy of the snappies made with iPhone 4S. ;-)
G
denizg7
-
low res here we go!!!!!!
this is why a lot of people with common sense say........ Why mimic the real thing and try to get somewhat close to it , when you can have the real thang
zwarte_kat
Well-known
Brilliant!
maddoc
... likes film again.
... similar algorithms, same main-frames, just the source of funds for the calculations is different ...
Exdsc
-
Sometimes when I get bored or an image does not fit into color workflow, I just turn it into B&W. But I have to say it feels a bit unfair to film shooters and it does feel like cheating because its so easy.
Photo_48 by Exdsc, on Flickr
Untitled-1 by Exdsc, on Flickr
Photo_48 by Exdsc, on Flickr
Untitled-1 by Exdsc, on Flickr