Bill Pierce
Well-known
In our last thread on shooting film, the majority of comments were about black-and-white with a general consensus that b&w film looked different from digital and, for most, film looked better.
A lot of folks are familiar with film curves, graphic representation of the lower contrast in the darker values and higher contrast in the middle of the tonal range. This effect is increased when printing on silver paper because, like film, it has a curve too. Less shadow detail/seperationl and more midtown contrast are film's most obvious tonal differences from a relatively unmanipulated digital image.
Perhaps because I grew up on film, count me as one of the folks that prefers the tonal rendition of b&w film to a relatively straight b&w conversion in digital. But you can easily alter the digital image to more closely resemble the film image.
There are a number of programs like Silver Efex and DxO Filmpack that alter the tonality of digital images to mimic film. But, unsurprisingly, it will take time to master and fully exploit them. If you are a dedicated b&w shooter, it’s probably worthwhile. I should also point out that PhotoNinja has some excellent b&w presets that provide good starting points for for bringing digital images into the “silver world.”
But a great deal can be done with conventional image processing programs. For one, you can take the very darkest tones in your capture and clip them, throw them away. “Throw away my precious near blacks; I can’t do it.” Film does it. You can do it. Be strong. Now, reduce the contrast and up the clarity. (Or, take a relative small section at the midpoint of your curve and increase the contrast.)
In other words, digital tonality is highly manipulable. It’s a pain in the butt, but you can make black-and-white digital images look like film images.
Your thoughts and - of course - any other tips you might have about making digital files look like b&w film.
A lot of folks are familiar with film curves, graphic representation of the lower contrast in the darker values and higher contrast in the middle of the tonal range. This effect is increased when printing on silver paper because, like film, it has a curve too. Less shadow detail/seperationl and more midtown contrast are film's most obvious tonal differences from a relatively unmanipulated digital image.
Perhaps because I grew up on film, count me as one of the folks that prefers the tonal rendition of b&w film to a relatively straight b&w conversion in digital. But you can easily alter the digital image to more closely resemble the film image.
There are a number of programs like Silver Efex and DxO Filmpack that alter the tonality of digital images to mimic film. But, unsurprisingly, it will take time to master and fully exploit them. If you are a dedicated b&w shooter, it’s probably worthwhile. I should also point out that PhotoNinja has some excellent b&w presets that provide good starting points for for bringing digital images into the “silver world.”
But a great deal can be done with conventional image processing programs. For one, you can take the very darkest tones in your capture and clip them, throw them away. “Throw away my precious near blacks; I can’t do it.” Film does it. You can do it. Be strong. Now, reduce the contrast and up the clarity. (Or, take a relative small section at the midpoint of your curve and increase the contrast.)
In other words, digital tonality is highly manipulable. It’s a pain in the butt, but you can make black-and-white digital images look like film images.
Your thoughts and - of course - any other tips you might have about making digital files look like b&w film.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I am sure digital B&W photography is as capable of being manipulated as film B&W photography and then some and with the improvements in all things digital in these last two decades that B&W digital prints can top the best of all analog photography...but you may be missing the point, Bill...it is the experience that many film and wet print buffs like and it is not because we are Luddites or old fashion fuddy-duddies, we just like the film and wet print medium, warts and limitations and all.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I like split grade printing. I don't think there is a digital alternative for it.
gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4) leica m2
Erik.
gelatin silver print (summilux 35mm f1.4) leica m2
Erik.
Richard G
Mentor
I like the idea of mimicking film, but I also like digital black and white. The Leica M9 out of camera black and white jpegs are pretty impressive. I remember one image of a grey haired colleague at a dinner where I took raw and jpeg. I could not match the jpeg with anything I tried in Lightroom, not that I am so expert with imaging software.
I am intrigued by your proprosal to jettison some blacks. I'll try it.
I am intrigued by your proprosal to jettison some blacks. I'll try it.
Shac
Well-known
Well despite having a wet darkroom since I was 12, and having one in every place (except apartments) I've lived in - digital B&W are good enough for this old fart
Dogman
Mentor
The thing for me is to just make the picture look like I want it to look. If it looks like the Tri-X I shot in 1973 and printed on Medalist, great. If it looks like the digital I shot yesterday, that's fine too. It's all good. As long as you like what you're doing and like what you're getting.
Ronald M
Mentor
My darkroom was fun and I still use it although I do use a lot of digital. Letting a pro lab make prints is superior to what could done from film before digital. Notice I said pro lab, not drug store.
Latest purchase was M1 Mac mini and the most expensive Eiso monitor. Mac is 1 terabyte and 16 gb ram. $4000 and worth every penny.
Latest purchase was M1 Mac mini and the most expensive Eiso monitor. Mac is 1 terabyte and 16 gb ram. $4000 and worth every penny.
Timmyjoe
Mentor
I agree with you Bill, if someone is willing to work at it, they can make digital look like film. And it might be faster when compared to unloading a film camera, loading a film tank, processing the film roll, drying the film roll, cutting the negatives, loading the enlarger, focusing, setting contrast, projecting image onto paper, processing the paper, drying the paper, spotting the print.
And I don't think I shoot B&W film because it is "easier" than digital. I think I shoot it because I like the "Process" of shooting it. I like the analogue-ness of it. The feel of the equipment, the experience of transferring film to a tank by feel in a changing bag, the working in a darkroom under the red light. Nostalgia . . . maybe.
I remember being told when I was younger, "Find the thing you love doing. The thing you love the process of doing (not the result of doing), and pursue that." I do love the process of "making a picture" with any camera, but I more prefer the process of "making a picture' with a film camera, where I don't know if I got anything until later (no chimping), and where I get to do the "process" of bringing the image to reality analogue-ly.
Best,
-Tim
And I don't think I shoot B&W film because it is "easier" than digital. I think I shoot it because I like the "Process" of shooting it. I like the analogue-ness of it. The feel of the equipment, the experience of transferring film to a tank by feel in a changing bag, the working in a darkroom under the red light. Nostalgia . . . maybe.
I remember being told when I was younger, "Find the thing you love doing. The thing you love the process of doing (not the result of doing), and pursue that." I do love the process of "making a picture" with any camera, but I more prefer the process of "making a picture' with a film camera, where I don't know if I got anything until later (no chimping), and where I get to do the "process" of bringing the image to reality analogue-ly.
Best,
-Tim
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
There are clearly at least two aspects. The film look and the shooting experience.
As for the film look, it can obviously be achieved by those who master digital post processing. But I am not one of them, and there are so many elements behind what I call "film look", that it's just too much hassle to try and imitate them all (tonality, grain, some random dust and scratches, natural frame borders..). But surely there have been times where I admired and envied the look of images that someone made by a Fuji X100 or even a smartphone (for instance John White from jtinseoul).
As for the analog shooting experience, it's obviously a big deal for many of us, since digital camera manufacturers have gone a long way to imitate that too: Displayless Leicas, fake rewind cranks, mechanical shutters, needle displays... But does any of that trick my mind into feeling like I'm shooting film? Nope.
As for the film look, it can obviously be achieved by those who master digital post processing. But I am not one of them, and there are so many elements behind what I call "film look", that it's just too much hassle to try and imitate them all (tonality, grain, some random dust and scratches, natural frame borders..). But surely there have been times where I admired and envied the look of images that someone made by a Fuji X100 or even a smartphone (for instance John White from jtinseoul).
As for the analog shooting experience, it's obviously a big deal for many of us, since digital camera manufacturers have gone a long way to imitate that too: Displayless Leicas, fake rewind cranks, mechanical shutters, needle displays... But does any of that trick my mind into feeling like I'm shooting film? Nope.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I've played around with B&W conversion software enough to know it works very well in emulating B&W film. But why spend ten minutes trying to make a digital photograph look like Tri-X, when you can shoot Tri-X in the first place? Plus, I get a lot more satisfaction using an old classic film camera, than any of the digital cameras I currently own. But that's just me.
Jim B.
Jim B.
raid
Dad Photographer
If you use film, then print from negatives. If you use only digital cameras, then use the DNG files without colors for good looking B&W images. There is no conflict here. There should be no conflict
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Not just you.
I like the black borders around the pictures, so you can see that it is on film, that the whole negative is used and also that different cameras are used. I can tell from the black border wich camera I've used. I like that. I don't know why, but I like that.
Erik.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm not pro photog, but I'm technician who deals with digital images processing for decades now.
I switched to film, for my own eyes, from 2012 to 2020(1) simply because BW and color film are visually different.
Very wrong, miss-informative imagination. You can't emulate, get close to film by digital.
Even Leica monochrome is nowhere near to bw film. Not to mention laughable FujiNoFilm emulations. And Silver Efex and DxO ain't much different on faking the film.
You could get fooled by digital emulations only if you are not doing film for a while. Just pull out old dr prints and have a look then.
I switched to film, for my own eyes, from 2012 to 2020(1) simply because BW and color film are visually different.
Very wrong, miss-informative imagination. You can't emulate, get close to film by digital.
Even Leica monochrome is nowhere near to bw film. Not to mention laughable FujiNoFilm emulations. And Silver Efex and DxO ain't much different on faking the film.
You could get fooled by digital emulations only if you are not doing film for a while. Just pull out old dr prints and have a look then.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Well despite having a wet darkroom since I was 12, and having one in every place (except apartments) I've lived in - digital B&W are good enough for this old fart
We must be brothers from other mothers.
Shac
Well-known
Darthfeedble - anything's possible - but as you might gather the fellow in the image 'aint me
Cheers
Cheers
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I will set my camera to shoot B&W when I want that as the end result...I 'm not looking for it to mimic film just B&W...
I shoot film when I'm really serious with an image that I want in B&W and printed...I rarely print my digital images...Color or B&W...
And like Jim I love using the old classics...I bought the Mamiya C220 a few weeks ago and have run a roll through it, its been developed and awaiting my next printing session.
Retro-Grouch
Mentor
Dogman, that's entirely too reasonable a response for this group!
As for myself, I gave digital my all for a good bit of time, and made some good images. Nevertheless, I hated the process, hated the equipment, and really hated the time on the computer. Back to film exclusively for two years now, and very glad I held on to the Hassies and the Leicas. Real cameras!
markjwyatt
Well-known
I think I said in ths other post, that digital can move towrds B&W film, but the easist and surest way to get the B&W film look is to use B&W film. I think some of the Leica Monochrom type cameras do give the best "film like" digital B&W results (only based on what I have seen posted), but they are out of many people's budgets.
The other aspect is that, for instance, you can add noise to a digital image to mimic grain. But it is noise. In B&W film, the grain IS the image. Some say it makes no difference, but I suspect there may be a relation between the "B&W film look" and the fact that the B&W film (or print) image is made of black specks (e.g., pointilism).
The other aspect is that, for instance, you can add noise to a digital image to mimic grain. But it is noise. In B&W film, the grain IS the image. Some say it makes no difference, but I suspect there may be a relation between the "B&W film look" and the fact that the B&W film (or print) image is made of black specks (e.g., pointilism).
DwF
Well-known
We all have our convictions and truth about digital vs film photography. The fact is, the experience and reality that is B&W film photography is as oil painting, an art unto itself. That is not to say that digital does not have a place, or hybridization of the two -shooting film and processing it by scanning. Ultimately it is up to the photographer to make peace with whichever process he/she chooses. That for many, film seemed like it might become extinct is something in the arts we've never really seen. So for example, electric music never actually seemed like it would replace acoustic music in the same way.
I'm shooting film again currently, in part because I prefer the whole experience, the cameras, the romance, the look and feel of film, but also working slower and making fewer files! I flirt with the idea of going to a darkroom at some point (no longer having one), but also feel that I am getting results as far as tonality post scan with film that are easier for me to achieve than what I recall when printing. I never felt I was very good as a printer but worked at it. I also realize that a nice gelatin silver photo is something that can only be achieved the old fashioned way.
David
I'm shooting film again currently, in part because I prefer the whole experience, the cameras, the romance, the look and feel of film, but also working slower and making fewer files! I flirt with the idea of going to a darkroom at some point (no longer having one), but also feel that I am getting results as far as tonality post scan with film that are easier for me to achieve than what I recall when printing. I never felt I was very good as a printer but worked at it. I also realize that a nice gelatin silver photo is something that can only be achieved the old fashioned way.
David
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I have been wishing for a program that simulates analog B&W photographic paper surfaces and characteristics but am not sure if something like that exists? I enjoy seeing people's digital scans of their analog B&W prints.