Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Justinr on June 28, 2015, 04:14:47 am
-
I had a film captured image published earlier this week and what struck me was that although it was merely competent rather than earth shatteringly stupendous the whole film & physical print thing came together to make a much more impressive image than just another digital shot. It actually looked like something in hardcopy.
Anyway, would you believe it inspired another blog -
http://inkplusimages.com/wp/ (http://inkplusimages.com/wp/)
-
A fascinating image and story, Justin. Thanks for sharing it.
On a related note, I have recently been sorting through images, separately for B&W and Color, for possibly making a couple of books.
Although all of my work is now digital, I still find that the images that still hold my attention the most have two characteristics: They are all black-and-white, and all the best images were made on film.
For me, an image still isn't "real" until it has been printed on paper, even though my current printing is all digital (even on film images, my digital prints are now at least as good as my best darkroom prints, with some fifty years of serious darkroom work).
So I think you are onto something. I, too, cannot explain the physics.
-
I don't believe in some ineffable look of film. That said, it's well understood that when you overdrive film it behaves quite differently from digital. It seems to me you might simply be liking the way the sky blew out.
Also, there are excellent reasons for shooting film, many of them psychological. If you see something you like in film, it doesn't matter if it's real or not, it doesn't matter if I can see it or not.
-
Where have you seen desaturation suggested as a good B&W conversion technique?
IMO in context "desaturate" was used in the sense of removing color, without referring to any particular method or technique.
-Dave-
-
You'll know better than me - does it make more sense to think of B&W film like colour film with the colour removed, or does it make more sense to think B&W films respond to light differently than colour films?
-
You'll know better than me - does it make more sense to think of B&W film like colour film with the colour removed, or does it make more sense to think B&W films respond to light differently than colour films?
This could easily turn into a semantics excursion. :'( But note that Justin is comparing b&w film with electronic ("digital") color.
Anyway, ultimately monochrome and color are both subjective creations based on photoelectric [edit: electromagnetic] stimulus. Monochrome is easier to create since you can use a fairly simple interpretive technique, whether chemical or algorithmic. Creating color requires wavelength-based filtering…more complicated. Black & white photography appeals to me in part due to its relative simplicity.
One reason why I'm interested in Sony's upcoming A7r2 has to do with the photosite count. Not because I need 42mp worth of spatial resolution but because IMO it brings a better method of creating color into reach—interpreting each four-photosite RGBG array as one RGB output pixel—while still preserving enough spatial detail for my needs. 10.5mp of true (or at least truer) RGB from the A7r2 isn't optimal—12.5mp from a 50 megaphotosite chip would be better, and 25mp from a 100 megaphotosite chip should put the issue to bed entirely—but it'll do for now.
Uh oh, battery running out!
-Dave-
-
But note that Justin is comparing b&w film with electronic ("digital") color.
Which entangles film/digital with b&w/color.
If we wouldn't think of b&w film as color film with the color removed but also a different tonal response, then if we think of b&w digital as just color with the color removed we're missing the different tonal response.
-
Isaac, I think you are missing something. ;) :)
-
Isaac, I think you are missing something. ;) :)
+10.
-
Isaac, I think you are missing something. ;) :)
You never miss the opportunity to make a snide comment.
-
Which entangles film/digital with b&w/color.
Entanglement is a property of the natural state of things. ;)
-Dave-
-
Many thanks for the replies and judging by what's been said I guess that there there is a problem with comparing B&W captured on film with B&W captured on digital. The former is purely a monotone process while the latter requires desaturation unless the Bayer filter is removed.
B&W digital just lacks the life of film, sorry but that's how I see it. However, digital colour is better than film colour in my view, which, of course, is purely subjective. The blog was trying to work out why I find this so. I also find that film B&W needs to be printed for its qualities to be fully appreciated whereas digital colour is actually better on the screen than in hardcopy where it can appear too 'busy', especially in more complex shots where there is a lot of detail. This is just my experience based on the type of shots I take and the sort of publications they get printed in, lifestyle glossies they ain't and in many cases it's the quality of the paper and printing that can detract from an image.
Anyway, just to give an example of where digital colour excels I've just put this gallery up -
http://www.inkplusimages.com/Araglin/index.html (http://www.inkplusimages.com/Araglin/index.html)
-
You never miss the opportunity to make a snide comment.
Is there any humor in your life Isaac? I think not. My retort to that is that you never miss an opportunity to make a post that is deliberately confusing and without obvious meaning. The post must mean something meaningful to yourself, but rarely meaningful to others?
If we wouldn't think of b&w film as color film with the color removed but also a different tonal response, then if we think of b&w digital as just color with the color removed we're missing the different tonal response.
Could you try once more to explain this? :)
-
Evidently it amuses you to make derogatory remarks about other people. Meanwhile Dave made a joke!
-
Many thanks for the replies and judging by what's been said I guess that there there is a problem with comparing B&W captured on film with B&W captured on digital. The former is purely a monotone process while the latter requires desaturation unless the Bayer filter is removed.
B&W digital just lacks the life of film, sorry but that's how I see it.
I have no interest in trying to persuade you that b&w digital is somehow wonderful.
I'll simply suggest that b&w digital raw provides 3 simultaneous color-filtered monochrome images, and how you choose to combine them will make an enormous difference.