How do I get ultimate B&W image quality: M-P and Silver Efex Pro or M4-P and film??

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is a question that I would like to put forward to the committed black and white shooters of our forum.  I am currently shooting with the M-P for my color work.  Alas, buying a Monochrom 246 is not in the cards for the foreseeable future, so I am wondering what the best way to proceed with black and white photography would be.

 

My choices are to either process my M-P files with a black and white program such as Silver Efex Pro, or do my B&W shooting with my M4-P and film (using Leica M lenses). I am not sure which path will produce the highest image quality in my finished prints. 

 

It is a given that the digital path is going to be quick and easy when compared to the more cumbersome and slow route of shooting and processing B&W film - and then having a competent darkroom man make my prints.  Convenience and ease are not my concerns, though.  Those factors take a back seat to the image quality of the final prints.  What I want is the highest quality fine prints that will be worthy of being exhibited in serious galleries and other high end venues.

 

Is the M-P and Silver Efex Pro the way to achieve this - or is there a better B&W software?  Or will my M4-P and film produce the best prints? 

 

Thanks in advance to all who offer their thoughts, insight and experience on this. 

 

 

[Guest]

 Convenience and ease are not my concerns, though.  Those factors take a back seat to the image quality of the final prints.  What I want is the highest quality fine prints that will be worthy of being exhibited in serious galleries and other high end venues

 

if you are looking to show your work in serious galleries I personally would go for a bigger format than either 35mm film or Leica MP.

Phase One or Leica S2 quality is what you will be competing against.

BrianP

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

 

 

 

 What I want is the highest quality fine prints that will be worthy of being exhibited in serious galleries and other high end venues.

 

Is the M-P and Silver Efex Pro the way to achieve this - or is there a better B&W software?  Or will my M4-P and film produce the best prints? 

 

 

Stating the obvious, the gear and the software don't produce prints in a vacuum; you do the work.  Some people produce beautiful work regardless the equipment or processed used, while others never get there despite using the latest and greatest tools.  Viewers don't care about the gear or process when the images are superb and the print quality is worthy of display.  This is true of silver or inkjet prints...as well darkroom, 'lightroom' or hybrid processing.

 

The rest gets into a film/digital debate, which has been hashed to death.

 

Jeff

Edited June 15, 2015 by Jeff S

[Jager]

Compelling imagery is a far more important prerequisite for eliciting the interest of galleries and like venues, than your format or process. 

 

Edit:  Jeff posted while I was writing, articulating it better than me.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Jager

[rpsawin]

It comes down to which workflow is best for you to use in producing the prints you want.

[250swb]

 What I want is the highest quality fine prints that will be worthy of being exhibited in serious galleries and other high end venues.

 

 

 

Serious galleries will exhibit pictures made with a Holga if the content matches the intent.

 

The good artist has an innate skill but also has the ability to channel their skill through the right medium, and within that medium in the style that best communicates what the hell it is they are on about. So an image shot on grainy Tri-X will have a different emotional appeal than a perfectly clean image made with an M9. This is the fundamental answer to your question, it is up to the artist to decide what they want to communicate, not leave it up to others or the camera equipment, then they use the best tool for the job.

 

So, 'serious' galleries will not exhibit decorative images, even well crafted decorative images. They will want some work ethic from the artist to show they haven't just got out of bed that morning and dreamt up a show, this is why Edward Weston's 'Peppers' would be exhibited and not Sean Reid's lens testing pictures.

 

There is a trick card to play, and it can work. Make it look difficult. In which case you need to dump the M4-P and digital Leica's and go and buy a 4x5 or 8x10 camera and go for some real serious image quality, together with pain and frustration, they have all the ingredients needed to be an artist.

 

Steve

Edited June 16, 2015 by 250swb

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm amused. 

 

"Is serious music serious enough?" - John Cage.

[tobey bilek]

Staying within 35 mm,  25 MP outshines film IMHO.

 

With digital, you can burn dodge, adjust contrast differently in different areas of the print.  Then you send it to a lab with a laser printer and have it printed on real photo paper.

 

You will never achieve this by handing the neg to some schmo. In decades past ,  you could pay lots extra to look over the printers shoulder or mark up a proof print .  Theses days are long gone.

 

4x5 seriously outclasses 35 mm film any day.   

[Jeff S]

 

You will never achieve this by handing the neg to some schmo. 

 

4x5 seriously outclasses 35 mm film any day.   

Unless you're the careful and talented schmo.  And when you're the schmo in the darkroom, funny how nice you try to be to that guy when exposing the neg.

 

Same principles for 35mm or 4x5…the result most often depends more on the user than the format IMO.

 

Jeff

[Herr Barnack]

Serious galleries will exhibit pictures made with a Holga if the content matches the intent.

 

The good artist has an innate skill but also has the ability to channel their skill through the right medium, and within that medium in the style that best communicates what the hell it is they are on about. So an image shot on grainy Tri-X will have a different emotional appeal than a perfectly clean image made with an M9. This is the fundamental answer to your question, it is up to the artist to decide what they want to communicate, not leave it up to others or the camera equipment, then they use the best tool for the job.

 

So, 'serious' galleries will not exhibit decorative images, even well crafted decorative images. They will want some work ethic from the artist to show they haven't just got out of bed that morning and dreamt up a show, this is why Edward Weston's 'Peppers' would be exhibited and not Sean Reid's lens testing pictures.

 

There is a trick card to play, and it can work. Make it look difficult. In which case you need to dump the M4-P and digital Leica's and go and buy a 4x5 or 8x10 camera and go for some real serious image quality, together with pain and frustration, they have all the ingredients needed to be an artist.

 

Steve

You make several valid observations, Steve; most of them we lose sight of when we get caught up in all the fine art hoopla/nonsense/hogwash.   

 

In the long haul, we travel full circle back to Ansel Adams' declaration:  "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

 

Content and intent trump equipment - which has held true from the earliest days of photography.  Henri Cartier-Bresson's work proves this point.  He used the reviled 35mm "toy" camera to great effect, thanks to his content and intent.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[Guest]

Unless you're the careful and talented schmo.  And when you're the schmo in the darkroom, funny how nice you try to be to that guy when exposing the neg.

 

Same principles for 35mm or 4x5…the result most often depends more on the user than the format IMO.

 

Jeff

That's correct however a good printer will always produce a better print from a 4x5 neg than a 35mm neg.

BrianP

[Jeff S]

That's correct however a good printer will always produce a better print from a 4x5 neg than a 35mm neg.

 

Depends how one defines 'better print'.  For me, that in part means capturing the photographer's intended look and feel.  Different subjects and intentions can demand different materials.  35mm may work better for some work than large format (night shots with intentionally harsh, gritty feel), and vice versa.  A good print doesn't always possess the same technical attributes.  Best tool for the job….no matter how talented the printer.

 

Jeff

[batmobile]

It all depends on what you want to achieve and the skills you (or your printer have).

 

I have produced better prints from 35mm Delta 3200 than some of my 5x4 Delta 100. Size of forma has nothing to do with it unless exceptionally fine grain, high resolution and large print size are integral to the artistic vision. When your vision is large, crisp grain that creates an immediate sense of roughness... adversity.... then smaller formats make it much easier.

 

I shoot digital and use film. I shot film for massively important projects in Afghanistan that I knew would be unrepeatable. Why film? Because at the time I was more skilled with film and the associated workflow, not to mention that digital was less advanced then than it is now.

 

Both can produce eye watering prints, but have different strengths. Without know what you like, its hard to know how to expand on this; however, neither have such organic benefits that they will override a lack of skill.

 

Go with what you know best until you know better, I say! 

Edited June 18, 2015 by batmobile

[pbizarro]

You have to decide based on what your goals are. If the decision is with the galleries you want to "target", go and ask them what their preferences are, if any.

 

As for those who replied suggesting that MFD or S2 is the way to go, I suggest you go and see Salgado's Genesis exhibition, if possible. Several images were shot with Canon EOS digital and 40 f2.8 pancake lens... Plus, Salgado then has the digital files converted into negatives, for traditional printing by his trusted printer in Paris...

 

Regards

[pico]

My choices are to either process my M-P files with a black and white program such as Silver Efex Pro, or do my B&W shooting with my M4-P and film (using Leica M lenses). I am not sure which path will produce the highest image quality in my finished prints. 

 

Do you have a very good scanner and the talent to master it, or can afford to have scans done?

Do you want silver-gelatin or ink-jet prints?

 

The chemical processing and optical projection (enlargement) path does not necessarily produce

higher fidelity prints than all-digital (for 35mm).

 

Look at the critical path. Last things first.

[sblitz]

Film

[sanyasi]

Whtever tool you use, know it inside and out.  Create for yourself.  If you ar any good, the rest will take care of itself.