Is it time to stop regarding film as the benchmark for B&W?

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It depends on which parameter one looks at:

Sensitivity: digital wins

resolutions: most films can do better than 70 lpmm

dynamic range: film wins but depends on development. But it is difficult to use the dynamic range of film with conventional printing but quite possible with Pt/Pd printing (only LF).

more important is what output one considers: computer monitor does not work with film:D

and there are all that hybrid outputs: scanned negatives digital printed to digital generated negatives for contact prints(Azo or Pt/Pd)

 

You forgot this comparative parameter (although I admit it's not a high priority for many):

 

- how sublimely beautiful is it?

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

The first criteria is whether it's a great picture. Then whether it's a great print of a great picture; that's what many strive to achieve.

 

I have photos on my walls, digital and silver prints, some inexpensive, some very expensive, some from unknown photographers, some from famous dead photographers. Other than from a few photographer friends, I can't recall anyone ever commenting on the resolution, dynamic range or any such thing. And rarely does anyone ask about the process or the camera used. They either like the picture or not.

 

Jeff

[cocker]

That was a less fortunate Kaufmannism imo. Although he said "this is the end of film".

 

That didn't stop you quoting it with approval and enthusiasm.

[jaques]

film (mono and otherwise) isn't dead and demand will remain.

 

Look how much better film shots usually look!

 

And consider the popularity of Lomo photography...

 

Not to mention the fine arts, and perhaps millions (?) of film camera collectors.

 

It is true that a monolithic mountain of film based infrastructure is crashing down into utter redundancy, and the market is shrinking and changing rapidly. But the exponential shrinkage will tail off one day- and not into nothing- a market will remain for the foreseeable future. Some of the machinery will remain- and someone will make film with it. Look what happened with the Impossible (Polaroid) Project.

 

How cool will film be to the artistically inclined jaded youth of 2025? Super cool is how cool. There may have been a type of 'Butlerian Jihad' against digital technology by then as well- the way things are going...

 

The future is going to be aesthetically retro- mark my words- (or watch Blade Runner).

 

If someone says finally "Film is Dead" some other guy will cook up a batch of bootleg tri-ex...

 

I make a prediction:

 

"Film (on Earth) will die as a photographic medium when our modern 'technological human globalised society' (for want of a better term) finally fails or is destroyed"

[pgk]

Other than from a few photographer friends, I can't recall anyone ever commenting on the resolution, dynamic range or any such thing. And rarely does anyone ask about the process or the camera used. They either like the picture or not.

 

Jeff

Which is the point isn't it. How would you explain to a young enthusiastic photographer who has never shot film that film is better. You don't, because you won't be believed. Different yes, better no. Film is no longer the 'benchmark' - you may not want to accept it but this is already an accurate statement because the vast, vast majority of photographs are now shot digitally and are judged against each other, not a previous imaging process.

 

If of course you still want to use film as a 'benchmark' then there is nothing to stop you, but the majority out there no longer does so.

[jaapv]

That didn't stop you quoting it with approval and enthusiasm.

So what?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which is the point isn't it. How would you explain to a young enthusiastic photographer who has never shot film that film is better.

 

I wouldn't encourage young photographers to compare per se, but I definitely would encourage them to see, up close and personal, photographic prints, and art work in general, of all types.

 

I personally still see as many silver prints as digital prints, because of my collections and personal interest, but that doesn't mean I have to compare different processes, any more than I would compare a landscape to a portrait. But the reason isn't because digital is more popular or common now; my premise is based more on principle.

 

Jeff

[CalArts 99]

As others have hinted here, I say it's high time to quit with this film versus digital stuff, and this ambiguous 'benchmark' talk. B+W digital is B+W digital and B+W film is B+W film.

 

We need to transcend this sort of digital versus film discussion. Maybe compare the IQ of a digital image versus a digital image, but leave film out of it.

 

Digital is digital, film is film. They are entirely different media that simply co-exist with each other. Compare digital to digital and film to film. There are differences between different digital outputs just like there was (and still is) with different films (and film developers in the case of B+W.) And this is not strictly about resolution, just like it's not with different film stocks. It's about the subjective 'look.' The digital file of the M9 is subjectively different than the digital file of a Nikon D700. The look of Tri-X is subjectively different than the look of Plus-X.

 

And please, let's also stop with the "[i've] annoyed the film brigade" sort of comments. And the same goes for film users. There is no 'brigade' and this isn't a 'war.' It's about making images. Use what works and what you are comfortable with using. Use different materials appropriately depending on desired output. Understand that these are different mediums yet still part of photography in respect to using a camera and lens as the capture tool. A particular artist can be categorized for using watercolors versus oils versus acrylics. But that artist is still considered to be a painter.

 

Concentrate on your final image. And as Jeff S said, the process to making that image is part a chain. Those links in the chain may be digital, analog, or a mix of both. But in the end, it's what you see within the frame that counts. That's the real "benchmark." Nothing else matters.

[sblitz]

+1 Would just like to add that a lot of our subjective views are based on what we grew up with, the memory benchmark is extraordinarily strong. Wonder if in the 1920s or 1930s some old timers were wondering where the sepia went ? If you have no memory benchmark, there is no comparison that makes any sense -- growing up listening to music out of mp-3 players with ear buds vs those that only heard Mozart live (imagine the computer forum in those days comparing LPs -- which some many of us have fond memories of -- to hearing the music live. Must've been someone who said, "why go to the concert I can hear it my living room even better!!!!) which brings me to my last point, as the technology evolved so too did the art to fit the technology. what we haven't gotten yet, as far as i know, is the benchmark producer of the digital image that changes forever how we view what the digital camera can be used to produce (today's adams, hcb)? that is my biggest issue with the monochron and leica in general, it is priced too high for the young and talented and those willing to break new ground artistically they will define the new age with a different brand. and when that new hcb comes along, when our grandchildren are grown that will be the brand they will clamor to buy.

[Printmaker]

... But I honestly can't say that one print is better than the other. They're different. In my opinion, today there is so much about making a good print that's far more important than film or digital.

Later, Clyde

 

There was a time when a lot of my personal work was shot with an 8x10 in the studio and a 4x5 in the field and contact printed on platinum/palladium. Before (and after) my quest was for the perfect silver print - one that captured every tone with buttery smooth transitions. I always knew when I succeeded because the print sang in the wash. It was an emotional experience - certainly alchemical and perhaps a bit magical. Anyone who has been there knows what I'm talking about.

 

Yet I've been 90% digital for last 15 years and 100% for the last 5. My studio prints for several hundred artists and dozens of photographers using Epson printers. We've tried quadtone ink sets and dozens of papers. We've RIPed and profiled and offered everything printing technology has given us. This has resulted in some truly beautiful prints. Yes, they are different from silver and platinum/palladium but few can tell the difference and even fewer care. Except, of course, for the photographers and galleries who sell prints by promoting the difference. For example, platinum prints sold to collectors as being 100% hand-made and therefore collectable. (Even though I made the enlarged digital negative for the photographer.)

 

But making B&W prints for photographers is a very small part of my business. And it is getting smaller with each passing year. It just does not pay to have a special printer for quadtone or stock the film for making digital negatives. In fact, I can not imagine anyone surviving in business specializing in making silver prints these days.

 

Getting back to your statement, yes they are different. But few care. Only those who remember or still experience the magic of when a silver print sings in the wash are left to say "this way is better." For the other 99.9% who shoot and print digitally we say "wow, that's beautiful" as paper exits the printer. And we'll say "wow" when Henri's captures appear on our monitors.

 

Tom

 

PS: This was not a promo as I have all of the work I care to do. I was just sharing my experience of making B&W prints.

[pico]

[...] that is my biggest issue with the monochron and leica in general, it is priced too high for the young and talented and those willing to break new ground artistically[...]

 

They can break ground with almost any camera, certainly one they can afford. They certainly do not need a Leica. Wow, talk about a benchmark fallacy.

[chrism]

Nor have I said "the first thing we do, let's kill all the film photographers"

 

Anyone who knows his Shakespeare is OK with me! Jaap, for a Dutchman, your command of the english language amazes me.

 

Chris

[sblitz]

Pico. It is not a benchmark fallacy in the marketing of Leica. Especially the marketing of Henri. Speaks for itself n'est pas?

[CalArts 99]

Getting back to your statement, yes they are different. But few care. Only those who remember or still experience the magic of when a silver print sings in the wash are left to say "this way is better." For the other 99.9% who shoot and print digitally we say "wow, that's beautiful" as paper exits the printer. And we'll say "wow" when Henri's captures appear on our monitors.

 

I think that's pretty much what sblitz calls the "memory benchmark." I still listen to vinyl records (we have a huge collection of LPs and CDs only because my spouse is in the recording industry ) but I also listen to high bit rate lossless FLAC digital files. I still have a huge and very heavy Sony CRT HD TV set that is extraordinary especially in respect to Dmax (true black on the screen.) But my latest high quality HD LCD screen TV is pretty spectacular, too.

 

They are all different in their own way, and each have their own pros and cons. But it's all pretty good stuff when the content is good. And when the content is really good, and just like you mentioned, we will all say "wow."

[pico]

Pico. It is not a benchmark fallacy in the marketing of Leica. Especially the marketing of Henri. Speaks for itself n'est pas?

 

The Henri reference by marketing is pure hubris. I think Leica is in a Steve Jobs "Reality Distortion Field" and I won't go for it.

.

The M9m will have to earn its reputation, for better or worse. It's not even in our hands yet, and already people think it is going to put a dent in the universe, but so far we only know that it going to put a dent in our wallets.

.

[Peter H]

I think we need something new to argue about.

[erl]

I think we need something new to argue about.

 

Do you want the 15 min argument, or the full half hour?

[pico]

I think we need something new to argue about.

 

Because the thread no longer glorifies the M9m?

.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erl]

Because the thread no longer glorifies the M9m?

.

 

No, because it is based on too much surmise and boring.

Any facts are mostly off topic IMO.

[AlanG]

I think once photographers start seriously using the MM some will get terrific results. If I like the picture, that is about all that matters to me. I am very intrigued by the camera regardless of whether it makes sense or not.