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

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, it's true: Film is no longer mainstream.

 

I, for one, could not care less what the "mainstream" does, thinks, says or buys.

 

And that is entirely fair enough.

 

But the topic is "Is it time to stop regarding film as the benchmark for B&W"

 

The mainstream is where the money is, and where technological development will happen. What people are concerned about with regard to the Monochrom is whether or not the quality of the images do, or can, match film, as that is what many aspire to. It could be said it is also what they are used to.

 

Like it or not, film production is in the decline (it may have reached bottom, who knows) and film camera production, except at the top end, in almost nonexistent.

 

My comment above (in case you missed it) was:

Does that mean that film will no longer be the benchmark? Well, film hasn't been the benchmark for colour for some time, and it probably won't be for B&W for much longer either, with high quality conversions from colour digital (Silver Efex Pro et al) and the Monochrom, film will lose much of its relevance.

 

In his Leica Chronicles, Erwin Puts speculates that the MP will cease production next year. A sad event, but probably inevitable.

 

Cheers

John

[AlanG]

I stand corrected. Both the agent and his client are idiots.

 

.

 

What could either have done to make an F6 become available more quickly if they couldn't find one to buy?

[IkarusJohn]

What could either have done to make an F6 become available more quickly if they couldn't find one to buy?

 

You might find this thread useful.

[AlanG]

You might find this thread useful.

 

Yeah it's pretty funny that I even expect a train of thought that can stay on subject so that I can follow the various points being made. But I thought I'd at least try to hold Pico to explain what he is getting at in these posts, because I can't make heads or tails of most of them. Of course the more I can learn about the Amish from this forum the better. And I'm sure everyone will be glad to be informed that two weeks ago I was at a craft show where a guy was selling hand made fountain (and ballpoint) pens. Just the cases were handmade, not the mechanisms. And from this I concluded that film will have a long future.

 

In any case if someone could only point out what the benchmark requirements are, then we could decide if a given format of film or some kind of digital camera can meet those requirements. But I'll try to answer the original post by saying that judging from an 11x14 b/w print it might be hard to know what kind of camera made the image.

[IkarusJohn]

I would hazard that to be a benchmark is relatively easy to define. It needs to set the standard to which others aspire, and against which they are measured. I'm not sure you can objectify it, or measure it.

 

We all know, I'm sure, what it is about a B&W photo, taken on good quality film, well exposed and composed, and printed well on high quality paper.

 

Can digital images get there? Or should they? Maybe digital images should aspire to something else?

 

Cheers

John

[pgk]

The mainstream is where the money is, and where technological development will happen. What people are concerned about with regard to the Monochrom is whether or not the quality of the images do, or can, match film, as that is what many aspire to. It could be said it is also what they are used to.

Your second sentence is the key. And now people are used to digital images (which the vast majority already are) it is these images by which other processes are judged - they have already become the benchmark against which non-digital prints are judged. That is not to say that people won't see the 'quality' in a silver print, but it may well be that such prints are regarded as different (hopefully in a positive way). Continuing to believe that digital photographers will continue to look backwards at an old (and increasingly unfamiliar) technology for an image 'quality' to aspire to is not going to continue/happen.

 

FWIW. The majority of 'art' B&W prints which I see in galleries are already digitally printed....

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The majority of 'art' B&W prints which I see in galleries are already digitally printed....

 

They most probably are but B&W digital printing is another ballgame altogether with a much longer history than B&W digital capture. Without wishing to open another can of worms, IMO a good B&W digital print may not be as lovely as a good wet FB print but it can still be a very fine print indeed. I'm less convinced about B&W digital capture.

[pgk]

They most probably are but B&W digital printing is another ballgame altogether with a much longer history than B&W digital capture. Without wishing to open another can of worms, IMO a good B&W digital print may not be as lovely as a good wet FB print but it can still be a very fine print indeed. I'm less convinced about B&W digital capture.

Absolutely, and I'm not disagreeing. Its not about what is better so much as about what people are now familiar with and which they do actually use as a benchmark for comparison with. People will not use an older process as a benchmark if they are unfamiliar with it - although when they see traditional photographic prints they may well be very impressed with them.

[bill]

Point of order...

 

Is it not time to stop using the word "benchmark" to define a point of reference? It's origins lie in a craftsman measuring out and marking his wooden workbench as a constant for subsequent fabrications.

 

Thus it seems to me that the term is faaaaar too, um - "analogue" - for some around here. Perhaps they could suggest something more... contemporary?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[luigi bertolotti]

Point of order...

 

Is it not time to stop using the word "benchmark" to define a point of reference? It's origins lie in a craftsman measuring out and marking his wooden workbench as a constant for subsequent fabrications.

 

Thus it seems to me that the term is faaaaar too, um - "analogue" - for some around here. Perhaps they could suggest something more... contemporary?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Absolutely correct... to speak of "benchmark" in relation with BW photography as an artistic media is at all out of target; one could compare an 8x10" BW neg with a MM file or a MF digiback file converted in BW, all of them refereed to some complex and significant bw test chart... and draw some conclusion : but I think this is not of interest for most of us.

Fact is that the VAST majority of pictures that have made the history of BW photography as an art have been, not surprisingly, taken with film... and those pictures are "the benchmark" : my idea is that all of them (including the ones from legendary masters) could have been identical even if obtained with digital workflow (with some doubt on printing) : if we, in the next years will see digtal-taken BW pics in which the photographers have found a ways of expression that are specifically allowed by digital, ok, maybe we will be able to say that digital is the benchmark for BW imaging, being it RICHER in the capabilities of personal expression it gives.

[plasticman]

maybe we will be able to say that digital is the benchmark for BW imaging, being it RICHER in the capabilities of personal expression it gives.

 

I don't understand this part, at all?

[luigi bertolotti]

I don't understand this part, at all?

 

I whished to exprime a rather wide concept in condensated mode.... .. to summarize my ideas :

 

- As a premise, we are talking of BW as an artistic expression, not a specific reproduction technique (where strict measurements of quality of results are possible : benchmarking is valuable with numbers )

 

- The "value" of an artistic technique is a questionable subject... but a no-nonsense approach is that if the technology evolves so that the artist , within the SAME field and THANKS to the technology in itself, has a BROADER capabilty to exploit his sentiment, his feelings, his ways to interprete reality... in brief to express his creative mind, we aren't so wrong affirming that the new technology is the "benchmark" on which one can discuss the value of a certain artistic work, GIVEN THE CAPABILITIES that technology puts in our hands.

 

I confess that have derived this humble consideration as an amateur pianist... and thinking of the evolution harpsichord - "modern" piano - electronic piano : it has been no much more than a technology evolution... and Beethoven COULD NOT have created something like the Sonata Op. 106 with the limitations of the harpsichord , while we CAN discover more trasures in a piano performance of Bach's Goldberg Variations than in a performance of the same onto a harpsichord (for which it was, indeed, conceived and written): so, I'd say that piano became, historically the "benchmark" for an artist who created music for keyboard : its breadth of expressive capability simply put the noble harpsichord in the (fully respectable) corner of historically important and interesting instruments (which is worth to KEEP ALIVE, anyway). Now... electronic piano offers an even broader capabilty of expression, and with the right instrument in the right hands, one can perform Op. 106 or Goldberg with a result, in terms of "artistic value" no less than a performance of the same on a fine Steinway... : but can we say that it is the new "benchmark tool" for keyboard music ? Have been created artworks that would have been impossible to create without it AND have established themselves in the history in a position comparable to the above masterpieces ? I doubt... and even Boulez, a deep experimenter, used the classic piano for his "Deuxième Sonate".

 

So (and sorry for the digression) : my opinion is that if and when we will have GREAT photographers who will create GREAT BW images with BW digital tools, exploiting in depth the technical capabilities it maybe can give... we will be able to say "ok, no doubt that digital is the "benchmark tool" for BW photography... film is "the harpsichord"... a noble, tasty, historical tool which is worth yo keep alive.

 

I have no idea if and when this time will arrive... to name an obvious "benchmark"... I'm personally convinced that with digital workflow one can obtain a print similar-identical to some Adams' legendary ones... but this isn't a proof of digital as the definitve "killer of film"..

[giordano]

Is it not time to stop using the word "benchmark" to define a point of reference? It's origins lie in a craftsman measuring out and marking his wooden workbench as a constant for subsequent fabrications.

 

First, are you sure of the origin? The oldest sense in OED is the surveyor's benchmark, and it's explained in terms of a mark in which to locate a "bench" and not a mark on a craftsman's bench.

 

Second, the "point of reference" sense dates from at least the 1880s, and IMHO it's time to accept it.

[plasticman]

if the technology evolves so that the artist , within the SAME field and THANKS to the technology in itself, has a BROADER capabilty to exploit his sentiment, his feelings, his ways to interprete reality... in brief to express his creative mind...

 

OK. I disagree with this because I don't think the medium itself is a limitation to the creative process in the way you suggest.

Naturally a Stone Age man was unable to write a piano sonata because the piano itself was aeons away, but let's shift the analogy to something closer to the discussion regarding film and digital image capture: suppose that Michelangelo had PaintShop Pro instead of plaster and pigments - would it have made him a better artist? Would the Sistine Chapel ceiling be better as a neon installation, or an interactive projection controlled by a collaborative Facebook application?

 

I simply don't see that Sally Mann would feel that capturing her images with a Canon 5D would give her "BROADER capabilty to exploit her sentiment, her feelings, her ways to interprete reality"

[andybarton]

First, are you sure of the origin? The oldest sense in OED is the surveyor's benchmark, and it's explained in terms of a mark in which to locate a "bench" and not a mark on a craftsman's bench.

 

Second, the "point of reference" sense dates from at least the 1880s, and IMHO it's time to accept it.

 

An Ordnance Survey benchmark is a broad arrow either carved into an immovable stone structure (such as a church foundation stone), or on a bronze plaque bolted to something similarly immovable. Surveyors use these benchmarks as known references. Every one of them is a known and recorded level above OS datum mean sea level, which was officially set at Newlyn in Cornwall. The known level corresponds to the tip of the arrow, and they often have a cast ledge so that a surveyor's staff can be placed there for land surveying purposes.

 

Back in the day, I spent many a happy hour going round Reading with a staff in one hand, a surveyor's chain in the other, and a dumpy level over my shoulder.

 

OS Benchmarks

[bill]

First, are you sure of the origin? The oldest sense in OED is the surveyor's benchmark, and it's explained in terms of a mark in which to locate a "bench" and not a mark on a craftsman's bench.

 

Second, the "point of reference" sense dates from at least the 1880s, and IMHO it's time to accept it.

 

I can find reference to both on t'internet but I was actually going from memory when I left college and went to a manufacturing company. They had "benchmarks" to keep a standard length for packings prior to processing. My grand-dad, who was chief maintenance electrician at Vickers during the war and ex-navy used the term in the same way.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Having maximum control over an image would be part of any benchmark that I'd create for my photography.

 

Well one can clearly have more control over an image if one starts from color and then converts it. I posted a sample on another thread that shows how different lighting on the same subject affects how the tones are reproduced in b/w. (Daylight vs. sodium vapor.) I don't know if many people consider the color qualities of the existing lighting when looking at how tones are reproduced on b/w film. So I see the need for this level of control because I am a control freak and understand that the situation on site may need to be compensated for in order to produce the tones that I want.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/238887-reason-m-monchrome-7.html#post2080025

 

For me, shooting "b/w" images in color would be the first step in creating a benchmark for my approach. What I'd need to do to get sufficient resolution and highlight detail for a given subject and application would then influence other decisions I make. If you look at Ansel Adam's work as a benchmark, keep in mind that he used large format, processed each sheet separately for a specific contrast, and was a master printer.

 

Assuming digital capture is employed and detail can be covered satisfactorily and one has control over how colors are reproduced, the only drawback I can see is the lack of ability to burn in overexposed areas as one can with film. So you'd have to come up with a solution for this if the highlight range exceeds what one can get on a single exposure.

 

For instance, the 5DIII can very rapidly shoot three images to be used for HDR. You can set various parameters of how these will be shot and automatically combined. Or you can later use them individually in a more selective possibly regional method. (E.g. just to darken a sky a bit.)

 

So I think there are a lot of approaches to making a good b/w photo today and while there are trade-offs from each, I think it comes down to what you personally value.

[pico]

[... snip excellent article...]

 

Back in the day, I spent many a happy hour going round Reading with a staff in one hand, a surveyor's chain in the other, and a dumpy level over my shoulder.

 

Reading! I knew it well many years ago. I used to drop down to Reading from Bicester to visit a wonderful lady-friend, something of a milestone for me, not a benchmark.

.

What do they call those stone markers with location engraved, placed at various locations, often in the middle of nowhere? Are those also ordnance survey benchmarks?

[bill]

I think you mean trig points.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[andybarton]

Trig points are usually stone pillars about 4 feet tall, often on the tops of mountains. They will inevitably have a benchmark in the side, and also have a plate on the top of the column.

 

Here's one above Ullswater in the Lake District

 

Place Fell