250swb Posted July 12, 2012 Share #61 Posted July 12, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually, I agree with you. I don't like the artifice of trying to make digital look like film either. I was just pulling you up, rather pedantically I admit, about the assertion that the vast majority of users use it for that purpose. Carry on... It would be interesting to know what you think the digital look should be? Something unadjusted that pops out of the camera, or a blank slate readu to be worked? If somebody uses an ultra fine developer and adjusts the ISO so their Tri-X can look smoother and more like digital, are they cheating as well? No, of course not, because the intolerance only works in one direction Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Quote of the decade about film vs. digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jamie Roberts Posted July 12, 2012 Share #62 Posted July 12, 2012 I wouldn't suggest Efex without it being a Photoshop plugin, it is only a component, but I'd like to see you create as many adjustment layers (and use them) as is possible in Efex given ten times the amount of time. As regards colour not making any difference to the MM, well it is possible to apply tones to an MM image, it is not 'greyscale'. And given that in the entire history of photography there has never been anything defined as a completely neutral B&W print, I suggest that the colour/toning options in Efex are essential to create something that looks at least similar to a chlorobromide print. So rather than look down on people who you have assumed don't know Photoshop because they prefer Efex, I suggest you try it, and also learn something about the subtleties of darkroom printing and colour in B&W. Steve Steve-- I'm not looking down on anyone--we all learn at different rates. I took issue with your assertion that SilverFX would get me where I want to go faster and more comprehensively than Photoshop, and that is simply not factually true I *do* own (and have owned) SilverFX (and AlienSkin 3 & 4). I'm extremely familiar with what it does and what it can do A number of points for you to consider: many adjustment layers are not the only way of making complex channel operations in PS toning is actually quite trivial in PS or with a good RIP, even separate highlight mid-tone, and shadow toning I worked in a film BW darkroom professionally for years, so I understand your points about toning and neutrality finally, toning isn't what I meant when I said "the colour moves in SilverFX won't have any effect on a MM" Like all film plugins, SilverFX uses channel mapping to reproduce "film" responses to colour. Since the MM has no colour channels, this will be useless If you're up Cambridge way I'd be happy to show you editing with layers and channel operations, and some of the cool masking effects in CS5 and 6 Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 12, 2012 Share #63 Posted July 12, 2012 OMG! Izzat analog enough? (And Yes, it is a picture I made.) Hey! What Leica lens or camera? :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 12, 2012 Share #64 Posted July 12, 2012 It would be interesting to know what you think the digital look should be? Something unadjusted that pops out of the camera, or a blank slate readu to be worked? If somebody uses an ultra fine developer and adjusts the ISO so their Tri-X can look smoother and more like digital, are they cheating as well? No, of course not, because the intolerance only works in one direction Steve - we're all entitled to our own preferences, so I don't know why you constantly refer to other people's choices as though they're attempting to prevent you from following yours? As far as I'm concerned, coming from an industry that produces manipulated digital images for popular consumption all the time, I personally like to remain as true as I can to the original look of a camera or film. I know in some ways this is an impossibility (especially with issues of color interpretation when shooting RAW), but I find that the inherent 'constraints' of each medium are liberating rather than constraining. There are ways to make an image look the way you want without too much post-processing - I like grain for instance, so I always shoot my M8 at ISO320, because it gives a pleasing texture to the files. I also like the differing characteristics of (film or digital) images shot with particular lenses - a Noctilux image versus a Summilux. Then there are the ways that half-frame cameras (like the old Pen F) differ from 35mm, and how both look very different to medium format. This makes me itch to try large format - but it definitely doesn't have me reaching for Photoshop plug-ins that can imitate Collodion prints. There are myriad ways to manipulate images - some seem to me to have 'integrity' (I don't mean ethical or moral integrity here, just material integrity), and for me they enhance the artistic value of an image. As a simple example, there's these images of Casablanca by Marco Barbon shot on expired Polaroid. Some of these could almost be mistaken for unthinking Instagram snaps - but to me it's way more interesting that the photographer has sought out his own idiom and his own technical vision to perfectly fit the subject. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted July 13, 2012 Share #65 Posted July 13, 2012 And digital Tri-X will look like scanned real Tri-X anyway, not like the real thing. The number of persons who have actually seen an all-the-way chemical print is declining rapidly. Really? not where I live. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 13, 2012 Share #66 Posted July 13, 2012 Steve - we're all entitled to our own preferences, so I don't know why you constantly refer to other people's choices as though they're attempting to prevent you from following yours? . There is a fundamental double standard when people think of digital as a medium based on falsehood and manipulation if any editing is done to it, yet happily accept without question all the artificial manipulations that are present in the 'analogue' workflow with film. People choose Tr-X because they like grain, we know they do. But grain isn't essential, it is an emotional intellectual and visual choice they are making. Yet those same people are happy to tell others who use digital that choosing to degrade an image in a similar way for visual effect by adding noise or artificial grain is fake. No, it isn't fake, it is the same emotional, intellectual and visual choice being made. A song doesn't become 'fake' if it is rendered acoustically rather than electronically, or visa versa, the words are the same, the tune is the same, often the notes are the same. Whichever way it is done it is the artist who is in control of the emotional statement. The difference in photography is that once the film is in the camera the choice becomes passive, whereas with a digital camera the choice can be both proactive or reactive to the image created. The passivity of film often stays with the final image, comments that the rendering is nice are often swept aside with 'ah, that is because I used Tri-X' said with fake humility, whereas a digital artist will have to say 'yes I added additional noise for its emotional power' along with any further justifications. And some people just can't hack it when they have to explain their own photographs, so the passivity of Tri-X becomes a distinct advantage. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted July 13, 2012 Share #67 Posted July 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) What a travesty! That makes me want to get my darkroom built even more than before and go back to 100% silver printing. That's what I do, I love it more and more everyday and the growing investment I have made into it is starting to pay off real nice on the balance sheet. I prevent career burnout by shooting digital in 35mm and film in 35, 120 and now 4x5, even my wife comments on how happy I am these days. Who cares about some high dollar Leica labeled black and white only digicam when at the snap of a finger and some modest investment, a shooter can do wet printing? I have people between the ages of 15-60 in my town practically beating my door down lately to teach darkroom based workshops, few have even heard of a monochrome M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted July 13, 2012 Share #68 Posted July 13, 2012 People choose Tr-X because they like grain, we know they do. Wow, thanks for telling me why I shoot Tri-X, glad I am clear on it now. Because before, I thought I shot it and printed it in a real darkroom becasue I just love film period and don't want everything I do in my life to require a lousy computer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 13, 2012 Share #69 Posted July 13, 2012 If you're up Cambridge way I'd be happy to show you editing with layers and channel operations, and some of the cool masking effects in CS5 and 6 Thank you, a kind offer, but my point was that I pretty much stopped the malarky of using Photoshop's Layers and Masks when I found Silver Efex could do nearly all things quicker and with less fuss and actually more accurately. Flipping back and forth in the stack of Layers and Masks was a great way to do things once upon a time, in days gone by. Silver Efex works by creating Layers, they are 'what you see is what you get' Layers, in real time. But Photoshop is essential for many things, and even the occasional additional adjustment Layer . Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 13, 2012 Share #70 Posted July 13, 2012 Somewhere above, Plasticman said I was being unfair to Andy. Sorry, but I don't agree. First, Andy implied that SEP was only for imitating film. It isn't. It does way more than that, whatever it's called. I use it, and I'm more interested in adjusting what I can to produce images I like. Sorry if that doesn't meet with the authorized and approved way of doing things. Second, there is a continual assertion that if you want to take or convert images in black and white, you're trying to recreate film. I'm afraid life has moved on, and for digital images (for me, anyway) film is not relevant. Last, if Andy does use Silver Efex Pro, I apologise. His comment looked like a shoot from the hip piece of uninformed prejudice. I had no idea he actually uses the software; as I had been using it for over a year before I discovered the film simulations (bottom left). I tried them once, didn't like them and haven't used them since. I don't use Photoshop. I use LR4 with Silver Efex Pro as a plugin, and I like digital B&W as it is, adjusted as I like. If others like something different, I'm not about to look down my nose at them. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted July 14, 2012 Share #71 Posted July 14, 2012 Second, there is a continual assertion that if you want to take or convert images in black and white, you're trying to recreate film. I'm afraid life has moved on, and for digital images (for me, anyway) film is not relevant. I agree, because no matter how hard it or the companies who make it try to, digital will never be, equal or surpass film....you can not surpass what you can not be. After using digital for 20 years, I know that nothing will change the fact that digital is a computer and always will be. Adobe Illustrator will never be an oil painting, a camera with a digital sensor in it will never be a film image. There is nothing you can do to change the legacy of what truly are the groundbreaking images of our time, the raw narrative they will continue to echo for generations to come. Film will live on for as long as we do, it will be around in usable form long after any bankrupt companies stop making it due to intrepid artists who make the inroads to ensure it will go on. But digital will pass on in current form much, much sooner as the companies who make it strive to constantly outdo one another to win over your insatiable appetite for upgrades....the incessant journey of gear rather than images that speak to your talents and the eye of your heart. Get used to it folks, long legendary and even new groundbreaking film images will continue to haunt and nip at the heels at the already very finite life of the digital hype machine....far longer than anyone on here will live. Digital photography is poured through the same computer shaped funnel that everything else is, film photography is photography stripped of all the BS, it is simply photography it self. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 14, 2012 Share #72 Posted July 14, 2012 Sorry, Andy. That makes no sense. Replicating the look of film is one small option on Silver Efex; I had been using the software for months before I noticed those settings, and I've never used them. Do you have Silver Efex? My guess is not. I'm not even remotely interested in replicating the look or feel of film. I use my M3 if I want the look of film. If you want to criticise the M Monochrom, and Silver Efex, it would be valid to do so because you no longer have the ability to play with the yellow, green, red, orange and blue filters; but you can still adjust luminance, brightness and other settings, which easily give similar adjustments to traditional darkroom adjustments under an enlarger. If you were to buy a Monochrom, and not use Silver Efex Pro, or Photoshop, you might as well just shoot JPegs. Hang on, what was the purpose of your post? You only shoot film, don't you? Sorry - a bit late to this, having been away. No. I do not "only shoot film". I don't shoot with a digital M, though, as I can't afford one. I am not criticising the M Monochrom. I've never seen one, never touched one and seen very little output from the beta firmware ones which are out there. So, I have no comment to make on the camera itself. I do not use Silver Efex. If it's not to emulate film, presumably it is just a black and white converter? Surely, the functionality of the software is in it's name? I convert lots of digital images to black and white. It's not difficult and I have never thought that maybe I need to spend $200 on some software that does something I can do in Photoshop. I never try to replicate film as, in my opinion, it's pretty much impossible. If you use the "Tri-X" setting, do you also get to choose the developer that it's been developed in? I'm sure you don't. Everyone who buys an MM will have either Photoshop or Lightroom, both of which are perfectly capable of enhancing the contrast, luminance etc of MM files What I fail to understand is why specialist black and white digital manipulation software (designed for use with colour originals) is necessary for a camera which only produces black and white images, unless the user wants to emulate film. Can you explain that to me? Edit: I am downloading the 15 day trail to see for myself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 14, 2012 Share #73 Posted July 14, 2012 SFX is obviously very clever and I converted a colour scan to a more interesting B&W image in about two minutes. It might have taken me three minutes in PS. Still not sure what it brings to the party for original b&w images, though. For a freebie, I suppose it might be useful. I wonder how many MM owners would rush out and pay $200 for it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 14, 2012 Share #74 Posted July 14, 2012 It would be interesting to know what you think the digital look should be? Something unadjusted that pops out of the camera, or a blank slate readu to be worked? If somebody uses an ultra fine developer and adjusts the ISO so their Tri-X can look smoother and more like digital, are they cheating as well? No, of course not, because the intolerance only works in one direction Steve I'm finding this a little baffling Steve. If you try to make a digital file look like film, particularly a specific type of film, its an artifice. But if you try to make your film smoother or less grainy, its unlikely that your motivation is to make it look like digital, and far more likely that you simply want it to look smoother, which photographers were doing long before they even thought about digital photography. The distinction here is that one is an artifice, (trying to copy the look of film) and the other isn't. A digital file is a marvellous thing, capable of an infinity of wonderfully expressive and imaginative interpretations. Personally (call it a prejudice if you wish) I find it rather unimaginative to use it in a probably vain attempt to copy something it isn't when it has so many amazing properties of its own. (Of course there are times when a "grainy" look might be effective. But that's a different matter. We're talking specifically about copying film as opposed to creating whatever textures you feel might work, where any resemblance in either direction between the two media are accidental and/or coincidental.) I'm extremely grateful that both film and digital exist and hope they continue to do so for a very long time: long after these silly arguments about which is better have died out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted July 14, 2012 Share #75 Posted July 14, 2012 As an M9 owner SFX (and the rival product Alien Skin Exposure 4) is well worth it. The film conversions are good and the other "effects" that can be added are of value now and again. But the truth is I'd rather use film, in my MP or M2 or any other of the (too many) film cameras I have any day! I agree with Andy that its inclusion with the M Monocrom is puzzling. But then I find the M Monocrom itself puzzling even more so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 14, 2012 Share #76 Posted July 14, 2012 I am coming to the conclusion that I would get a lot more fun from an MM than I ever would an M9 I am going right off colour, especially negative film which is just such a pain to work with. Virtually everything I do these days is in black and white. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted July 14, 2012 Share #77 Posted July 14, 2012 What I fail to understand is why specialist black and white digital manipulation software (designed for use with colour originals) is necessary for a camera which only produces black and white images, unless the user wants to emulate film. Can you explain that to me? The amount of images in raw that I shoot have shrank quite a bit, maybe because they are pretty big from the D800. So I shoot a lot in jpeg, have a lot of cool settings, including about a half a dozen in black and white. I expect my digital black and white output to look as good as that medium can offer, I don't even think about what film it might be looking like. But ultimately, I treat in camera digital output just like I do film, get it right in camera to minimize time in the darkroom or Lightroom....but that is me. I think that no matter what anyone says, Silver Effex Pro and other similar plug ins were born of the need to best emulate black and white film, but I also fail to understand why a monochrome specific sensor even needs the plug in, it should have a dynamic range of in camera settings that just nail it period. Otherwise, what are you gaining over a regular M9 with a conversion? $8,000 can buy an M3, 50 1.4, a bunch of your favorite black and white film, paper and darkroom equipment and never need upgrading, this is the gazelle that digital is *clearly* chasing....and will never catch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted July 14, 2012 Share #78 Posted July 14, 2012 I'm finding this a little baffling Steve. If you try to make a digital file look like film, particularly a specific type of film, its an artifice. But if you try to make your film smoother or less grainy, its unlikely that your motivation is to make it look like digital, and far more likely that you simply want it to look smoother, which photographers were doing long before they even thought about digital photography. The distinction here is that one is an artifice, (trying to copy the look of film) and the other isn't. A digital file is a marvellous thing, capable of an infinity of wonderfully expressive and imaginative interpretations. Personally (call it a prejudice if you wish) I find it rather unimaginative to use it in a probably vain attempt to copy something it isn't when it has so many amazing properties of its own. I'm extremely grateful that both film and digital exist and hope they continue to do so for a very long time: long after these silly arguments about which is better have died out. I agree, I really do love having both mediums to use, but I have made personal distinctions in that digital is digital imaging and film photography is just straight up photography, for me anyway. I think the only way that the silly arguments will die out is if film does and well know it will not. I think a lot of people have this misconception that at some point, digital will be so good in technical terms that film will look flat out bad and that is just not the case, just like a 20 foot mural done in adobe Illustrator will never overtake the sheer breathtaking mastery of some of the giant oil paintings in the Louvre. It comes down to the tools used, the journey lived, not just the final image. In modern life, there is the all consuming computer.....and then there is everything else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 14, 2012 Share #79 Posted July 14, 2012 .............................. $8,000 can buy an M3, 50 1.4, a bunch of your favorite black and white film, paper and darkroom equipment and never need upgrading, this is the gazelle that digital is *clearly* chasing....and will never catch. I agree with your immediately preceding post, but I no more believe that digital is forever chasing film than I believe that one is inherently superior to the other, or that blue is a nicer colour than green, or that old is better than new, or vice versa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted July 14, 2012 Share #80 Posted July 14, 2012 or that old is better than new, or vice versa. Old wife is never better than new wife - and don't you forget it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.