M8 vs B&W film - examples

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK Eoin, just for you, just this once............... because you don't wear your hat backwards.

For me personally it's simple,................... Sheeert I like that!....................

[Eoin]

OK Eoin, just for you, just this once............... because you don't wear your hat backwards.

For me personally it's simple,................... Sheeert I like that!....................

 

LMAO:D imants, subtle......discerning.......insightful......truly helpful(I mean that). in other words the image either floats your boat or doesn't?. No rules apply?.

 

Before I turn my hat around can you answer one more question from me please?, leaving aside composition and subject matter, what is the biggest mistake made in B&W photography?.

And please don't say using an M8 LOL.

 

Thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[mwilliamsphotography]

RE: "What constitutes a good B&W photo" My purely subjective opinion:

 

B&W strips away the distraction of color to focus on content and the emotional resonance of that content.

 

B&W Digital and film obviously both have that in common. And often that's all there need be.

 

However, how the aesthetics of the medium used supports or detracts from that purpose is where I feel digital and film often part company.

 

Digital renders light using regimented pixels which can produce a sort of clinically correct approximation of the scene. Film renders light using random grain, which I feel adds a sense of depth to an image because it is variable in it's reaction to light.

 

In a way, digital uses the same method as does printed reproductions such as offset printing ... where regimented dots are mixed by the eye to provide the approximate impression of the original. But as in printing, that regimentation often loses something in the translation ... which is why even with the finest multiple ink printing techniques the result is less than the original silver print. I own a number of master silver prints and monographs containing those same images which appear to be extremely good reproductions ... until you place them next to the real thing.

 

Also, the "emotional" qualities of how a scene is printed in the darkroom (in order to enhance that emotional content) can add to it.

 

Here's a wierd example ... the opening to the TV drama "Law & Order features B&W still images ... some are obviously modern shots of the actors in character which feel clinically perfect, where others are obviously real crime photos and feel real ... gritty and emotionally powerful. I've no idea if the modern ones are digital or not, but suspect so. The crime shots are unmistakenly from film .... probably a Nikon and Tri-X.

 

I do not particularly practice what I preach. A majority of my recent B&W images are from digital conversions because of doing wedding photography. That is something I am in the process of correcting regardless if my clients can tell the difference. After all, there is something to be said about getting personal satisfaction from your work. I trust film to give me that.

 

Here are a few wedding shots done using film ... all shot using M cameras.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest stnami]

Mistake... not easy but probably ignoring colour, by this I mean colour not colour photography

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

............yea ignore colour and your B&W stuff will just be there sitting and waiting for something to happen

[mwilliamsphotography]

LMAO:D imants, subtle......discerning.......insightful......truly helpful(I mean that). in other words the image either floats your boat or doesn't?. No rules apply?.

 

Before I turn my hat around can you answer one more question from me please?, leaving aside composition and subject matter, what is the biggest mistake made in B&W photography?.

And please don't say using an M8 LOL.

 

Thanks

 

Not knowing what it should look like. Relying on books and web reproductions instead of taking the trouble to view the real thing.

[hankg]

B+W film photography isn't just 135 Tri-X. There are an infinite variety of looks from 35 to large format. In some the grain is prominent and detail is minimil, in others the grain is invisible and transitions are smooth and there is tons of detail. How you capture the raw data is not so important as having a vision when you clicked the shutter and a vision of what you want to do with it and then having the know how to execute.

 

The dynamic range of offset reproduction even with additional and special ink sets is anemic compared to analogue (or properly done digital) prints. A quality magazine ad on coated stock has a total color range of less then 2,000 colors. So it is a comparison that does not really fly.

 

No comparison of resolution/detail or dynamic range will tell you anything about the aesthetic quality of an image. Great images can be made using a poorly resolving lens baby, camera phone, a cardboard box with a pinhole punched in it or an M film or digital. Pick whichever media/system suits you, your budget, way of working and your vision.

 

If you use an M and B+W film. You can compare notes about various film/developer combinations and lenses in the film forum. If you are using an M8 you can get some useful info on it's use here. The creative bit you will have to supply yourself. There is no lens, camera or media that will supply that. Neither do I believe that in the end there is any system or method that will make you more or less creative. If you have a vision and a driving need to express it you will do it. If not, switching to film or digital, buying a new ASPH lens or an old uncoated one won't make any difference what so ever.

[Eoin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A sincere "thank you" to Imrants, Mani, Chris, Steve and Marc for taking the time and interest to explain B&W. Marc I tend to agree that the way light effects the grain imparts something special to darkroom prints but is missing in this inkjet era, and thanks again for your considered opinion.

 

I'd still be interested to hear more, it's never to late to learn!.

[stunsworth]

...it's never to late to learn!.

 

That's probably the most important thing for any of us to bear in mind.

[xrogers]

This is a huge simplification, I know that what others value in a black and white print differs, and just because a print is silver doesn't make it good by a long shot.

 

When I get beyond the paper surface and how the photo floats in it, the main printing defects I notice in otherwise technically excellent digital black and white prints are flat flabby midtones, hard edges masquerading as detail, and a lack of texture in a media that is all about light, tone and texture.

 

I'm really trying to get digital black and white prints that sing, and I do get some, but it ain't easy. Then again, it wasn't easy in silver either.

 

Thanks to everyone for salvaging this thread.

 

--clyde

[xrogers]

Marc's middle shot of the bride and bridesmaids---Sheeert I like that!

 

Thank you for posting it.

 

--clyde

[Chuck Hatcher]

...Here are a few wedding shots done using film ...

 

Sorry, but by the time they reached me they were all digital.

 

Now I know that may sound like a smart-a$$ comment, and I guess I sort of did mean it that way, but trying to make your point without the ability to actually show a silver print loses a little something. Like the television commercials that show how much better the picture would be on a new television than the one you are watching the commercial on...

 

So much of the way humans perceive the world is based on illusion. Motion pictures don't really "move". Dots on a page or pixels on a screen are magically rendered into thoughts. Some people say vinyl records are superior to CD or tubes are better than transistors but my ears can't tell it.

 

Your point that there is something about B&W film that is not perfectly duplicated by digital sensors and workflow is well taken, and I don't mean to detract from it. But B&W is an unnatural (for humans, anyway) depiction of reality, not that there is anything wrong with that. As you say, the very fact that it does not mimic what humans see as closely as current color photography means that it conveys different information and conjures different thoughts. I think it is possible, no, not just possible, but practical, as in talented photographers are doing it every day, to use digital B&W in a similar way, to provoke a similar reaction. But just as it takes skill to make a great silver print, it takes skill to produce a great digital B&W print. In my opinion the technical differences between the capabilities of the two different media are far less significant than the sum of all the other things that go into making a great photo.

[jonoslack]

No comparison of resolution/detail or dynamic range will tell you anything about the aesthetic quality of an image. Great images can be made using a poorly resolving lens baby, camera phone, a cardboard box with a pinhole punched in it or an M film or digital. Pick whichever media/system suits you, your budget, way of working and your vision.

 

If you use an M and B+W film. You can compare notes about various film/developer combinations and lenses in the film forum. If you are using an M8 you can get some useful info on it's use here. The creative bit you will have to supply yourself. There is no lens, camera or media that will supply that. Neither do I believe that in the end there is any system or method that will make you more or less creative. If you have a vision and a driving need to express it you will do it. If not, switching to film or digital, buying a new ASPH lens or an old uncoated one won't make any difference what so ever.

Splendid

Thank you - it's not often I read something I agree with from front to back

[Guest stnami]

But B&W is an unnatural (for humans, anyway) depiction of reality

....... can't see how it is unnatural unless you consider human activities and endevours unnatural

[robertwright]

stephen shore's new book "The Nature of Photographs" also posits something else: that a photograph is a three dimensional object. In other words, the print, the object, the photograph is significant itself in terms of our perception of it and of its content.

 

This should tell you that in terms of evaluating any photograph, bw or color, the physical print matters as well.

 

It seems to matter a lot to me in bw because I love the look and feel of silver prints. there are a few papers out there coming close in inkjet, hannehmuhle, innova, etc, starting to get that surface we are all familiar with in gloss fibre. Harman (nee Ilford) has a new matt paper that is a dead ringer for ilford fibre multigrade matt. Innova also has a warm tone paper similar to agfa pr118. So it is exciting. You can shoot film and print digital if you want and do some very lovely things.

 

If someone would make a cheap film recorder, we could shoot digital M8 and print conventionally-what would that be like I wonder?

[DaveB]

If someone would make a cheap film recorder, we could shoot digital M8 and print conventionally-what would that be like I wonder?

 

A crime against nature, some would argue.

[hankg]

 

If someone would make a cheap film recorder, we could shoot digital M8 and print conventionally-what would that be like I wonder?

 

There are digital printers that image to a conventional C-print for color prints and other devices that produce 8 x 10 color transparencies. There was a time when all high end digital retouching outfits output to 8 x 10 transparencies as agencies and printers were not equiped to handle digital files. Having worked with all these devices I can tell you if you want to make slides stick to film. A first generation analogue transparency is head and shoulders above it's digital equivalent. Comparing digital C-prints to ink jets there is not much betwwen the two.

 

What were aguably the best analogue color media are today extinct. Kodak stopped making the material for Dye Transfer prints some time ago. Medium format Kodachrome disappeared years ago and 35mm Kodachrome is soon to follow. Creativity in color photography hasn't suffered though from the loss of two breathtakingly good imaging methods.

 

In B+W we still have quality silver based films and print material so it still has it's unique qualities apart from digital which others here have pointed out.

[hankg]

The wedding images Mark posted are beautiful but film is not a required ingredient in making beautiful wedding images. Here is a former M film shooter now using Canon digital:eek: with a zoom:eek:, shooting jpgs:eek: and producing stunning B+W work:

 

Jeff Ascough's Wedding PJ Resource

 

My point is it is pointless to have debates about which medium or lens is better. Discussions about the atributes and look/results that can be achieved with various kit are always interesting though. I'm always curious about what others are using and what they are accomplishing with it. No medium or piece of equipment has mystical qualities that make it more conducive to producing more creative work. You can find examples of photographers using just about anything from film to digital, old wooden view cameras to the latest DSLR's doing interesting work.

[tashley]

The wedding images Mark posted are beautiful but film is not a required ingredient in making beautiful wedding images. Here is a former M film shooter now using Canon digital:eek: with a zoom:eek:, shooting jpgs:eek: and producing stunning B+W work:

 

 

STOP! The pain.... must go and take my meds... please tell me the guy uses full-rame?At least sometimes?

 

Yours in distress...

 

Tim

 

ps I think I might be about to do something hopefully quite positive as a result of this thread. I think I 'm about to buy an MP. So I'll be needing advice about which B&W film to use for fairly grainy stuff, either in daylight or up to ISO 1600. Any thoughts?

[Guest stnami]

Been using 1600 for the last couple of months, now I only use it in low light, 400 is versitile enough to push and shove both in the darkroom and as digifilm. Though I do use 800 in full sunlight and f22, gives great scattered contrasts. I do this for both B&W and colour

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tashley]

Been using 1600 for the last couple of months, now I only use it in low light, 400 is versitile enough to push and shove both in the darkroom and as digifilm. Though I do use 800 in full sunlight and f22, gives great scattered contrasts. I do this for both B&W and colour

 

Thanks very much Imants - any preferred type? I used to shoot tri-x and push it around but with the exception of the flat chromogenic stuff with which I started this thread, I haven't shot B&W film in years...