B & W, Film or Digital

[edstock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is a lot of noise, words, examples of Leica’s latest B & W M10. I love black & white photography. Be it stills from the greats, 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and beyond, to the film noir movies from Hollywood in the 40’s and 50’s. Gritty is a term often used, realistic another, raw power, all serve to help explain the reason for B & W photography. The problem I have with digital b&w is the inability to generate, my opinion, a negative which can then be printed. Along with that argument lies the cost factor. The new Leica M-10’s price is simply ouch! I can buy many rolls of 35mm and 120 format B & W film, plus the cost of the chemicals for development. I can also have many rolls developed for me by a number of quality labs. Call me a curmudgeon if you will, but I’ll take film over a pixel count any day.

[jaapv]

An answer to the title: Both. Two quite different media. All the rest is personal preference. Which can change any minute with me, depending on my mood.

 This argument was declared moot fifteen years ago...🙄 

Although I am at a loss to understand why you would want to make an analog negative from a digital file (and then, presumably, scan it to print or display on the Internet) as it is virtually impossible to tell a Baryta inkjet print from a chemical one, here is how:
https://parallaxphotographic.coop/how-to-make-digital-negatives/

A viable alternative is to have a lab make a Lambda print, which is generated from a digital file, projected onto photographic paper by laser and then developed chemically.