norm_snyder Posted August 15, 2007 Share #21 Posted August 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jim-- I thought some prints I saw of his in San Miguel de Allende about three years ago were from sheet film that had been scanned, and then printed as "digital negatives" for contact printing. If not, so much more impressive. Thanks, I stand corrected. Norm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 15, 2007 Posted August 15, 2007 Hi norm_snyder, Take a look here In-Camera B/W?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kbingman Posted August 15, 2007 Share #22 Posted August 15, 2007 Jim--I thought some prints I saw of his in San Miguel de Allende about three years ago were from sheet film that had been scanned, and then printed as "digital negatives" for contact printing. If not, so much more impressive. Thanks, I stand corrected. Norm I think Dan Burkholder is on of the great "experimentalists". I remember a portfolio from a toy video camera that he shot. He tries out lots of different things and was really one of the pioneers of digital negatives. Most of my BW prints are also digital negatives to platinum. If you are shooting with small cameras, it is really the only way to enlarge negatives and the control it allows is fabulous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsjxyz Posted August 15, 2007 Share #23 Posted August 15, 2007 I shot 70% directly to BW jpeg. Dont have too much time converting all the DNG. Since I am using iPhoto that synchronize to my iPod for viewing the picture instantly to TV or via my iMac. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted August 15, 2007 Share #24 Posted August 15, 2007 david.... we have to get back to wet plates...... oh well.... it looks great anyway...... hahahha bob....... who said that scanned b/w is b/w.... i just make fast scans so that i can comunicate... it is great...... but it is not b/w........ well it still looks closer and better b/w then digi camera but still it is digitalized thing........ agree with u...... what is the problem with digital?........ maybe not all digi cameras but those i know are super quality .... they are different from working with film, but quality itself doesnt bother that much..... actually since they are so high they start to remind the film a little bit (in colour)..... ) those are different things and sometimes they have cross lines in functionality and use..... so...... but b/w is art and craft in its own way....... medium on its own........ this is what i say.......... u can make super good colorless images...... ok..... but it is not b/w art/craft...... b/w is not only procedure..... it is also the way of thinking.... the stream of consciousness that comes in different way........ if not then one simply doesnt think/see b/w........ jim, ah and bob too........ ok..... for next shipping i will put alot of platinum , a super canon camera and i will make alot alot alot of platinum idiotic prints ) sure why not...... who said that digital platinum is better and all that shit......... another tech-toy-boy like michael richman who makes great photos like irving penn and should neccessarly print hos master-p[ieces on platinum ???????? oh i think those people should write their thought on computer...... then print it on "digi negative" then print it on platinum, scan it ..... and then post it on the interent...... by the way on film and alt-printing side there are alot of tech-toy-boys too........ i sound to me like : LEICA LEICA .......... SUPER CANON DIGI RESOLUTION DIGI DIGI better than 4x5 or even better and more convinient than 8x10........... DIGI DIGI LEICA LEICA PLATINUM PLATINUM it sounds to me like: PLATINUM digalized.......... I SLEEP with QUEEN ..........QUEEN QUEEN........ I SLEEP with HER....... i SLEEP WITH ROCK QUEEN , POP QUEEN, beauty queen , movie queen........... i sleep with queen............ hahhahaahha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted August 15, 2007 Share #25 Posted August 15, 2007 hi gareth......... thanks..... it is your choice....... add to ignore if that is what u want........ will it help..... why post this ? cause this is what i honestly think about interent talks........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth_c Posted August 15, 2007 Share #26 Posted August 15, 2007 hi gareth......... thanks..... it is your choice....... add to ignore if that is what u want........ will it help..... Yes, it would help as I wouldn't see your posts that come close to trolling. But then I would miss out on your photographs which I enjoy very much. why post this ? cause this is what i honestly think about interent talks........ Yes, but you didn't discuss it in any way. You merely reeled off a load of words (most the same). If that is honestly what you think then maybe you need to take a rest from the internet. Anyway, I won't say anymore as I'm not exactly helping move the conversation forward...I'm off on holiday tomorrow so it is time for me to start to calm down in anticipation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 15, 2007 Share #27 Posted August 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Victor, plase stop highjacking these threads. IMHO it's got past the stage of just being tedious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joop van Heijgen Posted August 15, 2007 Share #28 Posted August 15, 2007 hi gareth......... thanks..... it is your choice....... add to ignore if that is what u want........ will it help..... why post this ? cause this is what i honestly think about interent talks........ "b/w is not only procedure..... it is also the way of thinking.... the stream of consciousness that comes in different way........ if not then one simply doesnt think/see b/w........ " Here has Vic a point! (really a contribution to the discussion: Thinking b/w is always typical for the M camera user! May be it is time for a M8 camera for only use B/W! Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted August 15, 2007 Share #29 Posted August 15, 2007 to Bob Ross: I was refering to the fact that when you shoot RAW rather than jpeg you record much more "information" and the ability to access that info in post processing. I do shoot jpeg bw and have been happy with the results, but for landscape I feel you need the RAW info plus I believe (not absolutely certain on this) the dynamic range is greater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted August 15, 2007 Share #30 Posted August 15, 2007 Joop, you've hit the nail on the head. I purchased my M8 primarily with the intention of getting great bw output For me, the manner in which the Leica lenses "draw" is most beneficial in bw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norm_snyder Posted August 15, 2007 Share #31 Posted August 15, 2007 I also got the M8 specifically to shooot black and white--not because it looked just like film, but because it is a look I enjoy [and have never exhausted the potential of B&W]. That is why I continue, for some subjects, to shoot film alongside, or instead of digital. If the "look" were to become even more film like, then I might stop using film altogether. But then, this was never, I think, intended to be a film vs. digital thread, but one questioning in-camera B&W use on the M8. BTW, the new firmware seems to have improved iso 640 a little, and 1250 a bit more, as others have observed in another thread. Then, if I want to, I can then emulate [not replicate] the look of HP5 in Diafine or, if I want, Tri-X in Rodinol, or just print from jpegs with minimal PP--they seem to have a "look" I enjoy. Yes, and black and white only M8 variation would be welcome. I wonder if they would do a retrofit in Solms [or Wetzlar]? Remembering Promicrol-- Norm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fursan Posted August 15, 2007 Author Share #32 Posted August 15, 2007 Thanks to all that have responded. So much knowledge and experience here. So much to learn. Have to read multiple times to digest it all. Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted August 15, 2007 Share #33 Posted August 15, 2007 to Bob Ross: I was refering to the fact that when you shoot RAW rather than jpeg you record much more "information" and the ability to access that info in post processing. I do shoot jpeg bw and have been happy with the results, but for landscape I feel you need the RAW info plus I believe (not absolutely certain on this) the dynamic range is greater. Thanks John, I think it is valuable in answering the OP to have our various takes. I agree that the subject matter (as in landscapes) is a determining factor in format choice. On the output side I would guess that matching the tonalities to your printer would definitely favor raw. I think the DR advatage is still in the discovery stage for me and seems to be not a deciding factor at the moment. Highlight detail fall-off rate is my challenge in all digital formats. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcollum Posted August 15, 2007 Share #34 Posted August 15, 2007 jim, ah and bob too........ ok..... for next shipping i will put alot of platinum , a super canon camera and i will make alot alot alot of platinum idiotic prints ) sure why not...... who said that digital platinum is better and all that shit......... another tech-toy-boy like michael richman who makes great photos like irving penn and should neccessarly print hos master-p[ieces on platinum ???????? oh i think those people should write their thought on computer...... then print it on "digi negative" then print it on platinum, scan it ..... and then post it on the interent...... by the way on film and alt-printing side there are alot of tech-toy-boys too........ i sound to me like : LEICA LEICA .......... SUPER CANON DIGI RESOLUTION DIGI DIGI better than 4x5 or even better and more convinient than 8x10........... DIGI DIGI LEICA LEICA PLATINUM PLATINUM it sounds to me like: PLATINUM digalized.......... I SLEEP with QUEEN ..........QUEEN QUEEN........ I SLEEP with HER....... i SLEEP WITH ROCK QUEEN , POP QUEEN, beauty queen , movie queen........... i sleep with queen............ hahhahaahha i don't understand the function of the smiley face in your posting. putting one on something that is rude and for the most part, incomprehensible, doesn't make it witty and literate... it's still rude and for the most part, incomprehensible. i don't recall listing michael in my previous post. He prints on inkjet, and as far as i know, has never printed on platinum. you've neglected to give your artistic critique of the other photographers i listed i also don't understand the constant use of 'tech-toy-boy' as a seeming insult. i've read your posts, visited your site ( love your images, btw), and you do as much 'tech' with film as most people i know do with digital. the only digital that i shoot that is better than 4x5 in terms of resolution is a Betterlight scanning back. i can also get about 13 stops of latitude with it, which is about average for b/w negative. I can get a lot more with a b/w negative though... but it requires a lot of 'tech-toy-boy' work using compensating developers. the M8, the 'super canon', even the MF digital backs don't surpass 4x5 film. I have no idea where convenience comes in... shooting with the Betterlight in the field is far from convenient. as far as the last paragraph goes.. i'm not sure what you're trying to say here. if i were to compare it to photographic style.. it looks similar to closing one's eyes, setting a random aperture, random speed, randomly turning the focusing ring, and shooting in random directions. occasionally (ok. rarely) will something be captured that is aesthetically appealing. you are very successful at communicating with your images though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted August 15, 2007 Share #35 Posted August 15, 2007 bob....... who said that scanned b/w is b/w.... i just make fast scans so that i can comunicate... it is great...... but it is not b/w........ well it still looks closer and better b/w then digi camera but still it is digitalized thing........ agree with u...... but b/w is art and craft in its own way....... medium on its own........ this is what i say.......... u can make super good colorless images...... ok..... but it is not b/w art/craft...... b/w is not only procedure..... it is also the way of thinking.... the stream of consciousness that comes in different way........ if not then one simply doesnt think/see b/w........ jim, ah and bob too........ ok..... for next shipping i will put alot of platinum , a super canon camera and i will make alot alot alot of platinum idiotic prints ) sure why not...... oh i think those people should write their thought on computer...... then print it on "digi negative" then print it on platinum, scan it ..... and then post it on the interent...... i sleep with queen............ hahhahaahha Hi Vic, I thought that you clearly implied that your posted images were B/W...my error. I look forward to seeing your platinum snaps:) The queen you sleep with, should love them, too.....hahahaha It is good to see that progress is being made. It hasn't been too long ago that digital negatives were just a theory. Now that we don't have to wait for things to dry, we can get on with our next wild idea, before we forget what we were doing (easier to do as you get older...LOL). Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcollum Posted August 15, 2007 Share #36 Posted August 15, 2007 Thanks John,I think it is valuable in answering the OP to have our various takes. I agree that the subject matter (as in landscapes) is a determining factor in format choice. On the output side I would guess that matching the tonalities to your printer would definitely favor raw. I think the DR advatage is still in the discovery stage for me and seems to be not a deciding factor at the moment. Highlight detail fall-off rate is my challenge in all digital formats. Bob Raw does provide additional headroom in your image. If you were to keep the same tonal range as the captured jpeg, then you get the equivalence of the shoulder you get in film, that's typically missing from digital capture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted August 15, 2007 Share #37 Posted August 15, 2007 almost all of my print output is platinum. George Tice, Dick Arentz, Sandy King, Cy DeCosse, Kerik Kouklis, are all using digital negatives for their work. Thanks again, Jim. I need to update my research a bit. Do you use digital camera (like the M8) files to do any of your digital negatives? If so, how do you rate the M8's files for that application and I suppose to bring the OP's question back into the conversation, is there even a place in the digital negative approach for in-camera monochrome? I suppose I asked that last question with other alternative print proceses in mind. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcollum Posted August 15, 2007 Share #38 Posted August 15, 2007 Thanks again, Jim. I need to update my research a bit. Do you use digital camera (like the M8) files to do any of your digital negatives? If so, how do you rate the M8's files for that application and I suppose to bring the OP's question back into the conversation, is there even a place in the digital negative approach for in-camera monochrome? I suppose I asked that last question with other alternative print proceses in mind.Bob I've used scanned 4x5, 1dsmk2, M8 and Betterlight files for digital negatives. Because fairly drastic curves are needed to match the tonality on a Pt print, raw capture is really needed. not so much for the increase in dynamic range.. but for the ability to use 16 bit files. you'd end up with pretty severe posterization in large areas of smooth tones if you started and worked with an 8bit jpg. using incamera jpgs would limit the subject matter you'd be able to print (and be pleased with). This can also be the case with b/w inkjet printing if you use a lot of curves to manipulate tonal values. This can be reduced some by converting the jpg to a 16 bit tiff before doing any manipulation. This will at least reduce 'rounding error' when applying the curves, and minimize the gaps you see in the histogram in photoshop (which can equate to posterization) jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted August 15, 2007 Share #39 Posted August 15, 2007 Oh, great Leica GOD! Please a monochrome M8 without a Bayer sensor, just like the Kodak 760m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted August 15, 2007 Share #40 Posted August 15, 2007 Oh, great Leica GOD! Please a monochrome M8 without a Bayer sensor, just like the Kodak 760m. Hi John, This idea has been kicking around so long, that I would even like to see a digicam special edition from a brave mfr, just to give us something to evaluate. There has to be some reason, besides market demand that we don't even have one example. Monochrome sensors are avalable (industry uses them) and the A/D units are there, too. The manufacturer that braves up and produces one will get the "marketing advantage" of being the one interested in photography, instead of popular technology, and that would be good PR. Maybe we wont like it, but the mfr. who at least lets us find out, will get points for letting us find out. How 'bout and M-Lux, bitsy sensor and all. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.