First two rolls of HP5 developed last night - and I may have messed up a little because I didn't have the right graduate for measuring the small amount of HC110.
That being said - I have no doubt (as of this writing) that negative b&w film gives me something I haven't been getting (at least not very often) with digital capture.
This is a small example where the street was in bright sunlight, and these guys were in the shade. (As I say, most probably the film was under-developed a bit). I also did a touch of sharpening for the web image. But with digital - the left corner which is in direct sunlight would have been completely blown out. And if you had underexposed, you would have lost the kids in the shade.
So that's part of it. What else is it about b&w film? I am tempted to say something like - digital capture is lacking soul - or something poetic like that. But that may just be age-related and what we were brought up on. After all - I was around when the first b&w t.v.s were becoming popular. How does that effect my taste?
The current generation will hopefully find great expressive digital every bit as "soulful" as those from our generation find negative film. Maybe.
And maybe the so called mythical average person wouldn't know the difference. That doesn't matter to me at all. You don't shoot for that mythical audience out there - you shoot for yourself. (Careful not to hit your foot when you do that).
The camera does matter - but not as much as you think.
This was with the 7N.
I shot a roll with the stealthy Hexar Classic and honestly - was just as noticed taking pictures on the street as with the 7N.
Big difference between the two of them: the viewfinder on the Hexar is beautiful. The one on the 7N is just okay.
Another thing - this was shot with the 28mm lens. It looks like a 28mm lens. I don't have the cropping effect that I'd have on the 20D.
Oh - and the camera cost $350.
12 comments:
It's not just your generation that thinks there's a difference in the "soul" of black and white film and digital capture. I've always thought digital looks almost plasticky at times. I'm still in my 20s, and I still love film.
Damn, this kind of conversation troubles me because I've invested in digital, and love the convenient workflow.
Not really that experienced with b & w film - did some darkroom work many years ago, but my guess is, whatever deficiencies/characteristics digital has, they're more important/significant with b & w.
I also understand that digital is very similar to slide film, where you expose for highlights not shadows, and where the latitude is quite narrow. Again, I never used slide film but it makes sense. I dont like the way digital reacts to highlights, but I balance it against many other factors.
I suspect if I did a lot of b & w I'd have similar concerns, because digital is smooth - especially with the Canon cmos sensor. Much of the time, thats an advantage because it appears to be better quality. But if you want the b & w graininess for aesthetic reasons (and I understand that), then I can understand being dissatisfied with digital.
I have heard though, that the Canon 1DS Mark II equals medium format quality - a famous landscape professional said this, and has adopted it as his main tool. Landscape is probably the most demanding subject for colour, tone and detail. But - and maybe this is the important thing - he works in colour.
James,
One thing about Landscape photography:
You generally work with a tripod. So right away, you have an advantage. If you are dealing with a high contrast scene, you can shoot it twice and different exposures and layer them in Photoshop. You could even use a graduated filter.
For street work - you don't have that luxury.
Also - you don't really want to expose for the highlights - i.e. you don't want them in the middle of the histogram - because everything else gets pushed to the left and you don't have as much "information" describing the image.
What you generally want is to keep the highlights just below the right end.
All this being said - I've come to the conclusion that unless you are doing b&w in a very controlled setting; film simply is more (much more) forgiving.
The smoothness of digital wasn't such a big deal because you can add grain / texture - whatever if you want to in post processing, though it isn't the same as film.
More than anything else, it's probably the built in dynamic range of film that moved me back to film.
On the other hand - if I was shooting color - I'd probably still stick with digital. (Probably).
I always had the same idea - digital doesn't have the soul
of b/w film. Countless improvements come with different
workflows/converters and post processing. The time that
one seems to save with digital is only true for say event
photos that have been shot under the same circumstances.
It takes a long time to give a digital image a decent b/w look.
That said, I prefer to use film...
P.S. finally you got some punchy contrast back in your b/w's
Markus - you mentioned the b&w issue a year ago when I first started digital.
It is painfully clear that I need to learn everything "the hard way."
Yes you're right about the use of a tripod for landscapes, and the difference that makes. That you could, for example, shoot 2 or 3 shots and layer them to compensate for exposure problems.
The fact that Colin Prior (.co.uk or .com) has made this decision does, all the same, make you think about the quality of a 1DS if he's that impressed with it. Its a big claim, saying a 35mm equivalent camera equals large format quality. But its got 16 million pixels, a full frame sensor, and lots of other stuff including a price that would buy you a good car.
I think I'm OK for now with my 10D, and I enjoy working in colour and dont feel any great attraction to working in b & w. But these kind of issues worry me, because I buy a camera to use for years - I dont sell, buy another one, change to something else etc etc becaue ultimately I'm not interested in thetool, only the results. But occasionally I think damn, I should start some b & w work again, because it does have its attractions.
Markus, how loud is the R3A relative to a Leica? Slightly louder and sounds like a quiet SLR? Or quite loud? (None of the shops here stock them.)
Dave,
Interesting thoughts. The film images do have depth... a certain 3D quality to them.
Would you consider sharing your film-to-digital workflow with us?
I am keen to understand your process of scanning from b&w negs.
Regards...
Luke,
the R3A is noticeably louder than a Leica.
A 10D in comparision is very well damped,
where the 20D is noticeably louder.
I'd say the Bessa is much closer to the 20D.
The sound of the Bessa's is not very well damped -
it makes a sharp metal sound, more like a -clink-
if that makes sense.
P.S. I was not able to find an email on your site.
hey Dave - I didn't mean to step on your toes :)
Great shot Dave.
the drug rehab center texas
Post a Comment