Digital BW, The Print

Hi Tyler, Bruce & Others,

I figured my comments would elicit feedback.  I have read through all 
the responses and I believe everyone to be correct each in their own 
way.  I provide an opinion that was way too broad. 

Tyler, thanks for your response.  I do not doubt your film 
comparisons in the slightest.  I should have been more specific.  We 
have come to the usual scientific vs. artistic vs. perceptual 
differences.  A long time back I let go of the need to have 
scientific foundation on which to base my photographic work.  If the 
look of a specific B&W film is what you desire, that is great!  Use 
that film to achieve that look.  I have however (after resisting for 
a long time) concluded that my end goal is to produce a print that I 
and hopefully others enjoy.  Not to try and make everything look like 
a film produced, wet darkroom, air dried, fiber print.

Please understand that I am in no way knocking the look of film on 
paper.  I also used those methods for many years.  Just that as an 
artist I have been much happier in recent years devoting my time to 
creating an end product that I am happy with no matter what the tools 
or methods used to produce that image.  You cannot believe how 
liberating this feeling is.

I have never had anyone ask me when looking at images I am 
exhibiting: "That image would have looked so much better had it been 
captured using film over digital." or "That print would have been so 
much clearer if it had been captured using an 8x10 instead of a 
4x5."  This is the case even at times when I have displayed digital, 
film, 4x5, & 35mm together.  Images the world over are liked or 
disliked by viewers because of the impression that was made on the 
observer by that specific print, no matter how it was produced.

So from a scientific point of view I totally agree with you.  My 
input was to ensure that newer participants to the group who read 
this string would not be left with the conclusion that to produce 
wonderful B&W prints you must use film, or even B&W film.

Bruce Watson's response is also right on the mark for what he is 
trying to achieve.  That is a certain look.  Also the psychology of 
seeing better using B&W film can be totally understood.  All in what 
you get used to.  I too try and "see" in B&W when releasing the 
shutter.  Often however I can get back to my desktop and in working 
with an image have many different moods or looks appear when making 
adjustments to the image in color and then observing those changes in 
B&W.  I must also confess that I am not a B&W purist.  I print in 
color as well.

Steve Gledhill & Dana Myers commented about the virtues of B&W film.  
For me and I suspect others I must respectfully disagree on a point.  
I feel that B&W film, no matter how exposed & developed, whether 
printed in a wet darkroom or prepared digitally for digital printing, 
to me poses severe limitations as compared to using an RGB image as a 
starting point.   In my opinion the extra data associated with the 
color file and the nuances of color is exactly what makes this type 
of file provide so many more possibilities in the finished B&W print.

I am perfectly happy with the range of light stops available in high 
end DLSR's.  If I am in a situation where I am unsure of camera's 
ability to capture the full seen, I take two images since I am almost 
always on a tripod.  I would rather spend time merging the two in 
Photoshop then worrying about development time and methods of the 
film.  I am not arguing that my way is better.  Just that we are 
dealing with art not computer chips.  Just personal preference here.

In closing, I do apologize for jumping into a conversation that 
involved those who still commonly work in film.  I am not trying to 
change anyone's opinion.  This is for the consumption of those on the 
list that do not have reams of experience and to provide talking 
points that we can bounce off of each other.  I understand that I may 
be deluding myself from a purist point of view.  But diverse opinions 
are what make diverse images for us all to enjoy.  I totally agree 
with the "too many options to see clearly.. the forest for the trees" 
comments.

Bruce
http://BruceVarner.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> It depends on what you consider "best". If the options available 
when
> converting to B&W fom a color source are most important, than that
> might be called best. But as someone who scans a variety of film,
> color and B&W, positive and neg, on a variety of scanners, now a 
drum,
> I can say that my definition of B&W quality from film is higher from
> B&W film than color. Resolution, grian, scanner performance, etc. 
are
> all higher from more or less same ISO films.
> 
> If one opens the discussion up to capture, it changes entirely.
> 
> If the topic changes to how to best achieve the highest personal
> artistic B&W results, no question a disciplined focused approach,
> committing to an image while shooting and selecting the materials
> suited to that helps me do my best work, but that is personal.