Digital BW, The Print

Tim writes:

> Well after holding out, partly because of money,
> I'm considering jumping into the digital camera realm.

And what are your reasons for moving to digital?

Note that digital provides B&W results that are significantly inferior to
shooting B&W film.

> I suppose one of the advantages of digital is you
> can edit on the fly and if the image sucks, just
> delete it.

Unless you are very short on memory or other storage, it's best to keep all
the images you shoot and then edit them later.

> Is everyone here who switched from film to digi
> happy with results.

I tried to switch to digital some years ago, became disappointed after the
initial honeymoon period, then switched back to film.

> How many of you still use the film camera along
> with the digi?

Currently I shoot film almost exclusively, except for very time-critical
work with relatively low image quality requirements.

Thanks for your reply Anthony. I appreciate your thoughts. 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> 
> > Well after holding out, partly because of money,
> > I'm considering jumping into the digital camera realm.
> 
> And what are your reasons for moving to digital?

To save on film and processing costs not to mention the thousands of 
negs and boxes that take up space. I also do a lot of experimental 
shooting..lots of improvisation. I almost always get great stuff but 
I guess with the digi I could see right away what's working and 
what's not. Plus if I'm not mistaken you can switch "film" speeds on 
the fly with digi.

 
> Note that digital provides B&W results that are significantly 
inferior to
> shooting B&W film.
>


I've seen some nice digi b/w work. I always shoot color film anyway 
and convert it to b/w in PS.

> > I suppose one of the advantages of digital is you
> > can edit on the fly and if the image sucks, just
> > delete it.
> 
> Unless you are very short on memory or other storage, it's best to 
keep all  the images you shoot and then edit them later.
> 

I'm thinking about the obvious duds. Not the borderline stuff. Is 
there a problem with deleting as you go that I should be aware of?

> > Is everyone here who switched from film to digi
> > happy with results.
> 
> I tried to switch to digital some years ago, became disappointed 
after the
> initial honeymoon period, then switched back to film.
> 

I think alot has changed since then. The 10D is supposed to be a 
pretty darn good camera.

Well... we have one fairly negative vote on the switch/add on to 
digital. Anyone have positive experiences?

Tim

On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 05:52 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
> Note that digital provides B&W results that are significantly inferior 
> to
> shooting B&W film.
>

Can you tell me why this is the case? If I wanted to make an 8x 10 B&W 
print using a hextone ink system From a 6 MP digital SLR raw camera 
file (that has me carefully processed and converted to grayscale) as 
opposed to shooting a B&W medium format neg and scanning it.... what 
would be lacking? If you could please tell me your answer in real world 
results rather than... just numbers.. that would be great.

Thanks in advance!

-jeff

Tim writes:

> To save on film and processing costs not to mention
> the thousands of negs and boxes that take up space.

You will certainly save on film and processing costs.  But there are other
disadvantages (such as a reduction in image quality) that also should be
considered.  And the initial investment is substantial, particularly if you
want the best possible image quality (so as to approach film as closely as
possible).

As far as I can tell, digital occupies about the same physical space as
film, in terms of archiving.

> I also do a lot of experimental shooting..lots of
> improvisation. I almost always get great stuff but
> I guess with the digi I could see right away what's
> working and what's not.

Digital is ideal for rapid experimentation.

> Plus if I'm not mistaken you can switch "film" speeds on
> the fly with digi.

Only to the same extent that you can push film with a change in development.

The image sensor in a digital camera has a fixed sensitivity; you cannot
change that.  Changing the ISO rating on the camera just boosts the signal
coming out of the image sensor.  This makes it possible to get usable
pictures in lower light, but it also can produce more visible noise in the
image, as well as a loss of tonality (from stretching a weak signal over a
wide range).

> I've seen some nice digi b/w work. I always shoot
> color film anyway and convert it to b/w in PS.

In that case, digital will not change anything for you in this respect.

> I'm thinking about the obvious duds. Not the
> borderline stuff. Is there a problem with deleting
> as you go that I should be aware of?

No, as long as you are careful about what you delete.  Obvious duds are not
much of a risk.  But if you aren't instantly certain that you don't want an
image, it might be better to keep it.  If you delete it and change your
mind, you're out of luck.  And subtle characteristics of images are hard to
judge on a tiny LCD screen.

> I think alot has changed since then.

Yes, but the image quality is still inadequate.  When the price/quality
ratio and absolute image quality of digital exceeds that of film, I'll
switch.

> The 10D is supposed to be a
> pretty darn good camera.

It is, until the next one comes along.

Jeff writes:

> Can you tell me why this is the case?

Two reasons:

1) All current digital cameras are color cameras.  The continuous spectrum
of light in the original scene is reduced to three numbers, for red, green,
and blue.  It is not possible to convert these three numbers to a grayscale
rendering of all the possible B&W images that could have been taken of the
original scene, because the recording in RGB deletes most of the necessary
information for this.  You cannot duplicate the results of a narrow-band
yellow filter on B&W images with any manipulation of the RGB color image
from a digicam, nor can you duplicate the results of a specific spectral
sensitivity in B&W film by any conversion of RGB to grayscale.

2) Since color digicams receive only one color per pixel, and then
interpolate, B&W conversions of these images are lower in resolution and
higher in noise than would be true original B&W image captures.

Both of these problems would be solved by a true B&W digital camera (one
without a matrix color filter in front of the sensor, and one that recorded
the image directly in grayscale).  However, nobody currently builds such a
camera, and image sensors are not interchangeable.

> If I wanted to make an 8x 10 B&W print using a hextone
> ink system From a 6 MP digital SLR raw camera
> file (that has me carefully processed and converted
> to grayscale) as opposed to shooting a B&W medium
> format neg and scanning it.... what would be lacking?

That depends on to what you compare it.

The results of certain types of filters in B&W photography cannot be
duplicated by any manipulation of a RGB color image; however, you can
duplicate them by using the same filter over the camera in the original
shot.  I've already mentioned the example of a narrow-band yellow filter,
which is a very simple illustration, but there exists an infinite number of
combinations that cannot be rendered by conversion of RGB.

A more difficult problem is rendering the spectral sensitivity of a specific
or theoretical B&W film, which simply isn't possible at all without shooting
with that kind of film (unless you have a very special, custom-made
correction filter over the lens when you shoot in RGB).

Note that this problem exists for conversion of any color image to
grayscale, whether the color image comes from a digital camera or film.
It's just that you can shoot real B&W with film, whereas no digital camera
allows you to shoot B&W directly.

Put more simply, you can never precisely duplicate a Tri-X look without
shooting Tri-X, nor can you duplicate the look of Tech Pan with a
narrow-band filter, nor can you duplicate just about anything else
perfectly, or even approximately.

Hello Jeff,

>Can you tell me why this is the case? If I wanted to make an 
>8x 10 B&W print using a hextone ink system From a 6 MP digital 
>SLR raw camera file (that has me carefully processed and 
>converted to grayscale) as opposed to shooting a B&W medium 
>format neg and scanning it.... what would be lacking? If you could 
>please tell me your answer in real world results rather than... 
>just numbers.. that would be great.

Let me give it a try.  I have found from actual experience that I can
get a better 8x10 print from a 645 neg scanned on my 1600dpi flatbed
than I can from a 35mm neg scanned on a friend's 4000dpi Nikon film
scanner.  At 4x5 or 5x7 it's a toss up, but by 8x10 the difference
becomes apparent.  I can't explain this in numbers, but the difference
is clear.  I can only assume there is more information on the larger
neg and that scanning the smaller neg at a higher resolution doesn't
make up the difference (it probably just gets more of what _is_
there).

Note: My experience is with Tri-X.  With a finer grained film the
print size at which the difference becomes noticable may be larger,
but I think the principle still applies.

Now, suppose the 6mg file equals 35mm (debatable, but for now let's
accept that, or even suppose you have an 11 mg 1Ds file).  What have
you got?  The same amount of information as the 35mm neg?  Then you
still lose to the 645 neg.  And if you compare to a 6x7 neg the
difference is enormous.  It will leave even the 645 neg in the dust
(so to speak <g>).

This does not mean you cannot get excellent 8x10 prints from 10D 6 mg
files (I'm looking at a beautiful 7x10 print made from a 10D file
downloaded from DpReview.com).  It just depends on what your own
personal criteria and standards are.  It's easy to get used to working
within a certain realm.  I can't count the number of times over the
years that I've gotten used to looking at 8x10 prints from 35mm negs
and thinking they look pretty good, only to be shocked back to reality
by seeing one from a 6x7 or 4x5 neg.  Ever seen an 8x10 contact print?
 Makes you want to crawl away and hibernate <g>.  It's all relative.

If you are considering a 10D, you might try downloading a bunch of the
sample files and work with them.  It's really a great resource.  It
would be a good way to tell if you'll be happy with it.  There is a
large selection available at that web site.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Jeff writes:
> 
> > Can you tell me why this is the case?
> 
> Two reasons:
> 
> 1) All current digital cameras are color cameras.  The 
continuous spectrum
> of light in the original scene is reduced to three numbers, for 
red, green,
> and blue.  It is not possible to convert these three numbers to a 
grayscale
> rendering of all the possible B&W images that could have 
been taken of the
> original scene, because the recording in RGB deletes most of 
the necessary
> information for this.  You cannot duplicate the results of a 
narrow-band
> yellow filter on B&W images with any manipulation of the RGB 
color image
> from a digicam, nor can you duplicate the results of a specific 
spectral
> sensitivity in B&W film by any conversion of RGB to grayscale.

True, but you can get great results by shooting in color and then 
using PS to work with the image on conversion. Not just a 
straight forward simple conversion but one involving more 
thought in using the power of PS and colors availble to work with. 


> 
> 2) Since color digicams receive only one color per pixel, and 
then
> interpolate, B&W conversions of these images are lower in 
resolution and
> higher in noise than would be true original B&W image 
captures.
> 
> Both of these problems would be solved by a true B&W digital 
camera (one
> without a matrix color filter in front of the sensor, and one that 
recorded
> the image directly in grayscale).  However, nobody currently 
builds such a
> camera, and image sensors are not interchangeable.
> 
> > If I wanted to make an 8x 10 B&W print using a hextone
> > ink system From a 6 MP digital SLR raw camera
> > file (that has me carefully processed and converted
> > to grayscale) as opposed to shooting a B&W medium
> > format neg and scanning it.... what would be lacking?
> 
> That depends on to what you compare it.
> 
> The results of certain types of filters in B&W photography 
cannot be
> duplicated by any manipulation of a RGB color image; 
however, you can
> duplicate them by using the same filter over the camera in the 
original
> shot.  I've already mentioned the example of a narrow-band 
yellow filter,
> which is a very simple illustration, but there exists an infinite 
number of
> combinations that cannot be rendered by conversion of RGB.
> 
> A more difficult problem is rendering the spectral sensitivity of 
a specific
> or theoretical B&W film, which simply isn't possible at all 
without shooting
> with that kind of film (unless you have a very special, 
custom-made
> correction filter over the lens when you shoot in RGB).
> 
> Note that this problem exists for conversion of any color image 
to
> grayscale, whether the color image comes from a digital 
camera or film.
> It's just that you can shoot real B&W with film, whereas no 
digital camera
> allows you to shoot B&W directly.
> 
> Put more simply, you can never precisely duplicate a Tri-X look 
without
> shooting Tri-X, nor can you duplicate the look of Tech Pan with 
a
> narrow-band filter, nor can you duplicate just about anything 
else
> perfectly, or even approximately.

Nor can you make TriX look like infrared, or TechPan look like 
TriX or any other comparison of the sort. Digital is just diferent, 
just as are all tools we use. Why compare it to any film or scan? 
It is what it is. I get great results from my S2 and PhaseOne H20. 
Is it like any BW film? No, but the images are great as they are. I 
don't need to try to create the "look" of film... just use it for what it 
can do and forget trying to force into a film type. The unbeleivable 
amount of data on a good digital capture at hi bit  is awsome. 
Break out of the old thinking when using digital and enjoy what it 
does. If you want to shoot film go for it... but I don't understand 
why the thinking is that it needs to be exactly where film is at to 
be any good. Its just different.

Dave

Dave writes:

> True, but you can get great results by shooting
> in color and then using PS to work with the image
> on conversion.

You can get good results, but you can never reproduce the results obtainable
with actual B&W photography.

> Nor can you make TriX look like infrared, or
> TechPan look like TriX or any other comparison
> of the sort.

Correct.  That's why you must use an original image capture method that
matches the results you want, e.g., shoot Tri-X if you want Tri-X results.

> Digital is just diferent, just as are all tools
> we use. Why compare it to any film or scan?

I'm not.  I'm comparing converted RGB to true B&W capture.  You cannot
convert RGB in a way that duplicates B&W capture.

This is true irrespective of any film or digital considerations.

> I don't need to try to create the "look" of film ...

It's not the look of film that I'm discussing; it's the look of black and
white.

> The unbeleivable amount of data on a good digital
> capture at hi bit is awsome.

Not after you've seen a good scan of film.

> Break out of the old thinking when using digital
> and enjoy what it does.

There's nothing old about shooting in black and white, nor does it have
anything to do with questions of digital vs. film.

> If you want to shoot film go for it... but I don't
> understand why the thinking is that it needs to be
> exactly where film is at to be any good. Its just different.

I don't understand how you managed to misinterpret my post as a digital vs.
film debate.  It has nothing to do with that.  It's a statement of why you
cannot get true B&W images from a conversion of color images.  If someone
had asked about converting color slides to grayscale, I would have pointed
out exactly the same problem.  The only influence of digital at all--and it
is a relatively oblique influence--is that there are no B&W digital cameras,
whereas there are still plenty of B&W films.  So if you want true B&W
capture, you have to shoot film.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Dave writes:
> 
> > True, but you can get great results by shooting
> > in color and then using PS to work with the image
> > on conversion.
> 
> You can get good results, but you can never reproduce the 
results obtainable
> with actual B&W photography.
> 
> > Nor can you make TriX look like infrared, or
> > TechPan look like TriX or any other comparison
> > of the sort.
> 
> Correct.  That's why you must use an original image capture 
method that
> matches the results you want, e.g., shoot Tri-X if you want Tri-X 
results.
> 
> > Digital is just diferent, just as are all tools
> > we use. Why compare it to any film or scan?
> 
> I'm not.  I'm comparing converted RGB to true B&W capture.  
You cannot
> convert RGB in a way that duplicates B&W capture.
> 
> This is true irrespective of any film or digital considerations.
> 
> > I don't need to try to create the "look" of film ...
> 
> It's not the look of film that I'm discussing; it's the look of black 
and
> white.
> 
> > The unbeleivable amount of data on a good digital
> > capture at hi bit is awsome.
> 
> Not after you've seen a good scan of film.
> 
> > Break out of the old thinking when using digital
> > and enjoy what it does.
> 
> There's nothing old about shooting in black and white, nor 
does it have
> anything to do with questions of digital vs. film.
> 
> > If you want to shoot film go for it... but I don't
> > understand why the thinking is that it needs to be
> > exactly where film is at to be any good. Its just different.
> 
> I don't understand how you managed to misinterpret my post 
as a digital vs.
> film debate.  It has nothing to do with that.  It's a statement of 
why you
> cannot get true B&W images from a conversion of color 
images.  If someone
> had asked about converting color slides to grayscale, I would 
have pointed
> out exactly the same problem.  The only influence of digital at 
all--and it
> is a relatively oblique influence--is that there are no B&W digital 
cameras,
> whereas there are still plenty of B&W films.  So if you want true 
B&W
> capture, you have to shoot film.

The thread sure seemed to take a don't use digital for bw 
direction. Perhaps I was reading to much into it. But I believe the 
initial question was whether to try digital for BW. My goal is just to 
balance out your opinion with another.

I still stand by my opinion that its irelevant what you use to shoot 
with. When you shoot film, you make a print... a BW print... as in a 
print of nothing but shades of gray. When you work digital you 
still do a print... a BW print... as in a print with nothing but shades 
of gray. Unless your excitment is in looking at a negative, it is just 
a means to an end, as is digital. For me the capture is irrelevant 
when the end result of a BW print is the goal, the capture is just a 
capture, it doesn't matter to me that I'm not doing a capture on 
BW film. I'm not being argumentative, just pointing out that for 
some, digital capture to get the end results of a BW print does 
work well. Not for you perhaps, but it does for me.

Dave

Dave writes:

> The thread sure seemed to take a don't use
> digital for bw direction.

That is my current recommendation, for what it's worth.

The advantage of digital is speed and convenience.  Image quality is an
advantage of film.  If you want the best image quality, you must still shoot
film.

This is even more true for black and white, simply because there are no
black and white digital cameras.  You can shoot B&W directly with film, but
not with a digicam.  And a great deal of the flexibility of B&W is lost if
the original capture is not B&W, for reasons I've already explained many
times.

> But I believe the initial question was whether
> to try digital for BW.

My answer would be no, if quality is the predominant issue, or yes, if speed
and convenience are the predominant issues.

Budget also comes into play, because shooting digital requires a huge
investment in equipment up front, which can only be amortized (in comparison
to film) by shooting thousands of photographs.  Since so much B&W
photography is art photography, a photographer is less likely to blow
through thousands of exposures than he might be with, say, photojournalism.