xenon101 wrote:
the error is to compare b/w digital to film. Can i reproduce an image with the tonal qualities and latitude that film can with digital? yes. Just as there are chemical methods for getting different looks with film, for increasing and decreasing the contrast.. there is with digital as well. Latitude? using raw i can increase that to 8 or 9 stops of light. if i take two images at the time of exposure, then i can increase that to equal the latitude of film. Those methods are just as valid as using development times and developer dilutions at getting the final image.
Grain? again, a look that is unique to film, and then to specific types/styles of photograpy. i moved from 35mm to 4x5 in film just to get rid of grain.
now.. where it really counts, is the final print. digital b/w and film are also different in this regard (but don't have to be). You can currently make digital b/w prints that rival the tonal range of some of the best b/w printing processes. they don't have the same look as silver based fiber prints, but they can be as striking. if i were to compare, i'd say they had a closer look to the platinum/palladium prints than silver.
i make digital negatives from my b/w images, and then contact print them on platinum. i could do the same on b/w paper. you'd be hard pressed to look at them and tell me which was done from a film negative, and which from a digital negative. so in this case, the method of capture is irrelevant.
Can you imitate the work of Ralph Gibson with a digital camera? probably not, at least not without a great deal of digital postprocessing. but you can make prints that are every bit as good as you could if you shot film.
http://www.jcollum.com/fm/CC4S5585-8bit.jpg
http://www.jcollum.com/fm/garapatta-bw-1.jpg
B&W film, when used by someone who is knowlegable and skilled in
photography and darkroom techniques, can certainly convey much more
tonal information in the final print. How, in digital techniques,
do you really capture all of the information in a scene with a 12
or 14 stop contrast range? It can be done on film and shown on the
final print IF you know how to do it.
Okay, I know someone is going to say, "well it can be done." Okay,
you tell me how. But, first let me outline the problem. You have
to tell me how to do it with a scene that has a transient event
happening and/or a moving object.
i'd say that you could capture 8-9 stops with digital (raw, Canon 1ds) with transient events. 12-14? not yet.. but really, how many times do you use N-2 or N-3 development when developing those transient events? If you're using 35mm film, then you're limited to taking a whole roll of images that you'll have to develop the same way.. and you really don't want to develop an N+2 scene with an N-2 process. Once you move up to 4x5, where you can manipulate each sheet depending on the image, then you've lost that 'tranient' possibility.
Then you get into making the final print. The range of controls
over that process include: type of paper emulsion + developer
chosen, development technique (water bath, low contrast developer,
split bath development, high contrast developer, developer
dilution, developemnt times, etc.), and finally how you finish the
print (if you choose to use a toner and what type) - as this can be
interactive with the type of paper emulsion and even the developer
used.
the chemical methods of control are just that.. methods of control.. and manipulation in Photoshop is just as valid (and just as powerful) a method. I'd even say you have a greater variety of paper's available to you as a digital printer (but alas.. no fibre based silver looking paper yet). as i said above, i'd liken it more to platinum printing then fiber based silver.
Lastly the issue of grain. Grain is a fact of life in film. When
used creatively it can enhance the way an image looks. I can't
imangine early Bill Brandt work or Mario Giacomelli photos without
grain - they just wouldn't be as good.
no.. but give someone like Ralph Gibson a digital camera, and i'll bet he'd produce images that would still be as great.
If you want grainless photos, then you choose the film size, film
type, and developer to minimize the grain. Yes, you actually have
to think about what you're doing and plan in advance. I know, for
many people - that's just way too much to ask because hitting
"desaturate" in a software program is, well - just easier - and
after all, isn't that what it's all about?
you're assuming that desaturate is all it's about. i could just as easily say that digital has more control because all a film photographer does is to turn it in at Walmart and they do everything. i spend as much time working on and deciding the final image with digital as i did with film.
But, is it a complete substitute for the imaging controls that can
be applied though advanced B&W techniques? No, I don't think so -
not at this time.
substitute? no.. but i don't think it has to be to be as valid and powerful a way of expressing yourself in b/w. platinum was originally the most popular method of printing. The war came about, and platinum became scarce.. and silver came along. did it replace it? nope.. platinum is still alive and well, and just as valid a way to print b/w images.
http://www.jcollum.com/fm/CC4S5585-8bit.jpg
http://www.jcollum.com/fm/garapatta-bw-1.jpg
jim
B&w emulsions in particular are neither expensive nor difficult to make.
