Reading mode: Light Dark

are film cameras a dead issue ?

Go to last post
E. James Johnson said:
I never used a high end film camera for personal use (only in
school) so I am interested in hearing people who support the
digital revolution kind of seeing things from the other side- does
film have any huge advantages that digital needs to catch up with
yet?
Click to expand...
See my post below where I say why I still prefer film. Mostly my reason is that I shoot 90% black and white and that's still digital capture's weakness. Black and white films have considerably wider tone range and better tone transitions than what you can get converting a color image to BW. I'd like to see a D-SLR that's BW only with a specially made sensor for that.

The only other weakness to digital is cost of entry. You can still get better quality from film when you compare film to digital at the same price. High end digital is better than film if you want color, but at tremedous cost.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
Christopher Crawford said:
....
Click to expand...
Christopher Crawford said:
The only other weakness to digital is cost of entry. You can
still get better quality from film when you compare film to digital
at the same price. High end digital is better than film if you
want color, but at tremedous cost.
Click to expand...
To enter the decision making process with eyes wide open one probably should include the price of a film scanner along with the film camera.

A film Canon Rebel kit (~$350) and mid-range scanner (~$400) isn't very different in price from a digital Canon Rebel kit (~$900). Certainly it won't take long to make up the difference in film/dev costs.

If you move upscale a bit and compare a nicer film body and high quality scanner to a Canon 1Ds then the difference is also small.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
 
Is there simply no software (on pc or on cameras) that can come close to film b&w? If not is there something on the horizon? I would think it not to be too diffiuclt to reproduce (with the budget of some of these manufactures, anyway)!
Christopher Crawford said:
Vaughn T.Winfree said:
There is NO stopping the Digital Revolution which is QUICKLY
replacing film. Most processors already convert the negative film
to a digital image already and then print it. Therefore, why not
just shoot digital and skip that step all together. Technology
advancements ar quickly replacing ALL film emulsion technologies
from 35mm film to XRAY Radiographs in hospitals.
Its simply a better, cheaper, smarter technology without all the
mess and fuss that goes along with film emulsion technology. Even
Video tapes are quickly dissappearing for DVD and Digital
recorderes. The Digital age is here, and the next Revolution in
technology is already banging on our doorstep.
Will you be ready?
Vaughn
Click to expand...
I still shoot 100% film; I don't even own a point and shoot digital
(but then I don't own a PS film camera either, although my 6 year
old son has one). Some people here have suggested that my family
will starve because I don't shoot digital (as though our customers
care what we shoot?). Maybe they meant if I don't know how to do
it I'll be screwed when film becomes too costly to use
competitively. But I'm already using Photoshop, I learned it in
college years ago and when my poor health made my quit my darkroom
a few years ago I simply bought a film scanner and switched to the
digital darkroom on my computer. I should mention that I am
primarily a fine artist not a commercial or portrait photographer
so scanning film isn't too time consuming to me like it would be to
a wedding photog. I make a lot of my income scanning negs for
other pros where I live and I recently charged a regular client of
mine $1100 to scan negs from a couple of weddings he did.

He should have been shooting digital (he has two D1x bodies!).
But for an fine art photographer who mostly shoots black and white
film and film cameras are very viable. I still haven't seen
anyone shooting digital get the tonality in black and white I get
from scanned BW negs. I'd like to see a monochrome version of the
canon 1Ds!

Now, having said all that, would I buy a new film camera? No, I
wouldn't. I don't like new cameras anyway since I prefer the
traditional controls and simplicity of a manual camera. The last
brand new cameras I bought were a Mamiya 546 Super and a Nikon F4.
I bought them when I was in high school ten years ago and they are
still my main cameras, although I buy a lot of used cameras. I
collect old cameras and I love using them. If I were going to buy
a new camera with the horrid electronic controls and crappy
construction of modern cameras I'd get a digital SLR. I have
plenty of good film cameras and I'd like to go to digital capture
once price becomes reasonable from the perspective of a small
volume fine artist, and once someone makes a digital that gives
black and white that looks like film, tonality wise (I actually
like the color from digital better but I don't shoot enough color
to justify the cost!).
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Click to expand...
 
I see what your saying but can the digital rebel kit compare in b&w? It is comparable? I have used very little of my dc's b&w mode.
BobTrips said:
Christopher Crawford said:
....
Click to expand...
Member said:
The only other weakness to digital is cost of entry. You can
still get better quality from film when you compare film to digital
at the same price. High end digital is better than film if you
want color, but at tremedous cost.
Click to expand...
To enter the decision making process with eyes wide open one
probably should include the price of a film scanner along with the
film camera.

A film Canon Rebel kit (~$350) and mid-range scanner (~$400) isn't
very different in price from a digital Canon Rebel kit (~$900).
Certainly it won't take long to make up the difference in film/dev
costs.

If you move upscale a bit and compare a nicer film body and high
quality scanner to a Canon 1Ds then the difference is also small.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
Click to expand...
 
BobTrips said:
If you're a low volume shooter who takes a few rolls per year and
prints larger than 8"x12" then sticking with a film SLR makes sense.

If you are a moderate shooter who rarely prints larger than 8"x12"
then a 4-5 meg fixed lens camera can be an excellent choice.
Click to expand...
So the digital is not for everybody. That means the film is not dead yet. qed
Member said:
Will you be able to buy a better camera, TV, car, refrigerator,
etc. for the same amount of money in a few years? Most likely.
Does that mean you should go without for a few years?
Click to expand...
Without what? It's not about "buy (expensive) digital camera or wait", but "buy digital or stick with film for now". Except that I could use both my film SLR and a cheap digital point&shoot, until I could afford a DSLR.
Member said:
BTW, one can 'point and shoot' snapshots with a multi-thousand
dollar camera and take excellent pictures with a camera that costs
well under $500. It's about skill and vision, not hardware.
Click to expand...
Agreed. As I don't have the skill&vision, my "hardware" is more than enough.

Alex Sarbu
 
E. James Johnson said:
Is there simply no software (on pc or on cameras) that can come
close to film b&w? If not is there something on the horizon? I
would think it not to be too diffiuclt to reproduce (with the
budget of some of these manufactures, anyway)!
Christopher Crawford wrote:
Click to expand...
EJJ,

From what I gather, the problem lies with the inks used to print. They are making some improvements here also.

JayC
 
Sarbu Alexandru-Cristian said:
BobTrips said:
If you're a low volume shooter who takes a few rolls per year and
prints larger than 8"x12" then sticking with a film SLR makes sense.

If you are a moderate shooter who rarely prints larger than 8"x12"
then a 4-5 meg fixed lens camera can be an excellent choice.
Click to expand...
So the digital is not for everybody. That means the film is not
dead yet. qed
Click to expand...
It's very unfortunate that people keep referring to the 'death' of film. (Not the first time I've written this.) Using the D word is unnecessarily inflammatory. There are people who are absolutely in love with their film machines and this word just sends them over the edge.

The interesting issue (IMO) is watching the development of digital as it matures. We are at the point where digital can do almost everything that film can do (dynamic range is still a shortcoming) and can do lots of things that film can't.

About four years ago digital arrived at a point where it was a viable alternative for my type of shooting (I don't print large), but it hadn't arrived for the 'large printers'. Cameras with more than 2 megs just weren't affordable except for the very deep pocketed.

In the intervening years dSLRs have become available at about the same cost as a cheap film SLR and mid-range film scanner. This provides an entry point for people who print larger than 8x10. More people are moving away from film.

Will this cause film to di..., er, expire? Not right away. There will be a group of film die-hards who will resist change as long as possible. They will find 'reasons' to stay with film and will pay higher and higher prices for a fresh roll as the economies of scale dictates.

But we are at the point at which digital and film trade places in the market. Are we past the point or not quite to it yet? I don't know. But that the two mediums will/have change(d) position seems to no longer be arguable.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
 
JayC said:
E. James Johnson said:
Is there simply no software (on pc or on cameras) that can come
close to film b&w? If not is there something on the horizon? I
would think it not to be too diffiuclt to reproduce (with the
budget of some of these manufactures, anyway)!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is not something that I know much about. I have gathered that most people feel that it's best to shoot in color and convert to B&W later.

(I have a question about this practice as I find that I 'look' differently at my subjects when I'm shooting B&W. I wish I could switch my EVF to B&W and leave the capture set to color.)

If you want to learn more about B&W digital I would suggest you spend some time reading the forums at http://www.luminous-landscape.com . There are some people doing interesting high level work who post there. Interesting things including making 8"x10" 'negatives' from a digital file with an ink jet printer and then making contact prints on paper.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
 
JayC said:
E. James Johnson said:
Is there simply no software (on pc or on cameras) that can come
close to film b&w? If not is there something on the horizon? I
would think it not to be too diffiuclt to reproduce (with the
budget of some of these manufactures, anyway)!
Christopher Crawford wrote:
Click to expand...
EJJ,

From what I gather, the problem lies with the inks used to print.
They are making some improvements here also.

JayC
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with inks, I get gorgeous black and whites from my epson 2200, from my quadtone setup, and from the Fuji Frontier at Wal-mart. The problem is a black and white image made by taking a color picture (like you get from a digital camera or by scanning color film) doesn't have the same gradation as actual black and white film. I think a dedicated BW digital camera would fix that, but no one makes one :(

--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
BobTrips said:
Christopher Crawford said:
....
Click to expand...
Member said:
The only other weakness to digital is cost of entry. You can
still get better quality from film when you compare film to digital
at the same price. High end digital is better than film if you
want color, but at tremedous cost.
Click to expand...
To enter the decision making process with eyes wide open one
probably should include the price of a film scanner along with the
film camera.

A film Canon Rebel kit (~$350) and mid-range scanner (~$400) isn't
very different in price from a digital Canon Rebel kit (~$900).
Certainly it won't take long to make up the difference in film/dev
costs.

If you move upscale a bit and compare a nicer film body and high
quality scanner to a Canon 1Ds then the difference is also small.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
Click to expand...
That's true, especially if you're just starting and don't already have any professional level camera equipment. Then starting out digital is about the same price as buying a film camera and scanner, plus you never have to buy film. My thing was I owned very high end film equipment, my F4 and 645 Mamiya systems plus an Olympus OM4t and it's set of lenses. I bought all that new, plus a used Hasselblad, all before digital became realistic for pro work. When digital quality got good, it was cheaper by far for me to buy a scanner for $3000 (I have the Nikon LS-8000) than it was to pay the $5000 that a digital SLR body cost at the time. It also allowed me to keep printing my accumulated negs. A few years ago I got very sick and couldn't work in the Darkroom anymore. When my health improved I got a job as a manager at Walgreens where I worked too much. I managed to shoot a lot of film during the year and a half I worked there but never had time to print anything! I quit the management job two years ago and have not worked more than a couple days a week since thanks to my income from photography. And even with the free time I have, i'm still only 2/3 of the way through those old negs! I needed the scanner for that, and it's proven to be a significant income source on it's own.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
Christopher Crawford said:
BobTrips said:
Christopher Crawford said:
....
Click to expand...
Christopher Crawford said:
The only other weakness to digital is cost of entry. You can
still get better quality from film when you compare film to digital
at the same price. High end digital is better than film if you
want color, but at tremedous cost.
Click to expand...
To enter the decision making process with eyes wide open one
probably should include the price of a film scanner along with the
film camera.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Christopher Crawford said:
That's true, especially if you're just starting and don't already
have any professional level camera equipment. Then starting out
digital is about the same price as buying a film camera and
scanner, plus you never have to buy film. My thing was I owned
very high end film equipment, my F4 and 645 Mamiya systems plus an
Olympus OM4t and it's set of lenses.
Click to expand...
I suppose that one could argue that it's cheaper in the long run to shoot film if someone gave you the film and then processed it for free ;o)

Actually, I owned an OM1 and an OM4 (and one decent lens, two crappy zooms) and a medium quality scanner. I still found it cheaper to switch to digital, even without counting the scanning time saved.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
 
Christopher Crawford said:
It has nothing to do with inks, I get gorgeous black and whites
from my epson 2200, from my quadtone setup, and from the Fuji
Frontier at Wal-mart. The problem is a black and white image made
by taking a color picture (like you get from a digital camera or by
scanning color film) doesn't have the same gradation as actual
black and white film. I think a dedicated BW digital camera would
fix that, but no one makes one :(
Click to expand...
B&W is not something that I've played with during the last 40 or so years. Can you explain gradation to me? And why you would get it from B&W film to a digital file but not from color film or a color digital capture?

(BTW, some has made a B&W digital, but it wasn't cheap. Seems like it was one of the early Kodaks....)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
 
Ken I agree with your statements
KenEis said:
1. When will PC's penetrate to every potential digital camera buyer? Many folks are afraid of digital > cameras because they don't own a computer and never will.
Click to expand...
This a big one to overcome for the digital cameras
KenEis said:
2. When will the ciosks for printing digital images be in every K-mart Wal-Mart and Target and every drug > store that now developes film?
Click to expand...
This one is occurring imho at fast rate
KenEis said:
The answer to your question can only be answered if you can answer
a secondary list of questions.....

1. When will PC's penetrate to every potential digital camera
buyer? Many folks are afraid of digital cameras because they don't
own a computer and never will.
2. When will the ciosks for printing digital images be in every
K-mart Wal-Mart and Target and every drug store that now developes
film?
3. When will digital cameras at around the 3MP quality be available
for less then $100? Actually this question is the easiest to answer
or guess. My guess is Christmas 2004.
4. When will the average buyer become aware that a standard 3 MP
point and shoot gives better pictures then an APS film camera?

There were 53 million digital cameras sold in the last 12 months.
More cameras then film cameras. So the future is digital. But to
ask when will film not even be a consideration...That will take a
lot longer.

When the infrastructure outside the camera itself is more readily
available in every small town film will be toast. The only issue
left will be a digital slide projector....Yes I know there are many
XVGA computer projectors out there. But I can still buy a slide
projector for less then $200 and you can't touch a 1024x1280 3000:1
contrast ratio computer projector for less then 10 times that....
DaveG3 said:
How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882
Click to expand...
--
Ken Eis - D100 and S45 Nikon 18-35, 28-105, 24-120VR, 70-300,
80-400VR, 500mm and 60mm macro
Click to expand...
 
BobTrips said:
B&W is not something that I've played with during the last 40 or so
years. Can you explain gradation to me? And why you would get it
from B&W film to a digital file but not from color film or a color
digital capture?

(BTW, some has made a B&W digital, but it wasn't cheap. Seems like
it was one of the early Kodaks....)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
Click to expand...
Kodak used to make a darkroom paper called Panalure. It was sensitive to all colors of light so that color negs could be printed on it, but it made black and white prints. Even though panalure was a traditional silver based paper that was processed in the same chemicals as regular black and white paper, the prints from it didn't look as good as prints on traditional paper from black and white negs. I used the stuff in school so I'm familiar with it, though I admit to not being an expert user like i was with fiber based VC papers. The Panalure prints suffered many of the same problems I see in digital conversions from color to BW. Less shadow detail, lower microcontrast (that is, if overall image contrast is the same, one image has a greater number of distinct tones present..that's what I mean by gradation), and less sharpness.

Most of what I've done digitally with color to BW is from film, not digital camera images, but from what I see the digital camera originals give nicer sharpness than color film converted to BW. Color films just aren't as sharp as either a digital camera image or a BW neg.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
Yes, the hobbyist darkroom is dead as dead gets.

My 8-year-old son saw my Besseler 67 Dichro on the shelf in the garage and asked what it was, I realized that I'd not used it since he was born 'cause it was such a huge time-waster and time is more valuable to me nowadays. It could takes hours to make a good print with that thing (esp. color prints; oh the trial and error to get the color right). Though I got good at dugging and burning in the dark, I'd never want to go back to those days when I have Photoshop which does way more than I could of imagined in my darkroom days.

Even if a film camera is used (and yes, I still actaully use my EOS 10s 'cause DSLRS have been out of my budget), it is way better to get a good scanner and printer than to goof around with the chemicals in the dark. I'd ruined many a jeans that way not to mention the stained finger here and there (yeah, I'm not extremely graceful in the dark).

I guess if I wanted to set the ambience to the good old days, I could mount my old red safe-light near my computer. Maybe it would be better to just unplug the blue and green feeds to my monitor when I'm working in B&W? Nah, I'll just have to cherish the memories.

-rdd
JayC said:
I just read all the postings including Fantta's who doesn't want to
"miss the feeling" of the darkroom. Thirty years ago, I did B&W
processing in my darkroom. I miss the occasion when (using a
churchkey) I slashed my hands opening negative container. I miss
the smell of sodium thiosulfate and acetic acid. I miss the
ambience of the red lights.

For anyone who likes to shoot and shoot, unless they have big
bucks, digital is the only way to go. Furthermore, digital
processing, ie photoshop, is tons more expressive and controllable
than any wet lab. That's why so much film gets scanned into a
computer.

I say just eliminate the first step (film) ... or maybe if your
that much of a purist, go back to working with glass plates and
fulminate of mercury.

JayC
pgrupp said:
And to be fair, there are certain applications, typically involving
6x7cm and large format cameras, where digital is not making inroads
very quickly yet.

But go to any tourist destination, and you'll see the battle is
essentially over. Ditto for photojournalism, and increasingly,
portraiture, weddings, and events.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp
DaveG3 said:
How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This has been a very interesting thread to follow

Here is some food for thought in an article on the Reuters news site
“Digital Era Not All Negative for Photo Shops”
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=4008571
DaveG3 said:
How long until traditional film cameras are not even considered an
option by the average buyer?

After reading these statistics it makes me wonder if its not
already almost their
http://www.bytephoto.com/showarticle.php?s=&threadid=882
Click to expand...
 
Hey Bob,

I think what Christopher means is that different black and white films have different responses to the full color spectrum than does photoshop when you convert to grayscale. For example, if you look at the different channels RGB you get 3 very distinct B&W images. The blue channel would have a white sky. The red channel would have a black sky. Etc.

I think that Christopher does not realize that the look of any B&W film or paper can be replicated from a full color orignal if you do some effort in controlling which colors turn white, and which black. One really cool tool to use in photoshop to experiment with is the channel mixer. Check monochrome and then start playing with the sliders. As long as all the sliders add up to 100% in each individual channel as closely as possible you will not lose levels and you can shift what colors turn black and which white until the look you want is acheived. Make sure you experiment in each output channel, RG and B... not just the sliders RGB. At first I did not realize that there was individual control of each channel with each having RGB sliders. Once I realized this I found there is no look I cannot replicate. I have made a bunch of actions that replicate the looks of my favorite b&w films or if I want to emphasize a sky etc. You can even make things look like they are infrared shots!!! Very powerful tool!

B&W films are full spectrum films, they are just different in how they are sensitive to the various spectrum. So starting with a full color image makes sense and is the reason I see no need for a B&W camera. The S2 has B&W mode, but I never use it because I have so much more control in photoshop.

Regards,
Sean
BobTrips said:
Christopher Crawford said:
It has nothing to do with inks, I get gorgeous black and whites
from my epson 2200, from my quadtone setup, and from the Fuji
Frontier at Wal-mart. The problem is a black and white image made
by taking a color picture (like you get from a digital camera or by
scanning color film) doesn't have the same gradation as actual
black and white film. I think a dedicated BW digital camera would
fix that, but no one makes one :(
Click to expand...
B&W is not something that I've played with during the last 40 or so
years. Can you explain gradation to me? And why you would get it
from B&W film to a digital file but not from color film or a color
digital capture?

(BTW, some has made a B&W digital, but it wasn't cheap. Seems like
it was one of the early Kodaks....)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
Click to expand...
 
What would be cool would be photoshop plug-ins which mimic the colour responses of various black and white films., so you could just take a colour photo, and then choose the "Tmax 100" filter and click, it's b&w.

So who's going to make this? :)
Sean Keegan said:
I think what Christopher means is that different black and white
films have different responses to the full color spectrum than does
photoshop when you convert to grayscale. For example, if you look
at the different channels RGB you get 3 very distinct B&W images.
The blue channel would have a white sky. The red channel would have
a black sky. Etc.

I think that Christopher does not realize that the look of any B&W
film or paper can be replicated from a full color orignal if you do
some effort in controlling which colors turn white, and which
black. One really cool tool to use in photoshop to experiment with
is the channel mixer. Check monochrome and then start playing with
the sliders. As long as all the sliders add up to 100% in each
individual channel as closely as possible you will not lose levels
and you can shift what colors turn black and which white until the
look you want is acheived. Make sure you experiment in each output
channel, RG and B... not just the sliders RGB. At first I did not
realize that there was individual control of each channel with each
having RGB sliders. Once I realized this I found there is no look I
cannot replicate. I have made a bunch of actions that replicate
the looks of my favorite b&w films or if I want to emphasize a sky
etc. You can even make things look like they are infrared shots!!!
Very powerful tool!

B&W films are full spectrum films, they are just different in how
they are sensitive to the various spectrum. So starting with a full
color image makes sense and is the reason I see no need for a B&W
camera. The S2 has B&W mode, but I never use it because I have so
much more control in photoshop.

Regards,
Sean
BobTrips said:
Christopher Crawford said:
It has nothing to do with inks, I get gorgeous black and whites
from my epson 2200, from my quadtone setup, and from the Fuji
Frontier at Wal-mart. The problem is a black and white image made
by taking a color picture (like you get from a digital camera or by
scanning color film) doesn't have the same gradation as actual
black and white film. I think a dedicated BW digital camera would
fix that, but no one makes one :(
Click to expand...
B&W is not something that I've played with during the last 40 or so
years. Can you explain gradation to me? And why you would get it
from B&W film to a digital file but not from color film or a color
digital capture?

(BTW, some has made a B&W digital, but it wasn't cheap. Seems like
it was one of the early Kodaks....)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
GothtinPowers said:
So who's going to make this? :)
Sean Keegan said:
Hey Bob,

I think what Christopher means is that different black and white
films have different responses to the full color spectrum than does
photoshop when you convert to grayscale. For example, if you look
at the different channels RGB you get 3 very distinct B&W images.
The blue channel would have a white sky. The red channel would have
a black sky. Etc.

I think that Christopher does not realize that the look of any B&W
film or paper can be replicated from a full color orignal if you do
some effort in controlling which colors turn white, and which
black. One really cool tool to use in photoshop to experiment with
is the channel mixer. Check monochrome and then start playing with
the sliders. As long as all the sliders add up to 100% in each
individual channel as closely as possible you will not lose levels
and you can shift what colors turn black and which white until the
look you want is acheived. Make sure you experiment in each output
channel, RG and B... not just the sliders RGB. At first I did not
realize that there was individual control of each channel with each
having RGB sliders. Once I realized this I found there is no look I
cannot replicate. I have made a bunch of actions that replicate
the looks of my favorite b&w films or if I want to emphasize a sky
etc. You can even make things look like they are infrared shots!!!
Very powerful tool!

B&W films are full spectrum films, they are just different in how
they are sensitive to the various spectrum. So starting with a full
color image makes sense and is the reason I see no need for a B&W
camera. The S2 has B&W mode, but I never use it because I have so
much more control in photoshop.

Regards,
Sean
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sean, channel mixer is the best way to convert and comes close, but real BW film can capture a wider tone range than any color film or digital sensor, including color neg film, and has greater microcontrast. What that is is differentiation between very close tones. That's that I meant by gradation. BW film has greater acutance, although unsharp masking can mimick that effect.

To answer the question about PS plugin to mimick BW films, there is one! It's expensive because they charge per film type you want to mimick, and I think it's $75 per film!

Here's the link.
http://www.silveroxide.com/BWTech.htm#Close
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
 
GothtinPowers said:
What would be cool would be photoshop plug-ins which mimic the
colour responses of various black and white films., so you could
just take a colour photo, and then choose the "Tmax 100" filter and
click, it's b&w.

So who's going to make this? :)
Click to expand...
Gothtin,

I suspect this is what you're looking for (I'll try to jump you right to the film types, but I bet you can navigate from there just fine...):
http://www.silveroxide.com/#Film

Yes, they even work.

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top