The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

How can I get...

Bruno

Member
A black and white in digital similar to analog? I think is quite impossible but all the analog processing is annoying … I have my rolleiflex 2.8F but.. 12 frames per roll, processing, scanning.. arggg
 

Mammy645

New member
After many years of shooting both film and digital all I can say is digital is not film, and film is not digital. If you want the look of film you have to shoot film, it might be more work but it can also be more rewarding. I think so much in today's society is fast and convenient that I welcome the slower more contemplative process of shooting film. The results I'm getting are well worth the extra effort, at least for me.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
One thing to consider is that film also reacts not just to visible light wavelengths but is also sensitive to UV and IR. The standard sensor filtration will never render such attributes the same way even if you use a full spectrum body & filters.

Each has their merits and advantages but they will always be different. Not better or worse, just different.
 
Last edited:

robertwright

New member
It also depends on output; if you are printing to inkjet and have two files for example, shot at the same time, one digital and one film, you can make them look remarkably like each other in average sized prints. So much so that you can fool people in blind tests. I have my own prints and they even fool me sometimes. The differences come in format/lens drawing, and the amount of work you do to deal with the different noise/grain characteristics of the originals.

Also digital will do high iso much better. So film will never really compete there.

Comparing darkroom to inkjet however is completely different, a c print will never look like an inkjet and a bw fibre will not resemble an inkjet either.

You can get digital output on fibre and I have a kickstarter gift coming that will help me see what the real difference there is, from gotham digital imaging.

But I think if you shot both bw film and digital at the same time and processed a decent darkroom print you could probably emulate that in inkjet very closely- the trick is that seeing what the one looks like to have the comparison to make the other.

I still get contact sheets made when I shoot film now so I have the wet darkroom reference, especially in color. It makes scanning much easier. Otherwise I tend to get lost
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
A black and white in digital similar to analog? I think is quite impossible but all the analog processing is annoying … I have my rolleiflex 2.8F but.. 12 frames per roll, processing, scanning.. arggg
You have heard that at the basic capture level, film really works as digital (2 bits per exposure site), whereas digital is really an analog signal from each exposure site that is then converted to numerical representation.

:D:D
 

Shashin

Well-known member
You have heard that at the basic capture level, film really works as digital (2 bits per exposure site), whereas digital is really an analog signal from each exposure site that is then converted to numerical representation.

:D:D
That would be a really bad description of film. If you have ever seen grain under microscope, it is not like a half-tone image, but a complex set of densities and structures. You really can't talk about "exposure sites" as if they were pixels.
 
A black and white in digital similar to analog? I think is quite impossible but all the analog processing is annoying … I have my rolleiflex 2.8F but.. 12 frames per roll, processing, scanning.. arggg
You should try to have a play with a Leica monochrom. It's stunning. Not the same as film, but a very rewarding way to shoot B&W. This might pave the way to the new mono DB from Phase.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
You should try to have a play with a Leica monochrom. It's stunning. Not the same as film, but a very rewarding way to shoot B&W. This might pave the way to the new mono DB from Phase.
I think the IQ260 Achromatic is what you might have in mind.... I'd love to get my hands on some files and print them on my K7 piezography printer.

:) ken
 
V

Vivek

Guest
You should try to have a play with a Leica monochrom. It's stunning. Not the same as film, but a very rewarding way to shoot B&W. This might pave the way to the new mono DB from Phase.
I am hoping the Leica SM (in the future). ;)

I think Bruno is already waiting for a Leica MM (going by his FS posts).
 

Bruno

Member
thanks all!

Vivek.. I sold the MM three after I purchased it!! Definetely.. not the same as film but close..

I love color but I think B/W is easily emulate by digital than color..

Thanks guys once again!
 

ondebanks

Member
A black and white in digital similar to analog?
What I find works to achieve this look - I stumbled across it in my own images by accident - is to shoot with a "fat pixel" Kodak-CCD back (9 microns), shoot at high ISO (400 is where my DB maxes out), underexpose, convert the RAW to a colour JPG without sharpening or denoising, and finally convert the JPG to 8 bit greyscale, maybe with a contrast boost. This seems to emulate the coarse grain and limited DR of B&W film like Tri-X. And the more you underexpose and push the RAW to compensate, the more it looks like superfast/pushed B&W like T-Max P3200 or Delta 3200.

Now if it's fine-grained B&W you're after, that's going to need a different recipe.

Ray


'Venus and the Jets'
- Mamiya 645AFD, 80/1.9 at f2.8, Kodak DCS645M @ ISO400, 30 sec.

 
Top