Digital and B&W

[rhsu]

I don't think it's noise per se, but rather a smoother transition of color off the Dalsa. It's frustratingly difficult to quantify. I can say that whatever it is, the Kodak does look a bit more "digital" on output -- and not that either of these traits is "bad" or "good," they're just different.

Yes... it is not noise as per se (clarification) and the attributes are certainly the distinction between the Kodak and Dalsa which has been carefully discussed elsewhere and in many other tech articles.

Others used the word "soft" then that denote "unsharp" but certainly is it not unsharp.

Because of my recent and extensive play with arTec w/ Sinar DB, the bw from the Dalsa is in line with many findings/discussions - film looking.

Amazing how during film era, we all wanted "grainless" large prints. Then comes digital and we want to put "grain" back into the prints.

"Grave for things we cannot have and take for granted that we have".

 

[baxter]

I was surprised to see Silver Effects Pro being mentioned so late in this thread. It is a wonderfully flexible and easy to use piece of software. The parameters which can be changed lead to tremendous control enabling the user to tweak to suit their tastes and needs. Saving these as a preset then drastically reduces the effort, adds consistency and makes for a speedy workflow.

The interface and options it offer is so good that I have switched from using Exposure 2. Other users might disagree. I think both products are available as free limited time trials.

 

[TRSmith]

I think digital B&W has come a very long way. Programs like SFX Pro and improvements in papers and inks have enabled some beautiful print qualities. However, I think there is a small but definite difference that will always remain between the old film/paper media and digital/ink jet media. That tiny difference, imperceptible to some, seems like a natural distinction resulting from the mechanics of the two approaches to image making.

I have come to believe that if you really value the B&W film look then you don't have much choice but to shoot film and find your way to a darkroom somehow. Advanced digital techniques can resemble the film look, and even fool most people, but in the end the nuances can't be faked.

 

[Geoff]

There seem to be several aspects of the BW digital:film discussion: there is the capture, mostly defined by the sensor, to get the right "essence" (yet to be defined), the processing technique, and finally the rendition in printing.

For the capture - the sensor, the right light, and of course the lens are the main items. Getting digital to feel like it has the warmth of film is not just as simple as using the film lenses: the whole collection has to be recalibrated to work anew with the sensor (and internal processing of each camera). The M8 seems to fit in this nicely.

Processing on the desktop is the easiest to manipulate - but is the manipulating to get the warmth of film as portrayed in print or on screen?

Finally, the print - some of the finer processes (such as piezography) really do make for fine prints - not film, but still excellent and quite good. Alternatively, a friend has worked out some printing with glossy paper, HP printing, and a specific shooting technique to give a film-like look- it has lots of depth and richness, but this is not a softer look, but a harder one. Its film-like, but not how I would see film. So depending on which film look one is looking for, the printing techniques will vary also.

IMHO, the look of film is found in the intermediate transitions - the highly controlled tonal shifts of the mid greys. So, the highlights can be let go, the digital will always capture the shadows well, but its the tones in the mid-range transitions that are of interest. These are hard to show on screen - but Jim Collum seems to have captured these well.