Soldato
Had a chat and compared pictures in the office today with another keen photographer, he is of the "medium format, film, and fibre based paper" mould, and it was torture for him to look through some of my B&W pictures I had dared to inkjet print....... I also had a print I had done twice, once in the dark room, and again scanned and ink jet printed.
I have to say I was struggling against his point of view... the more we debated, the more his passion for film was urging me to run to the Alps with a few rolls of Pan F !!!
For sure if you view only on screen digital black and white is as good as digital colour, but when it comes to printing, what is the solution?
Do the very latest multiple black ink printers prove good enough, can you get a chemical print done from a digital file, as can be done from colour.
Or as my colleague protested you need to use film and a dark room.
His issues were digital can not convey a 3D depth and scale to a picture like film, colour casts when trying to print, poor mid tone, and no fine highlight detail and graduation.
When you compare side by side, digital B&W does seem to have some way to go....
But then show people the pictures in isolation, and the reaction is always positive.....
Sample pictures we looked at were printed to A3 on a Canon S9000, either converted from a colour D70 file, or scanned from Delta 100 film at 4000dpi. (around 20MP !) .....
Any B&W photographers here, what's your favoured solution ? (and don't say ID 11....LOL)
9d
Sorry, not another spec me a DSLR for 50 quid thread...
I have to say I was struggling against his point of view... the more we debated, the more his passion for film was urging me to run to the Alps with a few rolls of Pan F !!!
For sure if you view only on screen digital black and white is as good as digital colour, but when it comes to printing, what is the solution?
Do the very latest multiple black ink printers prove good enough, can you get a chemical print done from a digital file, as can be done from colour.
Or as my colleague protested you need to use film and a dark room.
His issues were digital can not convey a 3D depth and scale to a picture like film, colour casts when trying to print, poor mid tone, and no fine highlight detail and graduation.
When you compare side by side, digital B&W does seem to have some way to go....
But then show people the pictures in isolation, and the reaction is always positive.....
Sample pictures we looked at were printed to A3 on a Canon S9000, either converted from a colour D70 file, or scanned from Delta 100 film at 4000dpi. (around 20MP !) .....
Any B&W photographers here, what's your favoured solution ? (and don't say ID 11....LOL)
9d
Sorry, not another spec me a DSLR for 50 quid thread...
.... From his 6x6 neg..... for me, it was too low in contrast, too much grey, and I wonder if he has a milk bottle for a lens !!!! As my 35mm Film stuff is way sharper and crisp... So it kind of made me smile when he critiqued my work !!