Digital Black and White

[R'man]

I've been a film photographer until recently, and love to shoot B&W. With digital I've played around with the B&W functions of cameras and various software...the problem is that I cannot come close to reproducing the screen results on paper. Depth and richness disappears in the print output regardless of print device. I'm about to conclude that digital cannot match film when it comes to producing B&W prints. Anyone have any lessons-learned or tips to improve the output? Or, am I just expecting too much?

[pierces]

I've been a film photographer until recently' date=' and love to shoot B&W. With digital I've played around with the B&W functions of cameras and various software...the problem is that I cannot come close to reproducing the screen results on paper. Depth and richness disappears in the print output regardless of print device. I'm about to conclude that digital cannot match film when it comes to producing B&W prints. Anyone have any lessons-learned or tips to improve the output? Or, am I just expecting too much?[/quote']

 

Black and white printing generally requires B&W specific inks and papers. Printers like the Epson R3000 use three shades of photo black on fine art inkjet papers to produce prints that really do rival traditional prints. The bad news is that printing high quality black and white prints is not inexpensive.

 

If you dabble in B&W printing and do photography as a hobby, the investment in a capable printer and paper can be prohibitive but if you sell your work the investment may be worth it.

 

Here's an article by a photographer who has made the leap to digital B&W: http://www.leefrost.co.uk/downloads/FINE%20ART%20B&W%20LANDSCAPES.pdf

 

Some helpful tweaks at Luminous Landscape: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/2200-bw.shtml

 

 

Dave

[R'man]

Thanks, Dave. I figured as much. No, I don't do gallery work or sell, so no need for a big investment. I think my frustration is mainly the inability to replicate what I can print using film, paper and chemicals, with some manipulation. Need to learn so much all over again. :)

[awboater]

The one thing film still has over digital is dynamic range, and nothing makes this apparent as much as B&W.

 

Dynamic range can be a lot different depending on your camera.

 

Full frame DSLRs, have dynamic ranges approaching or equal to film cameras, while the cropped sensor DSLRs are a bit less.

 

But as you go down the scale, compact cameras typically lose 1 to 2 stops in range.

 

One thing you might try, without having to buy a new camera, is to try B&W HDR photography. You might find you can not only capture the range of film, but you might even get a stop or two more dynamic range - closer to the human eye (but of course, most of us don't see in B&W).

[R'man]

The one thing film still has over digital is dynamic range, and nothing makes this apparent as much as B&W.

 

Dynamic range can be a lot different depending on your camera.

 

Full frame DSLRs, have dynamic ranges approaching or equal to film cameras, while the cropped sensor DSLRs are a bit less.

 

But as you go down the scale, compact cameras typically lose 1 to 2 stops in range.

 

One thing you might try, without having to buy a new camera, is to try B&W HDR photography. You might find you can not only capture the range of film, but you might even get a stop or two more dynamic range - closer to the human eye (but of course, most of us don't see in B&W).

 

The problem remains translating the film or bits into a paper image. Looking at "pro" printers, the price is easily $1000+ for printing with bits.

[framer]

They are different and nothing you do will change that. Both though can be good but different. With digital you will have more retouching control, tone control etc. I still pack an F6 with TRI-X and shoot a few rolls per year.

 

framer