fulvio
Reged: 29/10/2001
Posts: 170
Loc: london
|
|
Is anyone here doing digital B&W and enjoying it?
I got a Canon 350D last year for work, and have been happily snapping away with my 28mm, 50mm and 135mm primes. I had got to the point where I doubted I'd use the dark room again. Then I did some printing over the weekend and rediscovered why I so much prefer B&W to colour for any picture I really care about. All the film cameras are being loaded up again: the Eos 3, Eos 10 and Pentax MXs.
Then it occured to me I should at least try the digital for monochrome. To date, shooting digital to make a B&W print has seemed slightly pointless. But it might be fun: does anyone out there do it routinely, and if so do you print at home or get them done for you?
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20930
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
Yes, I do it all the time.
Print at home as well.
Even wrote a Photoshop tutorial for converting from colour to B&W.
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
Seven..
...or maybe Eight
Reged: 03/02/2003
Posts: 5102
Loc: Havant, UK
|
|
yes I do
some here
I print at home but it's been a struggle getting happy with my mono prints but no they won't ever match a film print from my 1800 but I am told the newer epson printers are doing a damn fine job 
--------------------
Tanya(BSRIPN)
CastVision
|
Woolliscroft
veteran
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1253
|
|
B&W digital has a different look to B&W film and ultimately it is just a matter of which you prefer.
--------------------
David.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37891
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
B&W digital has a different look to B&W film and ultimately it is just a matter of which you prefer.
Indeed. I like digital mono much better than the C41 B&W films - it gives a similarly "clean" image. However, I love grain, and B&W film does that a lot better IMHO.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Nod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 4335
Loc: Devon, UK.
|
|
I would agree with Nick about grain looking better from film, however, using high ISO settings and turning any in camera noise reduction off, you can get an approximation of graininess after conversion to mono (using the channel mixer in CS). Printing at home gives decent results, although it can take a while to eliminate all traces of a colour cast. Since all my prints are for me, I can accept the slight (almost imperceptible) cast I'm left with. There are ink sets available that use several grades of grey instead of colours to get a true greyscale print - but you'll need a dedicated printer to make the most of these inks.
--------------------
MATWSIJ.....
To avoid being offended, please insert apropriate smiley.
|
fulvio
Reged: 29/10/2001
Posts: 170
Loc: london
|
|
Thanks very much for these replies. I am now encouraged to have a go with digital mono. Although wet printing is very time consuming and approximate, it is efficient in that there are no moving parts - cogs, and ink jets - to worry about. And computer printers are a major, all-time pain. So I think anything I do, I would send out for printing.
Any advice on Photoshop: I use Elements 2 on a Mac. This is presumably very basic, and it has none of menus Fen lists. What's the best upgrade for a Mac, or do you have to get the full programme?
Also, Nick, why do you have strong feelings prefering digital mono to C41 film? Surely the results are pretty much the same, C41 being just scanned and printed? I don't like C41 film much either, as I find it bland. it's mighty convenient having the film processed for you and getting some test prints, but I have never had one frame from it that I have subsequently wanted to print myself on the enlarger. Digital mono would be far more convenient and fun. But quality wise, not much different surely?
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37891
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Also, Nick, why do you have strong feelings prefering digital mono to C41 film? Surely the results are pretty much the same, C41 being just scanned and printed? I don't like C41 film much either, as I find it bland. it's mighty convenient having the film processed for you and getting some test prints, but I have never had one frame from it that I have subsequently wanted to print myself on the enlarger. Digital mono would be far more convenient and fun. But quality wise, not much different surely?
No, not a lot - just a lot more convenient, TBH. I don't mind the more awkward (for me!) workflow of film for the results I get with HP5 and Rodinal, or Pan F, or SFX - something with character - but I do like the idea of being able to shoot colour and B&W at the same time, on the same camera, and the degree of control over the conversion process that allows results with some character, exactly what I think is missing from C41 neg film. Of course I could just scan C41 neg, but it's slower and costlier, so the all-digital workflow still wins for me.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
bagpuss
Prolific Pam
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 8981
Loc: Camulodunum
|
|
I like both film and digi mono; both methods hold satisfaction and frustration.
--------------------
 Ooooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeeee ooooooooooooooo
Oh yes!
|
Woolliscroft
veteran
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1253
|
|
Quote:
Although wet printing is very time consuming and approximate
In what way approximate?
--------------------
David.
|
willie45
old hand
Reged: 08/05/2006
Posts: 752
|
|
Quote:
Any advice on Photoshop: I use Elements 2 on a Mac. This is presumably very basic, and it has none of menus Fen lists. What's the best upgrade for a Mac, or do you have to get the full programme?
I am not sure about Elements 2 but you can do some pretty good B&W conversions on Elements 4 using similar techniques to the ones shown by Fen. For a discussion on how to approach it read half way down this thread
I use this technique and print on an Epson R1800 which is not regarded to be as good as the R2400 for B&W but is fine to my eyes. I accept that the quality of my work is probably not high enough to show any deficiencies in the printer, but I have seen some really excellent prints made by people at my club who know what they are doing and using much cheaper machines.
Good luck with your choice and enjoy your B&W
Willie
|
fulvio
Reged: 29/10/2001
Posts: 170
Loc: london
|
|
Wet printing being appproximate? Because to get an replica of a print you have done before is tricky, and to get one in the first place will involve some trial and error and wasted paper.
I find one of the most essential things in a dark room is a diary to record what I have done and why. Following it later, makes subsequent printing more likely to be successful.
|
tiggersm8
newbie
Reged: 27/02/2007
Posts: 3
|
|
having done both, i have yet to print digital to a level which i prefer over wet. Wet you have a process unless you use "stains" that can be only b/w monochrome. digital you have all the colours that can give you a tint that in many cases are unwanted and unacceptable. i have found changes of print colour to the colour of the light that you are viewing in, and also the distance the print is viewed the light changes sufficiently to change the colour. So i would say it is not a case of preference but what one considers acceptable.
|
BigAl999
newbie
Reged: 29/12/2007
Posts: 49
Loc: Norfolk
|
|
I now shoot on a Canon EOS300D but also enjoy working with B+W. I have done a few conversions but have never been totally happy with the results from my printer (Epson R200). I have been considering making a large negative (10x8) on acetate film and wet contact printing from it. Has anyone tried this and what results did you get?
Alan
|
Lounge Lizard
Old Wrinkly
Reged: 17/01/2004
Posts: 17885
Loc: Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
|
|
I dabbled with this once but you will have two problems - getting a detailed enough image onto acetate (the printing DPI is usally much lower than inkjet paper) and getting enough density - silver grains are dense and block the light while a thin film of black dye isn't so good. I'm not saying it can't be done and some people have achieved some reasonable results but it may not be as easy as you imagine.
I bought myself a new printer last year with the objective of producing better monochrome images and now that I have got an Epson pigment printer using K3 Ultrachrome inks, I can get prints as good as, if not better, than darkroom images and on paper surfaces that resemble silver-based fibre papers.
--------------------
Lounge Lizard
Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
Winston Churchill
|
BigAl999
newbie
Reged: 29/12/2007
Posts: 49
Loc: Norfolk
|
|
Thanks for the info unfortunatly I'm not in a position to afford any new printer. A friend of mine is considering a new laser printer for his office. Do you think that might make a better negative?
Alan
|
Lounge Lizard
Old Wrinkly
Reged: 17/01/2004
Posts: 17885
Loc: Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
|
|
Yes, black toner might be a bit more dense than a dye and the DPI on the laser printer would be fixed so the acetates for that (make sure they are laser printer acetates) would have more detail. However, note that laser printer acetates might have a matte or mottled surface on one side to take the toner and I'm not sure whether this would give a grainy effect or not. Worth a try though.
--------------------
Lounge Lizard
Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
Winston Churchill
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
