| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
"B&W vs. Color, not Film vs. Digital"
Dianna Russell, Photographer
 |
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 4:57 AM on 09.07.10 |
->> I found an interesting blog post followed by intelligent comments about the use of Film only for black and white prints and Digital for color. I wanted to share it and think it's worth a look.
http://t.co/WadyUu4 |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:06 AM on 09.07.10 |
->> Interesting article with a couple of decent points. Film and silver based printing only make sense for the gallery wall - scanning beautiful prints for repro takes you back to square one.
The mindset of shooting film could be a genuine reason for doing so - I have heard many great photojournalists explain that they feel their subject matter differently with film, but 99% of photographers would do just as well shooting digitally and then converting using a good algorithm.
There was one quote in the article that was both laughable and very wrong:
"Color was just never quite "natural" to photography until digital came along."
That one sentence ruined the writers credibility for me. |
|
Dianna Russell, Photographer
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 5:29 AM on 09.07.10 |
| ->> I remember the "poor performing color film" from the 70s that was mentioned. That flat kind of washed out look. But the printing could have probably contributed to that particular failure. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 10:11 AM on 09.07.10 |
| ->> Whats ironic to me is that these days there are so many actions and plug-ins to emulate those "poor performing color films" because a lot of people really like that given look. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 12:21 PM on 09.07.10 |
->> "digital would be the coming of age of color photography"
Bollocks, unless you're willing to forget everything since the invention of Kodachrome.
Here's what you do (at least on a Canon):
1) Set your camera to record RAW files
2) Set the "Picture Style" to B&W
Viola! You'll see a B&W image when you chimp so you'll think that you're shooting in B&W but, if needed, you have all of the camera's color information. |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 12:57 PM on 09.07.10 |
->> There may be issues with some color films, but in my experience, I found that bad color prints came from three sources, bad printing methods, bad exposure in the camera and bad chemistry at the lab. Bad printing methods such as companies that metered the first image and printed everything else from that reading, or bad exposure in the camera by depending only the internal meter and (having been a lab tech at a newspaper), improper adjustment of the processor chemistry.
Since our newspaper B&W processing was done by hand, there was a different level of interest by the photographer to carefully use there technique to develop the negs. Printing was not done at newspapers for archival display and was often printed flat anyway. When prints were requested or made for portfolios, they wee printed for a full range of blacks and highlights. |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 3:12 PM on 09.07.10 |
->> "I have heard many great photojournalists explain that they feel their subject matter differently with film..."
Perhaps this is because they spend less time with their noses in the back of the camera and their eyes on their subject. |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 3:24 AM on 09.08.10 |
->> Eric
That could very well be the case. One of my favourite photographers shooting digitally at the moment has his LCD screen taped over to stop him looking at it. I find myself using the LCD less and less these days so I guess that after 12 years I am getting comfortable with the technology!
The other thing about shooting film is that you cannot wildly keep shooting - you have a 36 frame buffer, with up to two minutes in between rolls. I heard one photojournalist explain that he shoots with two Leicas, each with a 35mm lens so that he can keep shooting when one runs out of film! |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 10:57 AM on 09.08.10 |
->> It all boils down to a personal preference ....
I worked a wet B&W and Color darkroom for over 24 years ... I have worked strictly with DSLR's for over 10 years .... I am totally convinced that the person depressing the shutter release has more to do with the resulting image than any other factor.
I have seen many fine prints created with DSLR's that would rival anything created with film. The "art" in photography has nothing to do with the medium used ... but the vision of the person creating the "art."
I also agree that those photographers who honed their skills with film, don't spend nearly as much time chimping ... ;-) |
|
Chris Peterson, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbia Falls | MT | USA | Posted: 12:26 PM on 09.08.10 |
->> With a Leica M9, you can turn set it as a black and white camera.
The prints are stellar (20 by 30s are sickeningly sharp) and the preview is in black and white, so you can see what you're getting. (I'm sorry, I'm a chimping addict).
It's better than film by a long shot. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|