Black and White: Film or Digital?

I'm just trying to get a diverse opinion on black and white photography: which is better, film or digital. This is not about which has the better quality!

To give you an idea what I'm on about, take digital. Some of the photographs can be stunning especially when you use curves in photoshop. However, it is that stunning attribute that can cause, in my opinion, make the photograph look artificial. To look more creative design than photography. Where as film with its grain and neutral grey balance looks more traditional, more true to life (apart from the lack of colour).

Personally, I think too many digital users are using Photoshop to create photographs that are far from what they look like in real life.

What do you think, and please nothing about which is the better quality otherwise it will go on forever.

Given the fact the film NEVER looked true to life...(limitied contrast range, color repruductions ETC) I'd have to say digital gives the end user more controls in an easy to control environment...that this results in unreal images more oft than not is an end user issue. I saw an image that had used dynamic contrast from several images to reproduce all the detial in the actual scene that would've been visible to the naked eye, and to be honest I didn't really care for it. It was a little flat looking to me and didn't resemble any REAL PHOTOGRAPH I'd ever seen.....but proves it is easier to achieve truer to life effects digitally...end user, not medium that really matters...

ps keep an eye out for more hardware and software with expanded dynamic range....(just like colorspaces from srgb to adobe for example)...I expect to see a revised zone system in the future sort've a zone ten to zone 100 for example....where one meters with points on a curve in photoshop in mind at the shooting stage.

I can see your point, i.e. the contrast range in colour film is something like 1 in 4 and b&w is 1 in 10. Digital is a lot more, but its more than the human eye can make out.

As for the end user, Pratical Photography held a B&W comparison test a few months ago, taking two photographs from the same position, one in digital and the other in film. The film looked better cos the digital, although dynamic, look artificial. It's just my opinion that some people share and others don't.

I've always enjoyed shooting B/W images, and they have never looked realistic as I like Tri-X, red filters and lots of contrast.

You can do the same with Photoshop, using a different set of skills to get whatever end result you want.

In one sense trying to compare digital and film on a printed magazine page is a bit futile - the end result of that could be anything. I think we need to try these sort of things for ourselves and see if we can get the results we want. If we can, that's fantastivs, if we can't then we don't use that technique.

I still have my enlarger and chemicals and trays and etc etc etc, and have seriously been thinking about A4 digital negs for contact printing onto "proper" black and white paper.
WHY?
Because my printer is incapable of producing a true B&W print, and it seems at the moment that unless you are willing to spend an awful lot of time and wasted paper (or buy a top end printer) then traditional B&W prints are still the far better option (last a lot longer too)

As an aside to this post I must also proudly announce that I actually took my MZ5n with me into the Yorkshire Dales this Sunday and actually shot a few frames of Delta 100 (kept getting the istD out as well tho')

I am definately going to do some traditional D&P this winter...honest!

My darkroom is ready and poised for use as well, and I haven't used it for 18 months at least.

Sadly, my digital monochrome prints are better than my traditional ones, so I'm either brilliant at digital printing or useless at darkroom work, depending on your point of view....

One thing is for sure - I'm really glad i don't have to "spot" prints any more!

I know what you mean John......

I only took up darkroom work myself a few years ago and then moved on to digital, so I am not very good at it, hence the desire to try it from a digital negative, no need to worry about contrast or dodging and burning etc. plus like I said, a print that will last for years even in direct sunlight!

Never really had to do any spotting tho' (must have had a good teacher)

Just a thought...

You can combine the two technologies and get the best of both worlds by shooting on film for the look, scanning the negs and make digital prints with ease. You also have the advantages of being able to use PS. I dont fancy going back into the darkroom and there were always pro printers who could do it better than me anyway!

Ken

Possible and a good idea. Darkroom is tricky and you certainly need to practice at it, but it's also the waste that is produced as well. Those chemicals are not exactly environmentally friendly that is why I store my chemicals.

I suppose an old-thinker like me will have to admit it. Digital has taken over colour photography (which is a good thing) and now it’s moved on to B&W (which is a bad thing). Give it a try and see what you think is prudent