Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of Evan Baines's message #8387426 « Black & White (89 Images) »

  

Evan Baines
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Black & White (88 Images)


Thanks for all the comments everyone!


Photodude & Deb: I used a 1v and 1n. I wanted to stick with a familiar system for this first go. I may add in some rangefinder and/or MF coverage on future weddings.

Eyeball: It is a great question. First, on the purely objective end, you're absolutely right that with a lot of effort, you could get digital shots to look pretty darn close to this on a screen. The grain might not be as truly random and organic (unless you scanned grainy negs and spent ridiculous effort on it), and the highlight roll-off and other issues might be subtly different.... but you could get close enough to fool all but a true conniseur.

The difference really shows up when you start making prints. A true darkroom fiber print made from film has a depth and presence that cannot be simulated with digital technology. Believe me, I've tried. I love digital printmaking, and I'd like to think I'm pretty good at it. Digital prints can be beautiful.... but they are different than film prints.

And on a more philosophical level: authenticity matters to me. There is part of me that recoils deep down inside about the fact that all of my digital black and white images are film "simulations" with "authentic-looking" grain and tonality. These film shots don't pretend to be anything but what they are. They're not "reproductions" of the film look: they just ARE. This won't matter to everyone: not even to most people. However, I'm spending a lot of money and effort putting together a sample album predicated on the idea that there are still people out there who agree with me on this. I don't want this to be a film vs. digital thing because I still love digital. Its amazing, and there are many aspects of modern wedding photography that hugely benefit from digital technology. I just know that deep down inside, I'm glad my wedding was shot on B&W film.

Deb: I metered both in camera and taking hand readings for every room/situation. I used the sekonic to get a baseline for each room, or during the portraits, but then used the camera meter to make fine adjustments. Some of the pushed film didn't actually have as much exposure latitude as people generally think of with film, so it was important to me to nail it every time. Exposure wise, I literally only missed a handful all day.



Apr 21, 2010 at 05:15 PM
Evan Baines
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Black & White (88 Images)


Thanks for all the comments everyone!


Photodude & Deb: I used a 1v and 1n. I wanted to stick with a familiar system for this first go. I may add in some rangefinder and/or MF coverage on future weddings.

Eyeball: It is a great question. First, on the purely objective end, you're absolutely right that with a lot of effort, you could get digital shots to look pretty darn close to this on a screen. The grain might not be as truly random and organic (unless you scanned grainy negs and spent ridiculous effort on it), and the highlight roll-off and other issues might be subtly different.... but you could get close enough to fool all but a true conniseur.

The difference really shows up when you start making prints. A true darkroom fiber print made from film has a depth and presence that cannot be simulated with digital technology. Believe me, I've tried. I love digital printmaking, and I'd like to think I'm pretty good at it. Digital prints can be beautiful.... but they are different than film prints.

And on a more philosophical level: authenticity matters to me. There is part of me that recoils deep down inside about the fact that all of my digital black and white images are film "simulations" with "authentic-looking" grain and tonality. These film shots don't pretend to be anything but what they are. They're not "reproductions" of the film look: they just ARE. This won't matter to everyone: not even to most people. However, I'm spending a lot of money and effort putting together a sample album predicated on the idea that there are still people out there who agree with me on this.

Deb: I metered both in camera and taking hand readings for every room/situation. I used the sekonic to get a baseline for each room, or during the portraits, but then used the camera meter to make fine adjustments. Some of the pushed film didn't actually have as much exposure latitude as people generally think of with film, so it was important to me to nail it every time. Exposure wise, I literally only missed a handful all day.



Apr 21, 2010 at 05:12 PM
Evan Baines
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Black & White (88 Images)


Thanks for all the comments everyone!


Photodude & Deb: I used a 1v and 1n. I wanted to stick with a familiar system for this first go. I may add in some rangefinder and/or MF coverage on future weddings.

Eyeball: It is a great question. First, on the purely objective end, you're absolutely right that with a lot of effort, you could get digital shots to look pretty darn close to this on a screen. The grain might not be as truly random and organic (unless you scanned grainy negs and spent ridiculous effort on it), and the highlight roll-off and other issues might be subtly different.... but you could get close enough to fool all but a true conniseur.

The difference really shows up when you start making prints. A true darkroom fiber print made from film has a depth and presence that cannot be simulated with digital technology. Believe me, I've tried. I love digital printmaking, and I'd like to think I'm pretty good at it. Digital prints can be beautiful.... but they are different than film prints.

And on a more philosophical level: authenticity matters to me. There is part of me that recoils deep down inside about the fact that all of my digital black and white images are film "simulations" with "authentic-looking" grain and tonality. These film shots don't pretend to be anything but what they are. They're not "reproductions" of the film look: they just ARE. This won't matter to everyone: not even to most people. However, I'm spending a lot of money and effort putting together a sample album predicated on the idea that there are still people out there who agree with me on this.





Apr 21, 2010 at 05:09 PM



  Previous versions of Evan Baines's message #8387426 « Black & White (89 Images) »