I bet this has been asked so SORRY

J

JSER

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,120
Name
Jeremy
Edit My Images
Yes
Film monochrome or DSLR/photo editing converted ?

I am now enjoying my return to film, but, is there any difference, that people would notice between film mono with my FP4 from my Nikkormat, and using say my 60D and converting colour to mono in paintshop pro or shooting mono on the DSLR.

After all you need to scan the neg in then print anyway.

Thanks

post script.

WOW though I have to say, it is really nice to return to a proper camera, and yes I love technology....., but the feel of the Nikkormat and the rolls royce sound as the shutter fires, the smoooooth mechanical wind on, and boy were those old cameras designed and built, and not really heavier than my D60 with battery pack.
 
Last edited:
I think there most definitely is a difference. Your mono neg may well be a digital file once it's scanned, but something seems to be captured at the negative stage which carries over with the scanning process. Certainly the highlights are much better behaved with the scanning I've done, so I think you retain a better luminance range at the very least
 
I like not having to fiddle with it with the 25 different ways of monochrome conversion in Photoshop. Besides, like you, I shoot partly because of the enjoyment of old cameras and kit - and as long as you are happy and pleased with the results, I don't think it matters if it's digital or film.
 
donutagain said:
so at what point do you scan the neg in , in the darkroom then ? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Lets start again ...............................................

Senarios.

Photo taken on a DSLR in colour converted to mono printed 8 x 10 (printed on a printer)
Photo taken on a DSLR in Mono (printed on a printer)
Photo taken on a film camera with MONO film scanned in and printed 8 x 10 (printed on a printer)
Photo taken on a film camera with MONO film Printed in the darkroom 8 x 10 (printed with an enlarger in a DARKROOM)




What I am asking is, would anyone know the difference BETWEEN THE FOUR DIFFERENT METHODS of producing a monochromatic print just by looking, if so which would be the best, most natural, better reproduction.


Oh and thanks CT.
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
Lets start again ...............................................

Senarios.

Photo taken on a DSLR in colour converted to mono printed 8 x 10
" " " Mono " "
" " film camera scanned in and printed 8 x 10
" " " " Printed in the darkroom 8 x 10


End differences please, apart from the &^%%&*% obvious.

What I am asking is, would anyone know the difference just by looking, if so which would be the best, most natural, better reproduction.


Oh and thanks CT.
Click to expand...

i dont think you understand how it works ,there is no " scanning in " in a dark room to get a print . not a digital scanner in sight.
 
donutagain said:
i dont think you understand how it works ,there is no " scanning in " in a dark room to get a print . not a digital scanner in sight.
Click to expand...

No you dont understand please read again.

I can't make the question any easier. Perhaps I didn't make the question clear first time round.

No where did I mention having a scanner in a darkroom
 
Last edited:
I understand what you mean... The clear "winner" would be the last one, the photograph printed in the darkroom. Especially close up. You won't find any pixels etc on that bad boy and the transitions between tones will be much smoother.
 
Jakska said:
I understand what you mean... The clear "winner" would be the last one, the photograph printed in the darkroom. Especially close up. You won't find any pixels etc on that bad boy and the transitions between tones will be much smoother.
Click to expand...

I think you'd struggle to differentiate between the last two, provided the scan is of adequate resolution for printing in the first place. There is no way in hell you can seperate the 300 pixels that make up each inch.

The digital should stand out a mile away even if the resolution is matched becuase it will look inherently different.
 
I dunno, I think by looking at them you'd be able to tell, especially as even "black and white" prints from inkjet printers are often made up using coloured ink. I can certainly tell the difference between different methods of printing (say litho, riso, inkjet, for example) and I reckon it would be the same for silver halide/digital prints just because of the way it sits on the page for starters. Looked at really closely it'd be clear which is which. Definitely an interesting one to try out though!
 
Easy way to find out, I know of one lab that does conventional optical printing still (Westminster Studio's, http://www.westminsterstudios.com/).

All you need to do is get them to do a straight B&W print of reasonable size (say 10"x8") with no dodging/burning etc and then get Ilford Lab to do a digital exposure print from a negative that they scan with no contrast correction etc (printed on proper silver-halide paper of course, no Inkjet crap) and compare the two.

I don't know if there would be any difference to the naked eye, but I imagine there may be under a magnifying glass and definitely under a microscope.
 
Ok, thanks, so for competitions it would generally be agreed that a mono print taken from an enlarger in the conventional way would be best, I can see that, followed by a print from a scanned neg on a good printer.

Thanks
 
s162216 said:
Easy way to find out, I know of one lab that does conventional optical printing still (Westminster Studio's, http://www.westminsterstudios.com/).

All you need to do is get them to do a straight B&W print of reasonable size (say 10"x8") with no dodging/burning etc and then get Ilford Lab to do a digital exposure print from a negative that they scan with no contrast correction etc (printed on proper silver-halide paper of course, no Inkjet crap) and compare the two.

I don't know if there would be any difference to the naked eye, but I imagine there may be under a magnifying glass and definitely under a microscope.
Click to expand...

Thanks, saved and will send them some prints to try out
 
Just been reading this and to throw somoe more fun in you can scan in an image and print it in a darkrom via the magic of the De-Verre 504

http://de-vere.com/products.htm

Mind you being De-Verre you will proable need a lottery win to set it up :D
 
JSER said:
Ok, thanks, so for competitions it would generally be agreed that a mono print taken from an enlarger in the conventional way would be best, I can see that, followed by a print from a scanned neg on a good printer.

Thanks
Click to expand...

No it be a darkroom print followed by a scanned neg printed on 'proper' i.e light sensitive photo paper like used in the conventional darkroom way, you just expose the paper by beaming the scan onto the paper with lasers or LED's for example instead of projecting the negative onto the paper through a lens. This how all modern 'digital' minilabs work and one advantage is that you can easily correct for tungsten lighting, poor contrast etc on the scan before outputting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top