[Leica] B&W, digital vs. film

[kleinp at BATTELLE.ORG (Klein, Peter A)]

Richard:

I think your pushed Tri-X and HP5 shots are a little overdeveloped.
Your times might be just right to introduce a bit more contrast in flat
lighting, but in that case you might need to shoot at 250 or 320.  For
better gradation in more contrasty lighing, back off on the development
time just a bit.

I have never used a Jobo, so I would defer to someone who has one
regarding exactly what to do.  But the general advice would be to do one
of the following: decrease development time, dilute the developer more,
agitate less frequently or less vigorously (obviously not possible with
the Jobo), use a pre-soak with water before developing, or a water bath
afterwards.

The simplest thing to try first would be to decrease your development
time 15-20%.

The RD-1 files really look good.  It is still a 6 mp digital camera, but
the files I shot at Glazer's a few weeks back looked just a smidge
better than files from DSLRs--just a bit more detail, and it seems to
know how not to blow highlights a little better.  The "grain" at high
ISOs is very film-like. Film has a different "look," but the RD-1 has
come pretty close.  You are going to have more detail with film, but for
a web shot or a 5x7 print, it may not matter.  You'll be able to see the
difference in an 8x10 if you look close, but again, it may not matter.
And for high-ISO color, I think pictures from the better digital SLRs
and the RD-1 often look better than film.

Hope this is useful!
--Peter


Richard <richard-lists@imagecraft.com> wrote:

> Looking at:
> http://www.dragonsgate.net/photosite/PaW2005/ 26 pictures, 11 are in
B&W 
(week 11 I converted to Sepia just because I thought it looks better
that 
way).
 
> Week 1, 2, 3 and 16 are taken with Epson R-D1. Shot RAW and converted
to B&W
> Week 9, 10, 12 are Tri-X pushed to ASA800
> Week 11 T-Max 400.
> Week 22 are Acros 100
> Week 24, both of them, are HP5+
 
> Not looking at my (lack of) photographic ability for the moment, but
just 
judging the look of the photos for the B&W quality, what do you think? 
Consider my B&W workflow is unconventional - negatives are processed in
a 
Jobo, then scan. Do they look any worse than conventional processed B&W?