I'm about to start shooting a location project based loosely on alternative beauty. I intend for the final prints to be black and white.

From what I've read on the internet, slide film has around 5 stops DR, digital around 8ish whilst my old favourite, Tri X has 11. If I were to shoot on film, given the subject, I would probably opt for Delta 100.

Currently I use a 30D. Previously, I've converted E1 images to B&W by deleting a LAB channel, tweaking levels and curves and using Michael's local contrast enhancement sharpening trick. Whilst I was really happy with the contrast, I felt the images seemed somewhat compressed in comparisson with Tri X.

So, the question I'm asking really is if I can do a satisfactory job using a digital camera or whether I should do it the old fashioned way! I've not mentioned a film camera because I have nothing suitable. I've seen an RB67 for verging on pocket money but I'd be better spending money on lighting. It's also massive! However, I don't imagine there is too much difference between 8MP and 645....

Thanks for your opinions

I have no advice, except to be aware of whom you are asking for advice - a very pro-digital croud. Now digital may the proper choice, but I wouldn't decide chicken is better than beef by polling a bunch of cows. Cows may have a bias toward "eat more chicken."

We eat our dead too...

I think your 11 stops figure for Tri-X is agressive... I have heard folks claim up to 17 stops of DR captured by Tri-X, but they failed to compensate for highlight compression and moreover, the same folks never seem to be able to get more than 8 stops into traditional paper print From personal experience, I would say 8 stops is probably closer to reality, though still somewhat agressive for 'most' images.

Anyway, my point is that I think when it is all said and done, you might on occasion be able to get an extra 1/2 to full stop of 'real' additional DR in a direct B&W film print than you will from a properly processed and printed high-end digital file.

Cheers,

Thanks for that! I'll spend my money on light - without a darkroom or the know how to make really stunning prints, I'd be scanning and the hassle doesn't sound worth it at this stage!

I would go with your D30 over film if that's the camera you have, think about the shots not all the other ways you could be shooting them.

( some of the cheap large format gear around is very tempting though )

Usually we don't even wait till they're dead.

If the scene is very high contrast, you can do some development tricks with film to get extra stops of exposure. The biggest advantage to a true B&W film/paper process is the ability to alter reality by applying the tonal response curves to where you want the most tonal detail. You can "imply" additional tonal response in the toe and shoulder.

Unless you have a background with B&W film, I'd just stick with digital.

Absolutely,

As a user of Tri-x for 25 years I think 11 stops is not within the capabilities of the film realistically. If by dynamic range you mean textured shadows to detailed highlights, you are really talking Zone II or III to Zone VIII or maybe IX. So 6-8 stops is far more realistic with modern materials.

You expected to shoot this stuff and then learn to print ?

If your subject matter allows the making of multiple exposures, then digital allows you to capture as much dynamic range as you care to -- bracket your exposures to capture detail at every level of exposure, and then blend to taste in PS.

If not, then digital theoretically has less range than negative film, though I have not personally found this to mean much in terms of actually extracting and showing it.

To make the most of film's DR (inB&W), you need to at least understand the principles of the zone system and reliable method to putting those principles into play into your own work (ie: you don't have to practice the full-on zone system, but you better know your film and developers and development times like the back of your hand). Then you really need to know how to print well. Easier said than done. I would recommend checking out the split-filtration methods of Les Maclean, who is about the landscape printer alive, and a good and generous teacher.

The advantage of larger film-formats is not better DR (it's the same film-stock) but a smoother transition between tones. This contributes enormously to the visual appeal of the finished print.

Personally, I am using the Leica M8 at the moment, and one of the very positive surprises has been the 'depth' or 'guts' (my words) of the files. With even minimal effrort during conversion, I have been able to pull detail and tonal separation out of shadows I had given up for dead. (I'm not saying that other latest generation cameras aren't capable of this too, I haven't compared. Just saying that the M8, to my eyes, gives more DR than I could have hoped for).

Happy shooting!

I've shot medium format and 4x5 black and white for 40 years. I've finally given up on B&W film for medium format and gone to a 1DsMkII for the following reason; High Dynamic Range.

With the 1Ds I can shoot multiple frames of exposure and produce a dynamic range substantially greater than what I can pull from any 120 film and developer made today.

Take 3 or more shots exposing for shadows optimized in one, on target for mids in another and then optimized for the highlights in another. Then combine them in CS2 and you have far more DR than I can pull off with 120 film and my Howtek HiResolve 8K drum scanner.

Not a point I wish to argue as my tests on my own gear have allowed me to reach this conclusion as it applies to my own work. But at this point in time, my Hasselblad H1 is now sold and I'm not looking back.

I have not yet given up the 4x5(Acros 100 in XTol) but finding I'm taking far more shots with the 1DsMkII that I just would not have taken the time to set up with the 4x5, then develop the film, then scan it. Some of these "would have missed" shots have turned out to be quite good.

In short, I'm on a new path and enjoying it. Suggest you give HDR a try for your project.

Jack