I wanted to add one last comment to the Tim Atherton dig at digital black and white images, where he has written:…
“colour digital work can sing (as can analogue/digital hybrid colour). Though probably the biggest single reason that so many converted colour images look crappy in greyscale is nothing to do with technique, but rather vision – on the whole, good black and white pictures simply aren’t colour photographs with the colour removed.”
Yep, you read right, per Tim, Digital is only good for color photograhy! Now you know why I found his posts so amusing. I think I also recall many of the silver halide black and white photograhers objecting to the chromagenic dye black and white films (e.g. Ilford XP1) for almost the same reasons as digital, the image is toooo smooth. Heck, go outside and look at the blue sky, is is a continuous tone or do you see any grain? I guess he probably thinks that acrylic paint, since it provides smooth, slick images is only good for houses or color paintings, or at least many fine art oil painters thought that so many years ago. Just so you know Tim’s bias; he’s a photographer who uses black & white film in a large format camera.
Digital photography is but one tool among many to express a vision, which has it’s own unique characteristics. Oh well, enough already, I do not need to be the champion of a dead issue about Digital Black and White, this is such a silly discussion. I do need to create some images and get something positive done. And yes, from digital capture, images that are rendered in awsome black and white prints;- )
Best regards, Doug
Update: the image above may be included in my series A Sideways Glance