RICARDOOO Loc: Findlay, Ohio

Can anyone see a difference between a color image and the same image converted to black and white as opposed to the same image shot on black and white film???

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

No, looks the same to me.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Too many unknown here. What cameras? what lenses? what film? what developer?

RICARDOOO Loc: Findlay, Ohio

Same camera and lens for all shots. As far as I am concerned your question makes no sense!!!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I think film B&W has a different look than digital B&W. Which is better depends on your taste. The main advantage of a digital B&W conversion is that you can get the effect of using various color filters to darken the sky, lighten skin tones, etc.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Not really, because of PP filters I can take any digital photo and make it look like any processed film negative/print from wet processing.

Leitz Loc: Solms

A very interesting and easily-understood question. There are many variables, but with good developing and printing techniques, a black and white print from a negative will generally be better than a print from a digital colour image converted to black and white - however, with good post processing techniques, a quality printer and careful paper selection, there will often be little difference.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Actually my answer makes perfect sense, First of all, do you have film and darkroom experience? The same camera cant shoot film and digital, so the lens may be different as well. Are you talking about 35mm or medium format film? Whi ch type of film, there are many. The chemicals you use to soup the negatives in makes a difference also. If you mean a comparison of color and or B&W from a digital camera and mean post programing changes thats another thing but you mentioned digital vs film.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

It only seems to make no sense to someone with limited b&w film experience. There's a reason why photographers will choose a particular film for a very specific look they wish to achieve. Sometimes you can get close to simulating that particular look with a digital camera and clever post processing, but it will never be exactly the same, only a rough approximation.

HowardPepper Loc: Palm Coast, FL

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Isn't that like asking can anyone tell the difference between a live orchestra and one that's been recorded and pressed into an album and one that's been recorded and converted to digital? Lots of variables involved, and people with sensitive "ears" can detect subtle differences. Tone deaf individuals will not hear a difference.

Such it is with images and your question, there are lots of variables. For one, consider that raw digital files are greyscale. The color is added during the raw conversion. In JPEG format the color is added in the camera. The processing is another variable.

Another variable is that film is a completely different medium than digital. It records light differently it has different characteristics. Not the least of which is a higher dynamic range. And different films yield different results. Then there is the variable of the viewer him/herself.

So given the experiment you propose, with thought given to minimize the variables, there would still be subtle differences, some people will be able to detect those differences, others will not.

So these are two very different things that could, with work, be made to look similar.

I'm curious, why do you ask this question?

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

I still use film mainly. And I usually burn B/W film for my B/W images. I can see the difference between them and B/W conversions. However, my post processing and conversion skills are rather elementary.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

I've often wandered the same thing too. But, there are too many variables involved.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I can usually tell in my own work. The difference is subtle, maybe like vinyl vs digital music? The DSLR version is usually a little more "crisp", whereas the film version is a little softer in contrast, although still sharp. It's not due to the camera lens (Rolleiflex Planar 2.8), but could be due to the marginal scanner I use (old Epson 2450).

If I were looking at someone else's work, I probably could not tell them apart.

RICARDOOO Loc: Findlay, Ohio

Thank you!!! You gave me the ans I was looking for...some of these other guys were trying to micro mange the whole thing and I was not looking for that. Any 2 anythings are never the same but they are still very comparable

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!