The choice between colour and monochrome

I was actually trying to decide if there is actually any difference in monochrome shot on film or digital. And of course with Photoshop and a little time, the tones can be refined to produce the most stunning results in either traditional or digital medium.

But why shoot monochrome when you can shoot in colour anyway? I think it is of course subjective, and very personal, but whilst colour may bring immediacey, monochrome holds time, a moment, with more clarity. Perhaps, with the colour taken away, the image before us requires us to add to the picture, we have to look at the tones, the structure of the content, and fill in the information we would normally not have to think about. We have to interact more, add a little of our own creativity to the image, in deciding the colour of an object, the light or if the crushed blacks are infact deep red or green.

Colour, of course, is a true reflection of the world about us. And again with photoshop we can create a new magic in colour as intreaging as monochrome.

In colour or monochrome, we record a moment in time. With digital the results are immediate, but so is the opportunity to delete that moment. So will the demise of film and the rise of digital actually truely reflect our time, or will future generations just look back on a very selective, polished age?

And colour of course has instant reward, like our consumer society, or is it just because monochrome is associated with 'classic' images.

Either way, may both continue, the choice between colour and monochrome.

Monochrome (AKA B+W) shot on film will be overall better then shot on digital as they exist today for DSLR. technically film or digital should not make a difference if both film and the digital sensor were designed for B+W imaging (AKA panchromatic).

The reason current DSLRs are not as good for B+W is that they shoot in color using a bayer filter to divide the various colors once processed. If there was no bayer filter in place then a digital camera could probably produce a better B+W shot.

Good interpolation software allows for some correction of the bayer filter pattern in producing a B+W image from a digital color shot, but because the filter was there it did affect the light that got to the sensor so there is a limit to what the correction software can accomplish.

Lastly also because of the bayer filter use of B+W filters for certain looks is restricted to the use of software imulating the filters.

All that said though, given that the image is digital it is actually easier to convert a digital color image to B+W with more accurate results then it would be to convert a color film image to B+W.

And lastly given HDR capabilties (when they can be used) digital can actually provide a higher range then film can, thus given potentially an even better B+W look to the picture.

Short form: technically film is better, but digital is good enough for B+W / monochrome / panchromatic shots.
And for the technically minded yes there is a difference between monochrome and panchromatic.

So its mainly the dynamic range that makes B+W images better. And a colour sensor image is better then a colour film in converting the to B+W through postprocessing later.

Yep, you basically got it.

The only other factor is B+W film will tend to have higher resolution then color film and without getting into a lot of factors, 35mm B+W film is about the equivilant of between 12 and 22MP of a digital sensor in terms of final print output. It depends on the film type as well as subject scene as to at what point digital surpasses film. The absolute highest resolution B+W films will technically have even higher resolution, but due to the random nature of the grains versus the pattern of the digital sensor, this will only be apparent against a test target array.

But resolution only affects the size at which you can print or how much you can crop an image before the grain/pixels start becoming visible. It does not for the most part affect the look of the image itself.

I do agree, especially over the Bayer sensor's. That's why my friend had to opt for, and he still use for digital, a Sigma SD9. He had the sigma mount removed and a Nikon bayonet fitted (required a spacer because of the increased distance from sensor needed) to allow him to continue using all his Nikkors.

The X3F Foveon sensor is true 100% Red, Green and blue - 3 layers and no interpolation and no mathematical approximation of the RGB scale as with Bayer's.

This means when the raw files come out of software processing it's 10Mpixel and if you want B&W then you can change all three layers to their grey scale maps, and just as with panochromatic traditional film, the resulting images retain far more detail than from a Bayer sensor. In professional photography, especially my area of editorial the brand is of no consequence, we just need the quality! .. So it may seem strange to have a Sigma body with a Nikkor on the front, but I've seen nothing in the current 13+Mp cameras to come anywhere close to the detail. Just such a shame, so far, that the other main camera manufacturers have not taken up the Foveon sensors.

I think Polaroid brought out one point and shoot pocket camera a while back with a Foveon, but that was it!