data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/baa4a/baa4ad6605de102c248359cf4de5ade942f1960f" alt=""
Lately, I've been working on digital B&W conversions.
Before I went digital, I thought of such concepts as absolute heresy; after all, Henri Cartier Bresson shot TriX with his Leica for his whole career, and he was (in my mind, and the minds of many others) the greatest photographer. I have a
little Leica, which I tend to load with TriX: If it worked for HCB, it would work for me!
But then I had to ask myself: WWHCBD? (What Would Henri Cartier Bresson Do?) Back in the 1930's, he was among the earliest pros to use what was then
cutting-edge technology, a small handheld camera of extremely high quality, using very fast (for its time) 35mm movie-film. Due to the resolution of those Leica lenses, image quality could rival that of large press-cameras such as the
Speed Graphic.Were HCB starting his career now, it's quite likely that he'd do the same thing he did back in his day: he'd equip himself with the latest, most convenient equipment out there, to allow him to do his job in the most efficient manner possible.
I have to admit, I've been bitten by the digital bug. I thought that my pixelization would be a gradual conversion, continuing to shoot film for a long long time. It hasn't been that way, though. I haven't shot a roll for months, and my
Pentax *istD (that's in answer to your question yesterday, Frejus!) has constantly been at my side. Now that I'm learning a bit about B&W conversion (there's still a lot to learn), I'm even less inclined to return to the hassle and expense of film.
Fortunately, the Pentax first-generation digicam that I have is a very compact DSLR, with a very bright viewfinder (one of the few SLRs left that actually has a prism, rather than a cheaper mirror-box). Its size makes it ideal for street shooters, while the bright viewfinder and backwards lens compatibility (long a Pentax hallmark) allows for a wider variety of lenses than other companys' DSLRs.
I've now come to the conclusion that a photo is a photo, and that choosing to shoot digital and subsequently convert to black and white is no more "artificial" than choosing to shoot monochrome film over colour. Am I right? Or is there even a right or wrong to this dilemma?
Whatever the case may be, above is a conversion of an earlier photo presented here,
Who's Minding the Shop. It's not perfect yet (I want to give it more "pop), but it's getting there.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba7d3/ba7d34ec4e4f3473d51f5756e8382d3516ae1bc3" alt=""
In the meanwhile, that shot reminded me of an older film photo that I took with the
old Leica loaded with TriX, and I suppose that it's most appropriate that I show it today, as someone I showed it to years ago told me that the (apparent) father reminded him of a Rabbi. I believe that in Hebrew, "rabbi" means "teacher", and this man seems to be teaching the young boy. The man's hat rather completes the perception.
And, of course, this evening Rosh Hashana starts, the Jewish New Year. L'shanah tovah!