>>3992910>muh duhnamic range!See:
>>3982895You have to shoot Kodak Vision films and process ECN-2 just to get close to current FF DR. Alternatively, there are formulas for stretching some B&W films. But with normal development B&W is considerably worse than modern digital.
The irony of film fans claiming greater DR is that one of the key aspects of 'the film look' is relatively low DR and high contrast. Flip through an old Popular Photography magazine (Google Books has them archived online) and pay attention to the advertising and article photos. Lots of blown highlights and blocked shadows. (LOTS of blocked shadows.)
People are drawn to 'the B&W film look' because when someone knows how to expose/develop/print it...or when they get lucky and the film they chose is a good match for the conditions...you get contrasty shots with inky blacks and bright, almost glowing highlights. But the subject detail mostly falls in the middle with good gray separation. See the example this anon used:
>>3989219 (And no, the left side is not good digital B&W, it's a trash example.
>>3989244)
What you don't get is a 15 stop range. And if you processed to stretch the film to that point, it would be a dead, flat gray until you scanned it and post processed it, just like with digital RAW. If you tried to print that 15 stop neg in a lab you would be fucking around dodging and burning for days to get it to look good. There's a reason why Ansel Adam's zone system had 10 zones. Not 15 or 20 or any of the sometimes ludicrous claims people make for film DR.
