The above image was shot on Kodak Tri-X film. A well loved black and white film used by photographers the world over.
It's obvious right? Well maybe.
Of course this is not a print made in a darkroom so it is actually already a digital image, because It's a scan of a Tri-X negative done by an operator in a photolab. All I have done afterwards is adjusting the contrast. The scan looked awfully flat, but that is a good thing because it saves shadow and highlight information. I find the result pleasing and it reminds me of prints I made in the darkroom of Kodak Tri-X film.
The image below is a digital image processed in Silver Efex pro, shot with a Ricoh GR. It has a film-like expression.
What's the difference between black and white film and a digital black and white photo, and does it matter?
I've shot black and white film (Kodak and Ilford) for a long time in the past and digital images for a long time in the present. As much as I don't care about wether an image is film or digital, I don't care, or even remember, which camera I used for a certain image. Fujifilm, Ricoh, Nikon, there is no difference. Of course the cameras are all different and we all have favorites. The image is what counts in the end and sometimes I am surprised, which camera I used for a certain shot, when looking in my archive... I thought it was the fujifilm...no, it's the Ricoh. What?
You can often recognize digital photos by their overly sharp details and the amount of micro detail in the image, and the images look smooth. If you want to make your digital images look more like black and white film, reduce the sharpness in your RAW converter, kill the overload of micro-detail and add some grain (afterwards). What can help is using great conversion software like Silver Efex Pro. It has film color sensitivities for different black and white films, and grains for emulating specific films, build in.
You can come really close if you know what you're looking for. I think it will be really hard to tell the difference between a digital and an analog photo, if it's done right.
Digital and film are two very different media though. When using film it can be hard to keep the shadow details but clipping of the highlights is less of a problem than with digital: Film loves light.
Digital sensors however, when you overexpose the highlights, you get zero detail. You cannot recover any detail in parts that have become pure white. Shadow detail on the other hand is mostly very easy to recover. Of course it depends on the camera sensor and the ISO used. Higher ISO's give a better dynamic range. My advice: never shoot ISO 100/200, shoot higher, you'll thank me later. Sensors are so good these days, noise is hardly a problem at reasonable ISO's, and by the way, imitating film... I'll add grain anyway and get rid of the digital smoothness, I don't mind noise too much.
Here's an image of my sister, this was shot in the 80's with a Nikon F3hp, a 35mm Nikkor lens at F2, on Kodak Tri-X film, but can you tell the camera brand and the film used? Nope.
It's he image and the memory that counts.
Here's a zoomed in crop of a digital image on the left and a film image on the right. I have used Silver Efex Pro to get more or less the same grain and feel.