fotolebrocq Posted January 18, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am coming back to film after many years and would like some opinions please. I am used to converting digital files (M9, M8) to B&W in Silver Efex and Alien Skin's Exposure with quite good results. So my question is if I want B&W with a film camera am I better to shoot B&W film or will I achieve as good results by shooting colour film or slide and converting to B&W? Anybody do it this way? Thanks,Tony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 Hi fotolebrocq, Take a look here Colour or Black and White. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
h_A_Z Posted January 18, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 18, 2011 I shoot both colour and B&W film. I have had instances whereby I converted a slide colour to B&W and it turned out good! BUt honestly it is up to u. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 18, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 18, 2011 There's nothing to stop you using the same software on colour film, but personally when I wanted black and white photographs I shot black and white film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 18, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 18, 2011 I have converted colour film photographs to black and white, but it is far preferable in my experience to use the right tool for the job. For example, you will obtain a completely different look if you were to convert a Velvia slide as opposed to a Portra negative. However, it's entirely up to you - you can do anything you want and don't let anyone tell you that it's wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 18, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 18, 2011 You can use a hammer to drive a screw in, but a gentle twist works better! Nothing like B&W film for B&W images, but it is all dependent on the process and who does it. Hand it over to the corner store and you will most likely be unhappy with the results. OTOH, there is fabulous satisfaction in processing your own, and it is easy! From there you can continue with the conventional darkroom process, or scan and print digitally, or both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 18, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 18, 2011 I prefer traditional B&W film but have had excellent results from colour negative film converted. C41 film will scan better however, as digital ICE won't work with silver halide film. My advice is try the various options out and decide what you prefer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted January 18, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I prefer B&W. Then I like to soup them my self. That said have a look at Azzo's shots here on the forum. AFAIK he shoots colour neg film, but mostly posts B&W shots. Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 18, 2011 Share #8 Posted January 18, 2011 If I know I have B&W in the camera, I see in monochrome, and vice versa. It's the way my mind works. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 18, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 18, 2011 Hi It depends... If you are going to scan dig process and dig print then you can convert (the scanned image file) to monochrome, as you would a dig snap, you have the advantage of being able to impose filters e.g. a yellow (i.e. minus blue) to accentuate clouds. Scanning conventional mono needs the scanners ICE to be inhibited, as mentioned above. If you want the 'real' mono signature or want to wet print then you need to start with mono film. Yes you can wet print C41 color negatives but it is more difficult. If you might wet print in the future you need to try and keep all your negatives 'good', or learn how to burn and dodge, (almost) every print. The clone tool is a camel hair brush, dipped in magic ink/dye... The mono film can be cheaper, e.g. it is easier to get it in bulk, you can get color cine in short lengths of full cans. You can process it to reduce the contrast of the film or increase the contrast of the film, more easily. The mono is cheaper to process at home than C41 at home, but about as simple. You can get mono C41 film which has a very large exposure latidude but can be processed by any color mini lab, and is easy to scan, you can use the scanners ICE, just like color C41. If you need a hobby wet printing is nice. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotolebrocq Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted January 18, 2011 Thank you all for your useful and interesting replies. I am going to try both but the concensus appears to be the rather logical use black and white film for black and white Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted January 21, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 21, 2011 fotolebrocq, It's an interesting question and one I return to frequently myself. While some have observed that taking B&W pictures involves *looking* for B&W pictures (and I do agree with this) shooting colour film and subsequently converting produces increasingly good results. And arguably just shifts the B&W vs colour decision into the editing process rather than the shooting process...if you see what I mean. I also agree with Andy B, however, that colour neg converts more satisfyingly than E6 film. You may be interested to know that all of the following B&W shots in the posts on my blog were originally colour pictures which I selected for their mono potential when editing: thirtyfivemil: William Bloye thirtyfivemil: Running man thirtyfivemil: Breakfast conversation thirtyfivemil: Pope's visit thirtyfivemil: Remembrance Day thirtyfivemil: Memento mori thirtyfivemil: Polish Prayers And from memory they were all shot on Portra 400, with the exception of the last which I think was Fuji Superia. Oh, and all conversion/processing in Aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 21, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 21, 2011 Both B&W and converted colour film provide better monochrome opportunities than digital, so you won't go wrong with either. If you're a dedicated B&W worker, use B&W film, but if you might want both use colour film and save carrying a second body, or swapping film in and out. Excellent B&W conversions can easily be made from colour film. Noted photographer Stephen Schaub on Inside Analog Photo recommended that as they way to go 100%. I'd agree if you don't develop your own B&W. Our good friend Azzo uses only colour film for his terrific B&W work. There's not many here producing better B&W results than this M user. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 21, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 21, 2011 Both B&W and converted colour film provide better monochrome opportunities than digital, so you won't go wrong with either. If you're a dedicated B&W worker, use B&W film, but if you might want both use colour film and save carrying a second body, or swapping film in and out. Excellent B&W conversions can easily be made from colour film. Noted photographer Stephen Schaub on Inside Analog Photo recommended that as they way to go 100%. I'd agree if you don't develop your own B&W. Our good friend Azzo uses only colour film for his terrific B&W work. There's not many here producing better B&W results than this M user. Hi The watershed is do you want to wet print, if yes then you need B&W negatives, otherwise there is free choice, what ever is most convenent. If you use PanF the grain will be pretty fine, HP4 big, but you may like either. The dye image may be less archival, not a problem if you scan and archive as digital. Dont think we will hang people for dissent? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted January 21, 2011 Share #14 Posted January 21, 2011 Alternatively, I am very impressed with what this guy achieves with Ilford's XP2 C41 b&w film: Ilford XP2 – Journeys to self Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 22, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 22, 2011 Rolo, Xmas & Alun, I largely agree with you all, but would like to refine the position. So often we hear expressions like, "a bad workman always blames his tools!" Similarly I would suggest that the fine example of work you guys have quoted and (indirectly) attributed to alternative B&W processes, is more due to the fine photographers themselves. I am confident you agree. Just credit where it's due. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted January 22, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 22, 2011 Erl -- Thanks. You're absolutely right and I agree wholeheartedly. However you do it (produce B&W), the picture (any picture, and hopefully mine too) has to be worth the effort. In fact, I feel strongly that this is the case especially with B&W. There is still a widespread view that B&W signifies 'high seriousness' in photography...and therefore that a B&W conversion (or whatever) will cause some of that seriousness to stick by association.... I don't believe this is the case. In fact, I think I would go further and say that by and large converting a picture to B&W (or indeed taking a picture in B&W) will quickly reveal rather than overcome its weakness.... cheers -- Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlockwood Posted January 22, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 22, 2011 Alternatively, I am very impressed with what this guy achieves with Ilford's XP2 C41 b&w film: Ilford XP2 – Journeys to self I like contrast and sharpness, and I get that with XP2, scanned with Nikon 4000ED. It is the film I use exclusively now. A very important factor is that I can use Digital ICE during the scan. For some recent images, see my pics from June in NYC at NYC June 2010 Photo Gallery by Harry Lockwood at pbase.com They were all shot with the 50mm Elmar-M on the M7. Harry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.