Shoot Black & White or Colour and convert?

[munro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all. My first post on the forum so if this question seems silly please forgive me.

 

I am fairly new to serious photography and completely new to film. I have just got a new love in my life - a beautiful chrome M6TTL (she is georgeous!) and a f2 Summicron DR.

I have bought a developing tank and after few disastrous attempts at loading the spool can now manage quite well .

I have been using FP4 plus film and developing in DD-X for 10 minutes as per the instructions.

My problem is that my photos seem awfully flat and monochromatic (does that make sense?). Admittedly the weather has been a bit dull lately - but this is Scotland after all.

I was playing around with Lightroom and tried converting a digital colour photo using the different colour channels and found that I could get really good contrast like that.

My question is ,therefore, should I start using colour film (if so which), scanning and converting in Lightroom or stick to black and white film and hope things improve. I have ordered a yellow filter which I will try out when I  get it. I must admit that having mastered the horrors of spool loading, I quite enjoy developing my own film .Also I can develop the film the same day if I want to.

 

I would appreciate any advice from more experienced forum members.

[Doc Henry]

Hi Munro , welcome to LF.

I have a M7 and MP and different lenses. In my bag I also have a Gossen Lunasix to eventually control exposure.
With this material, all of my color films in general Kodak Portra 400 or 160 gives me images that I did not need to

correct in the majority of cases.
For b&w , I develop myself and my images are satisfying and I also no need photo software.

Look at this link , all of my pictures are posted without correction :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/

Best

Henry

[Michael Hiles]

I only shoot B&W (Iford XP2). However. If your pictures are flat (i.e. low contrast), you probably need to increase your time in the developer. Times given by Manufacturers are guidelines – you will best determine your proper development time. There are some slightly involved tests, but you could simply try increasing development time by 10%, and seeing if you get getter tonal range. If your negatives are still flat, go 10% more. Keep on doing this (either up or down) until you get negatives that suit your desires and needs. Do your tests by always reshooting the same scene in the same light, so you have a base to use as a comparison.

 

Regarding shooting colour and converting, I recommend against it. Decide whether you want to make B&W pictures, or colour pictures. They are not minor adjustments of each other – they are separate art forms. Then choose the best materials for your intent. For B&W there are a wide variety of films and developers that will give you better B&W results than colour converted. FP4 is a very good place to start.

[gbealnz]

Welcome to the Forum Munro, it's a nice friendly place.

Care to post a picture showing the dull and flat you describe, it might help make the suggestions you seek.

Gary

[munro]

Thanks Guys. Your responses are much appreciated.

 

Doc Henry - your photos are absolutely stunning. If I get pictures half as good I will be a happy man. Your colour pictures are terrific and in particular  your black and white photos are really what I am trying to achieve.

 

Michael  - I will try upping development time by 10% initially. It so happens I was hillwalking above Loch Ard in beautiful sunshine today and used up a roll of FP4 Plus. I will develop that in the morning in DD-X for 11 minutes instead of ten and see what happens. I will stick to B&W and try to get improvement there in the first instance. I appreciate your comments about B&W being so different from colour. I suppose, if I think about it,thats what attracted me to it in the first place. Many thanks for your input.

 

gbealnz  - I was originally going to post a picture but couldnt quite work out how to do it. If Michaels suggestion (above) doesn't work out I will post a photo. Can you tell me how to do it in any event.

 

I'll let you know how my film turns out tomorrow.

[MSB]

I've never quite understand this no post processing stand in regards to scanning film, more specifically b/w 135-film. To each his own of course, but in my humble option scanned files often need a bit of post processing. For me, doing an ordinary scan of a negative without post processing is like going in to the darkroom and make all your prints on the same grade and type of paper regardless how the negative look and how you want your final image to be. Actually most scanners and/or scanning software can or will do some post processing automatically if you don't specifically tell it not to, i.e auto levels, auto tone, tone curves etc.

 

Pictures taken with normal black and white film on a dull day and developed for normal time in a standard developer will look pretty flat (low contrast) without post processing, and pictures taken with the same film on a bright, sunny day will have a more high contrast look. It is not uncommon to increase the time in the developer by ≈ 10% when shooting in dull weather/low contrast situations and to decrease the time by ≈ 10% when shooting in high contrast situations (to preserve details in the highlights). There are good books and online articles about this, unfortunatley I cannot recommend any in english since I read most about it in my native language.

 

Happy shooting

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the original question:

 

Nothing in life is free, and you pay a price using color film to take B&W pictures. For three reasons:

 

1. Color film must have multiple layers of gelatin coating to capture and distinguish between the colors.

 

http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/cml/opt307/spr10/shu-wei/index_files/color02_1.jpg

 

The overall greater thickness of the gelatin coatings means: A: the plane of focus is not as well defined. B: there is more gelatin to diffuse (spread or blur) the light as it travels through the various layers.

 

2. Each of the layers of color film is only sensitive to about 1/3rd of the visible spectrum. Therefore, for a given total ISO, the actual silver in each layer must be 2-3 times more sensitive - i.e. grainer and higher speed, in and of itself, to get the same total response to light. I.E., ISO 400 color film will have the grain of ISO 800-1000 B&W film, everything else being equal.

 

This is basically the same reason the digital M Monochrome can reach an ISO of 10,000, while the color M9 only reaches 2500 with the same silicon chip underneath. The color discrimination filtering/sensitizing "throws away" a lot of light. And why you must add a filter factor of 2-3x more exposure when exposing B&W film through a colored filter for tonal control.

 

3. The final image in color films is formed by overlapping clouds of dye, not by hard-edged specks (grains) of metallic silver.

 

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00a/00aeYj-484975684.jpg

 

So color film (again, everything else being equal) will not record hard edges as crisply as true B&W film. But on the plus side, will soften the obviousness of the grain. (Ilford XP2 - a dye-image ISO 400 "B&W" film, has less visible grain, but also a bit less edge sharpness, than Delta 400 or TMax 400 silver films).

___________

 

Now, these effects are on a fairly small scale, and photo-chemists have worked very hard over the years to minimize them. Way back when - you had to shoot Kodachrome at ISO 12 or 25 to get the sharpness and grain of ISO 50/64 Pan-F or Panatomic-X B&W films, and the original Ektachrome 400 was grainier than Tri-X pushed to 3200. Today's T-grain color films, with thinner coatings and othe techno-magic, narrow the gap to about one stop +/-.

 

And if you make smallish prints (8 x 10 inches), or use larger film (120/4x5), they may never really be noticeable.

 

But I agree with the previous posters - plain B&W film produces great results, with proper exposure and processing (chemical and/or digital).

 

The attached is - coincidentally - with FP4 on a dull day. Incident metering @ ISO 125, developed in Kodak D-76 stock, Hassy Superwide. Whatever else one can say about it, "flat and monochromatic" probably don't apply.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[rpsawin]

Munro: which dilution are you using? I process FP4+ in DD-X 1:4 for ten minutes and generally it pops.

[gbealnz]

And I just checked the Massive Dev Chart (should have done this earlier, but didn't), and plugging in the details it tells me 8 minutes of development.

If you're giving it 10 minutes they should (as Bob so eloquently puts it) "pop".

Diluted 1:4, correct?

Gary

[munro]

I developed yesterdays film this morning . Following Michaels instructions I gave it extra time although since it was bright yesterday I only gave an extra half minute.

The film  box said 10 mins at 20 degrees for FP4 plus so I gave it 10and a half at 1+4 dilution. The result has been a huge improvement in contrast.(Would have posted a picture but I cant work out how to do that).  I found that in Lightroom I merely had to reduce exposure a little, increase contrast and add a small degree of clarity.

 

Several things I have now learned

 

(a) There is nothing wrong with my equipment. I had wondered if I should be buying a new modern lens but my summicron  F2 50 DR seems well up to the job. Also the meter on my M6 TTL appears to work very well. (No excuses there then!)

 

( I have noticed that my subject makes a much bigger difference than I would have  thought. In my new pictures  my old black and white dog, for example, makes a much greater impact than my sable shepherd. This may seem simplistic and obvious but it was not until I saw the pictures did I realise how much greater in the B&W world. I am going to keep a much sharper eye on the content of my photos in future and try to develop a better eye for contrast

 

© Differents developing times make such a remarkable difference to contrast. In future I intend to add/subtract time depending on shooting conditions. I must admit I would never have thought of that without your help.

 

(d) I am going to have to learn a bit more about developers. On asking for a developer the other day I was sold Ilfosol 3 . I have no idea why. Is it any better than DD-X ?.  Is it normal to chop and change developers unless for some specific purpose?

 

P.S. Adan -the smoothness and contrast in that picture is amazing

[chrism]

To be practical, if you are going to develop the films yourself, it's easier and cheaper to use B&W film and get the process right. Negatives that are to be scanned are ideal for that purpose if they are rather flat as the scan will be more successful and you add contrast and clarity in LR as you see fit. Yes, you can use colour film, but the processing involves more expensive chemicals (otherwise you just follow the rules for C-41 and it's easy) and certainly you can use the colour mixer when converting to B&W. This can be fun, but I find myself being confused when it comes to taking the photographs. I prefer to know whether I am doing colour or B&W when I press the shutter, as it affects the kind of shots I make.

 

Oh, changing developers? Probably best to get to know one or two inside out before experimenting, as there is a risk you will never get to be expert with any of them if you use too many.

 

Chris

[pico]

I have ordered a yellow filter which I will try out when I  get it.

 

You receives some good information here. I will not get into the often repeated advice concerning exposure and development, instead I recommend two outstanding books. "Way Beyond Monochrome" and "Edge of Darkness." They are expensive, but once-in-a-lifetime investments.

 

Regarding colored filters (AKA: contrast filters) keep in mind that they work with the colors in the scene.  For example, the sky on a fully overcast day will not darken with red, orange or yellow filters. Filters are also useful for cutting through haze, but not to a profound effect without B&W infrared film.  Example of the later shot on near-infrared film (with a Hasselblad SWC). Right across the middle is an area that cannot be seen with the eye due to persistent haze. Those are the bluffs of the Wisconsin/Minnesota Driftless Area.

 

Best of luck!

[Doc Henry]

Munro look at this post

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/244546-begin-in-darkroom/?p=2809436

Best

Henry

[munro]

Some excellent advice. Thank you all for taking the time to reply.

 

Several of you made the point about the difference between black and white and colour. I took my Xpro 1 with me yesterday as I normally do. It takes beautiful pictures but comparing them with the black and white taken with my M6 I can see that they really are totally different forms,  more than simply the removal of colour from one.

 

Henry - Your video on developing was very interesting. The only real differnce from the Ilford information leaflet I am using is that he agitates for the first thirty seconds of development. My leaflet only suggests agitating for the first ten seconds and thereafter for ten seconds every minute. Is that significant do you think?

 

Pico- I am checking out your books which both look interesting. Which would you recommend I buy ?. I note one is available as an e book as well as paperback but I will not let that influence me as I loathe trying to read serious books on a laptop.

[250swb]

 

Pico- I am checking out your books which both look interesting. Which would you recommend I buy ?. I note one is available as an e book as well as paperback but I will not let that influence me as I loathe trying to read serious books on a laptop.

 

Two excellent books recommended there.

 

To get a handle on B&W, how to use it and the philosophy of B&W, Barry Thornton's 'Edge of Darkness' takes some beating, but it is expensive as it's out of print. It describes how you can control the B&W process and why you should control the B&W process to translate your ideas. B&W is not a passive process, you're not looking to get some sort of equivalent to colour fidelity that you'd look for in a colour image. With this in mind John Blakemore's 'Black and White Photography Workshop' ( a naff title I know) is another good book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blakemores-Black-White-Photography-Workshop/dp/0715317202/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430897938&sr=1-1&keywords=john+blakemore . I see this is again an expensive book as it's out of print, but I would bet you can get it on Ebay for a fraction of the Amazon price. It combines the techniques of B&W with the reasons for using B&W, and Blakemore is both a leading photographer and educator, so the messages are clear. The prices being asked now I'm glad I got my copies many moons ago.

 

Steve

[Doc Henry]

Henry - Your video on developing was very interesting. The only real differnce from the Ilford information leaflet I am using is that he agitates for the first thirty seconds of development. My leaflet only suggests agitating for the first ten seconds and thereafter for ten seconds every minute. Is that significant do you think?

 

Munro, I forget to tell you that I done exactly (and carefully) like you "first ten seconds and thereafter for ten seconds every minute"

It's a good choice.

Best

Henry

[munro]

My yellow fiter (HOOBE) has arrived and I will take a roll  of film with my M6 TTL this weekend .

I had intended just to give my skies a boost where there are clouds. Pico's advice that filters only work with the colours available made good sense to me.

 

I have read that changes using the yellow filter are so subtle  that it's used by many photographers as a lens protector . This would seem to suggest that I should replace my UV filter which I use for protection with my yellow filter which I should keep on permanently (at least outdoors) although as Pico had pointed out it would have no effect in the absence of colour e.g. an overcast day.

 

Is it sensible to keep on a yellow filter permanently outside (although it sometimes is acting only as a lens protector) and, in particular, are there any benefits/disadvantages .

[A miller]

I cannot provide a technical dissertation on this, but I can just say that from my experience of personally scanning hundreds of rolls of color film over the past 6 months or so and then editing them that you will not get optimum B&W tonality from a converted color scan.  It won't look horrible, but the midtones just aren't there like they are with B&W film. 

Here is an example of some portra 400 shots that I converted to B&W.  Not bad, but they would have looked much more dreamy with Tri-X, and they wuold have been printable in a B&W darkroom unlike a conveted color film scan.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/220711-film-shots-of-nyc-blizzard-yesterday-jan-21/page-2?hl=snow&do=findComment&comment=2523603

[alun]

I think the answer to this question depends on what you want to do with the photographs. I struggled for ages in trying to get acceptable scans from B&W film. For a variety of reasons I wasn't able to devote either the space or time required for home B&W processing, so I was also paying over the odds for lab processing. This changed when I switched to Apple's Aperture for processing and found that with some work (and practice) I could get acceptable B&W conversions from colour film. So that's what I switched to doing. Other posters have said - and they are right - that this won't replicate the full tonal range of B&W film, and they're right, but it offers an acceptable route to B&W and perhaps more importantly offers choice as well. You can test out B&W versions and see if they work -- bin them if they don't and stick with colour.

 

On a side note, I also found this method helpful in understanding why some pictures looked better in B&W, and some in colour...

 

And frankly, now that virtually everyone works from digital files and modifies the colour, saturation and so forth almost endlessly, converting to mono hardly seems a hanging offence

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[munro]

I appreciate all your comments.

 

I can see from various examples ( looked at your pictures especially A Miller) that coloured photos converted look exactly like that  and are (despite excellent composition) in many instances much different  from what I would have imagined  a true black and white picture to be (the edges of objects in conversions seem to be much sharper than in original B&W )

 

I may have found a clue to my original problem about lack of contrast in any event. I have just bought a copy of The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum (the other books suggested -except Beyond Monochrome- are all out of print and the prices seem ridiculously high) - which I am reading

 

The author makes the point that in his experience over the years with students is that there is an "overwhelming pull" towards high contrast and that they should learn to capture mood ( which might involve subdued contrast) rather than just producing high contrast pictures just because they think they should. 

 

My recent photos seem much better now and I am finding that contrast varies hugely with the available  light and the subject matter. Someone told me at the weekend that Cartier Bresson said something to the effect that the first 10,000 photos are the worst. Ah well, only about 9500 to go !