35mm colour vs Black and White film

[stvn66]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I have an M3 and have always used various Ilford black and white film, until our last day out when my family suggested that I use a kodak colour film they had bought me.

I received the scanned colour images back and with a click converted them to black and white on my PC.

I then thought why buy black and white film when I can use colour and have the best of both worlds?

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

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!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[burchyk]

Definitely a viable approach. You can customise the conversion to emulate colour sensitivity of BW films or filters.

I happen to see in BW and have preferences regarding the grain, tonal curve and other aspects of BW photography to make it more fun for my own use.

[pippy]

In terms of the chemistry used to prepare the emulsions found with (typical) Colour and B'n'W films they are very different beasts.

Prints made from the two film-types (typically) will have a different look - especially when inspected at close range - but, personally speaking, I feel that there is no real reason why making monochrome prints from a colour negative should be avoided. To get the 'best' monochrome conversion from a colour neg having a very good grasp of how to do post-prod work helps enormously

I do it with every roll of colour I shoot......😸......

Philip.

EDIT : It might be an idea to request that a Moderator moves this thread into either the 'Film' sub-forum or, possibly better still, the 'Leica M Film' sub-forum. I suspect that you would recieve many more answers in the latter area as it gets a lot more 'footfall' than does this section. That is to say here;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/forum/148-leica-m-a-m7-mp-and-film-m/

Edited September 10, 2024 by pippy

[BWColor]

Most importantly, do. what you like.  Some B&W film look like converted color, but most have grain structure that says B&W.  Perhaps not relevant here, but different developers, or development techniques can provide different looks regarding apparent sharpness and tonality.

You might also find an extra level of interest by moving development in house where B&W is a bit less complicated.  In other words, there is hidden within the B&W workflow a lot different creative options that you lose when you hand your film to a lab.

It all depends what you want.  Shooting digital in the first place might just give you the look of converted color with other benefits.  Why bother with film at that point.

Edited September 10, 2024 by BWColor
Addition

[spydrxx]

I continue to use film occasionally for two reasons, namely: 1) I still have a stock of it, and 2) I get to use my old film camera (Leica, Nikon, Canon, Leitax, Pentax, Contax, Yashica, Olympus & Nicca). I mostly use my digital for color work and periodically convert the results to B&W. My film stock is mostly B&W, so the old darkroom is still lightly used. While I also have some color film, it is rarely used as there are no local processors...but if there were, I probably wouldn't bother with conversion to B&W mostly because I agree that B&W film has unique qualities not present in either color film nor digital. Overall, though, my personal preferences aside, I think the OP is pretty much right on the button!

[stvn66]

I do have a nice digital camera for important photos, but for fun and excitement I always use 35mm film.

I am just thinking I guess that if I can keep that subtle grainy image in BW images whilst also benefiting from colour images then this is a win win scenario.

Perhaps BW film is more advantageous to professionals who can maximise its full potential?

Thanks for all the comments, great forum 👍🏻🙂

[BWColor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We are fortunate to have so many options available.  I use to do darkroom, then everything in house.  Now, I’ve moved and scanners and development equipment are in storage, so I sent a roll of 35mm x 36 exposure Portra 160 out to develop, high resolution scans and negatives sent back.  Three weeks till scans back and $50… in US..  I still have hundreds of rolls of film, but the experience wasn’t fun.  Purchased an M11 Monochrom and the fun and excitement are back.  It pains me to say this in that I have many Leica, Zeiss, Contax,  tonics and Mamiya cameras.

[TomB_tx]

58 minutes ago, BWColor said:

so I sent a roll of 35mm x 36 exposure Portra 160 out to develop, high resolution scans and negatives sent back.  Three weeks till scans back and $50… in US..  I still have hundreds of rolls of film, but the experience wasn’t fun.

I agree - sending out color for processing is now expensive. I've continued to process B&W as I enjoy darkroom work more than computers. Just recently added an AGO film processor and did several rolls of C41 color, and found it much faster and easier than I remember from decades back. Also MUCH faster and cheaper than commercial processing. Will try slide film next - exposing enough rolls to make good use of the chemicals.

[pippy]

9 hours ago, stvn66 said:

...I am just thinking I guess that if I can keep that subtle grainy image in BW images whilst also benefiting from colour images...

Processing and scanning are going to be two of the limiting factors in terms of final print image quality.

Just FWIW here are two snaps which were shot on a 1930 Leica 1 fitted with a 1975 FSU 35mm f2.8 Jupiter-12 lens (which utilises a pre-WW2 optical design!) using 12-y-past-its-sell-by-date (Kodak?) C-41 film; commercially processed and scanned in as (in)competently a fashion as the High Street 'happy-snap' type establishment could manage. This was just a test-roll to see if the camera itself actually worked - I had only just bought the thing - so no prizes for Artistic Merit but, IMO, it worked out OK.

The scanning was/is pretty low-res but, oddly enough, the final images sort of benefitted from having been done so Very Poorly as far as the technical level is concerned as they do have a strange sort-of 'Vintage Feel'. As always do the double (treble?) click thing to see the 'graininess' of the things;

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!

With a higher quality scan I know that FAR more detail and a far more subtle range of tones could be extracted from the negs. I could also lose the obvious digital-compression / edge-enhancing nonsense yet there would still be enough 'grain retention' to allow the images to retain their 'filmic' quality and especially so when produced as finished prints on good quality paper stock such as Canson Baryta Photographique II.

Philip.

Edited September 10, 2024 by pippy

[105012]

If you end up printing in BW in a traditional darkroom you certainly can use your colour negatives to do this (I do from time to time), but the results are different from BW film and for sheer beauty BW film on BW paper printed well in a traditional darkroom is very special indeed.

[stvn66]

7 hours ago, pippy said:

Processing and scanning are going to be two of the limiting factors in terms of final print image quality.

Just FWIW here are two snaps which were shot on a 1930 Leica 1 fitted with a 1975 FSU 35mm f2.8 Jupiter-12 lens (which utilises a pre-WW2 optical design!) using 12-y-past-its-sell-by-date (Kodak?) C-41 film; commercially processed and scanned in as (in)competently a fashion as the High Street 'happy-snap' type establishment could manage. This was just a test-roll to see if the camera itself actually worked - I had only just bought the thing - so no prizes for Artistic Merit but, IMO, it worked out OK.

The scanning was/is pretty low-res but, oddly enough, the final images sort of benefitted from having been done so Very Poorly as far as the technical level is concerned as they do have a strange sort-of 'Vintage Feel'. As always do the double (treble?) click thing to see the 'graininess' of the things;

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!

With a higher quality scan I know that FAR more detail and a far more subtle range of tones could be extracted from the negs. I could also lose the obvious digital-compression / edge-enhancing nonsense yet there would still be enough 'grain retention' to allow the images to retain their 'filmic' quality and especially so when produced as finished prints on good quality paper stock such as Canson Baryta Photographique II.

Philip.

very nice shots 👍🏻

[hansvons]

On 9/11/2024 at 1:07 AM, pippy said:

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!

With a higher quality scan I know that FAR more detail and a far more subtle range of tones could be extracted from the negs. I could also lose the obvious digital-compression / edge-enhancing nonsense yet there would still be enough 'grain retention' to allow the images to retain their 'filmic' quality and especially so when produced as finished prints on good quality paper stock such as Canson Baryta Photographique II.

I use Photo Rag Baryta for most of my B/W printing. I agree with the importance of scanning. Can’t be too good. I use my SL2-S, the Sigma 70mm macro (as sharp as it possibly can get) and the Valoi. Superb results, nothing left to be desired.

Nice pictures!!

On 9/10/2024 at 12:07 PM, stvn66 said:

I then thought why buy black and white film when I can use colour and have the best of both worlds?

 

 

I’ve done it a few times, but it’s not the same. B/W stock is very different from colour film, being the grain technology the obvious one, at least when shooting traditional stocks. Acutance is the other difference because B/W grain is supposed to be sharp while tabular colour film grain is on the smoother side. How B/W film looks can depend on the developer, your technique, timing etc. while colour is a standadised process to ensure proper colours. 

But all of that is moot if the audience can’t see the benefit. But they do see/feel the difference between film vs digital. So, it does matter. 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

I use Photo Rag Baryta for most of my B/W printing. I agree with the importance of scanning. Can’t be too good. I use my SL2-S, the Sigma 70mm macro (as sharp as it possibly can get) and the Valoi. Superb results, nothing left to be desired...

...B/W stock is very different from colour film, being the grain technology the obvious one, at least when shooting traditional stocks. Acutance is the other difference because B/W grain is supposed to be sharp while tabular colour film grain is on the smoother side...

But all of that is moot if the audience can’t see the benefit. But they do see/feel the difference between film vs digital. So, it does matter. 

I do like to print on Hahnemühle's Photo Rag when the subject matter requires a different 'look' in comparison to a regular photographic print. Certain prints I've made using that stock have an almost 'Fine Art / Etching / Engraving' appearance. Really lovely paper. The Canson Baryta, conversely, has the look of an old-school paper such as Agfa's much-missed Record Rapid or Ilford's 'Gallerie'.

When doing 'proper' scanning at home I use either digi-M with a 65mm f3.5 Elmar with the regular 16464 focussing mount and the Visoflex III. This kit only gets me down to c. 1.5x magnification so I'm probably going to acquire a 10mm extension ring but, for the time being, the set-up I use is fine. I have tried a few different lenses some of which gave me greater magnification but the 65mm was designed specifically for close-up work and has a flatter-field and zero barrel/pin-cusion distortion.

The question of whether an audience can 'see any benefit / a difference' is an interesting one! When I've shown 'non-photographers' prints made from colour-neg-converted-to-B'n'W files not one single person has commented on them looking 'any different'. It's not that they don't notice a difference; they simply don't give 'the look' a second thought and appraise the image wholly on it's own merit. If the photograph is successful as an image then that's the important thing.

Even the low-quality images I posted above sort-of bear this out; both stvn66 and yourself commented (very generously!) that they are 'nice pictures'. Can we really ask for any better reaction to our efforts?

Sometimes(!) I think that we Photographers see 'issues' which don't really exist for 99.999% of the population!......😸......

Philip.

Edited September 12, 2024 by pippy

[stray cat]

35 minutes ago, pippy said:

Sometimes(!) I think that we Photographers see 'issues' which don't really exist for 99.999% of the population!......😸......

Philip.

I think that's true Philip but I don't think it's the whole story. As the photographer/artist/creator/whatever it certainly matters greatly to ME (and I've no doubt YOU) how the finished product is presented. That includes, if you will, all the vagaries of the medium used. I use film so I like the qualities of the film to be present in the image I present for other people to see. Whether anybody who looks at a picture I present (if I am that fortunate) appreciates or even cares about the details that were important to me is not as important to me than that I included them as part of the image. Put another way, the picture is not just composed of whatever it is that it purports to show (subject), but necessarily for me includes details of the structure of the medium. Not an 'issue' as such, but an essential working aesthetic.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, stray cat said:

I think that's true Philip but I don't think it's the whole story. As the photographer/artist/creator/whatever it certainly matters greatly to ME (and I've no doubt YOU) how the finished product is presented. That includes, if you will, all the vagaries of the medium used. I use film so I like the qualities of the film to be present in the image I present for other people to see. Whether anybody who looks at a picture I present (if I am that fortunate) appreciates or even cares about the details that were important to me is not as important to me than that I included them as part of the image. Put another way, the picture is not just composed of whatever it is that it purports to show (subject), but necessarily for me includes details of the structure of the medium. Not an 'issue' as such, but an essential working aesthetic.

Well, my final comment was written a bit tongue-in-cheek and yes; of course, Phil, I do agree 100% with everything you typed. I do feel exactly the same way as yourself about the decision-making process at each step in the creation of an image from initial exposure considerations through post-prod and on to final print. Otherwise why choose any particular camera/lens/filter or which print-paper to use?

As far as the 'Do visually-aware members of the public notice' part goes? Yes. They might not consciously know what has gone into the making of any one particular image but they will almost certainly be picking-up certain little details which, together, make up 'The Whole'.

Apologies in advance as this next bit is going to be very long-winded but FWIW...

If I might go back to the question of paper-stock? A few years ago one of our friends - whom we have known for 20 years - was over for dinner. He is a gallery-backed Fine Artist and knows his stuff. At one point in the evening he was examining - at very close quarters - one of the 'artworks' on the wall of our sitting room. Quite a small one; A4 paper with an image-area of perhaps 9" x 6"? It happened to be a print of one of my snaps. This in itself is unusual; out of the 14 framed works in the room the one in question was the only one which was a photograph (I don't often display my work).

On being asked what it was I answered that it was a doorway inside the Casa de Pilatos in Seville. I thought he might have recognised it as he, himself, is Spanish and well-versed in Moorish Architecture. I was on completely the wrong tack; he wanted to know what it was! An etching? A silverpoint engraving? A Victorian Bookplate?...I explained that it was a photographic print and took it out of the frame so he could have a better look. The paper-stock was the aforementioned Hahnemühle Photo Rag and this added to his confusion as it didn't feel like a photograph!

Here is the image in question;

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!

After he explained the reasons behind his 'confusion' I could fully understand why he thought it might have been printed by any of the fine-art techniques he mentioned. Also the velvety nature of the Photo Rag paper combined with the sheer depth of the non-reflective inky blacks would add to the impression that it was not a 'photographic print'. Furthermore the subject-matter is one which I can imagine being very popular with Victorian travellers when doing the European 'Grand Tour'.

Before his comments, however, it never once occurred to me to question how others might 'view' the print. I knew it to be an inkjet print from a digital negative - interestingly the original is in colour😸 - and that was an end to it. Afterwards, however, I appreciated that, to others, all might not be quite as they seem...

As it happened I had a few spare prints of that photo and other snaps from the same visit so I let him have a set and he was happy enough with his evening's haul.

Philip.

Edited September 12, 2024 by pippy

[stray cat]

Thank you Philip - I think that is a perfectly apt anecdote to illustrate the point about how a work might be perceived by someone appreciative of not just ‘what’ is pictured but the details by which the artist achieved his/her desired vision for the work in question. And, even as a jpeg on a forum, it is a lovely piece.

[hansvons]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

I do like to print on Hahnemühle's Photo Rag when the subject matter requires a different 'look' in comparison to a regular photographic print. Certain prints I've made using that stock have an almost 'Fine Art / Etching / Engraving' appearance. Really lovely paper. The Canson Baryta, conversely, has the look of an old-school paper such as Agfa's much-missed Record Rapid or Ilford's 'Gallerie'.

Derailing the thread 😳, I'm wondering whether you meant Photo Rag Baryta or Photo Rag sans Baryta. The latter is my standard paper for almost everything that is not B&W photography in its classic sense. For what one might call classic B&W images, I use the Baryta flavour, which makes the paper an entirely different animal, highly probably quite close to Canson Baryta, perhaps with the exception that the Photo Rag Baryta variant is made from pure cotton and has no OBAs. 

I only use two papers: Photo Rag and Photo Rag Baryta. Why, you may ask? Fine art inkjet papers are the rabbit hole of all rabbit holes, and I must default to a received museum standard to keep my sanity, which is, arguably, Hahnemühle's  Photo Rag family. However, I do use cheap matte "fine art" paper on a handy 30m 17" roll with tons of OBAs and too steep a gamma for test prints and evaluation. I'm still early in my printing journey, so take everything I say with pinches of salt. 

[hansvons]

2 hours ago, stray cat said:

but necessarily for me includes details of the structure of the medium.

The battle of my life. I can't stress enough how important this is (to me). 

When people discuss high ISO and denoising software, I leave the room. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hansvons]

50 minutes ago, pippy said:

Well, my final comment was written a bit tongue-in-cheek and yes; of course, Phil, I do agree 100% with everything you typed. I do feel exactly the same way as yourself about the decision-making process at each step in the creation of an image from initial exposure considerations through post-prod and on to final print. Otherwise why choose any particular camera/lens/filter or which print-paper to use?

As far as the 'Do visually-aware members of the public notice' part goes? Yes. They might not consciously know what has gone into the making of any one particular image but they will almost certainly be picking-up certain little details which, together, make up 'The Whole'.

Apologies in advance as this next bit is going to be very long-winded but FWIW...

If I might go back to the question of paper-stock? A few years ago one of our friends - whom we have known for 20 years - was over for dinner. He is a gallery-backed Fine Artist and knows his stuff. At one point in the evening he was examining - at very close quarters - one of the 'artworks' on the wall of our sitting room. Quite a small one; A4 paper with an image-area of perhaps 9" x 6"? It happened to be a print of one of my snaps. This in itself is unusual; out of the 14 framed works in the room the one in question was the only one which was a photograph (I don't often display my work).

On being asked what it was I answered that it was a doorway inside the Casa de Pilatos in Seville. I thought he might have recognised it as he, himself, is Spanish and well-versed in Moorish Architecture. I was on completely the wrong tack; he wanted to know what it was! An etching? A silverpoint engraving? A Victorian Bookplate?...I explained that it was a photographic print and took it out of the frame so he could have a better look. The paper-stock was the aforementioned Hahnemühle Photo Rag and this added to his confusion as it didn't feel like a photograph!

Here is the image in question;

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!

After he explained the reasons behind his 'confusion' I could fully understand why he thought it might have been printed by any of the fine-art techniques he mentioned. Also the velvety nature of the Photo Rag paper combined with the sheer depth of the non-reflective inky blacks would add to the impression that it was not a 'photographic print'. Furthermore the subject-matter is one which I can imagine being very popular with Victorian travellers when doing the European 'Grand Tour'.

Before his comments, however, it never once occurred to me to question how others might 'view' the print. I knew it to be an inkjet print from a digital negative - interestingly the original is in colour😸 - and that was an end to it. Afterwards, however, I appreciated that, to others, all might not be quite as they seem...

As it happened I had a few spare prints of that photo and other snaps from the same visit so I let him have a set and he was happy enough with his evening's haul.

Philip.

Same journey, same friend on a visit, same many things. 

Printing with the goal of not immediately recognising the result as a photographic print is precisely what I am after in my colour work. Below is an example, which, of course, works much nicer in its analogue appearance. 

 

[pippy]

35 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Derailing the thread......I'm wondering whether you meant Photo Rag Baryta or Photo Rag sans Baryta...

Not the Baryta; just the standard Photo Rag. Usually the 308gsm weight but occasionally the 500gsm if the print is going to be 'stand-alone' and not mounted'n'framed.

I suspect that we have similar tastes as far as which papers suit which subject matter. My opening line in post #13 and your second sentence in post #17 seem to come from the same sorts of preferences and considerations.

Oddly enough I haven't used Hahnemühle's Baryta papers. I was trying to buy some on-line one day but the place I buy through was out of stock. Having read many glowing reports (here) about Canson's 'Infinity Baryta Photographique' I decided to give it a go and was mightily impressed by it in every way.

For most non-exhibition / test-prints work I find Kodak's 'Ultra Premium High Gloss' 280gsm to be perfectly suitable but it's the ink-jet equivalent of, say, Ilford's 'Multigrade' as compared to their 'Gallerie'. Some times good enough just isn't 'Good Enough'!......😸......

Philip.