BW film or color film with conversion??

[RealRedHair]

Have a nice Contax G2 recently bought. Now i use Ilford Delta 400 films BW. But i wonder why not use a color film like Fuji PRO 400H or Fuji Superia X-tra 400 and do conversion in LR or PS.

What are the specific advantages and disadvantages doing this?:confused:

 

[Q.G.]

B&W film is sharper, and produces better tone.

 

[pcooklin]

this could cause a lot of debate, but my view is the same as O.G. B&W films are specifically made for b&w, the tonal range and 'look/feel' is different. If you cant see a difference between desaturating a colour/slide film and a pure b&w film then convert to greyscale/desaturate it. Many people who like b&w photography do so because of the look each of the films have, compared to each other, and for other reasons which no doubt other people will tell you on here. Another reason is that if you like to develop your own film, arguably developing b&w yourself at home is easier and cheaper than either sending off a colour film or processing it yourself...

 

[srs5694]

It's possible to apply various filters to a digital color image in Photoshop, the GIMP, or whatever to turn it into a B&W image with whatever sort of color sensitivity you want (to make it look like an ortho film, a pan film, etc.); however, that's a digital topic. In the darkroom, it's harder to do that sort of thing, since most B&W papers are completely insensitive to red light, so if you make a B&W print from a color negative, you'll get weird color response from it. There are one or two pan-chromatic B&W papers available, but you've got to work with them in complete darkness rather than with a red safelight. You could also create a B&W negative from the color negative, but that adds another step to the process, as well as another copy, thus degrading the image a bit.

B&W films also have a different look to the grain than do color films. Personally, I prefer using B&W films when I want a B&W print, both because the full process is simpler than doing something mixed and because the final result has its own unique character.

 

[Bruce Watson]

B&W films are sharper than equivalent ISO color films, both positive and negative. B&W films also exhibit less graininess than equivalent ISO color films. B&W films have dynamic range well beyond what color positive films can do, and beyond what most color negative films can do. B&W processes are far more flexible than color film processes, meaning you can extend and contract development almost at will to nail the density range you want to use to print with.

There is also the problem some people have -- they have trouble composing in B&W if they have color film in the camera. It's a different mind set, without doubt.

Oh, and did I mention that B&W film and processing is considerably less expensive than color???

How many reasons do you need to use B&W film when the intended output is a B&W print?

 

[darkosaric]

> There is also the problem some people have -- they have trouble composing in B&W if they have color film in the camera.
> It's a different mind set, without doubt.

I recognize myself in this sentence

 

[keithwms]

B&w films are less grainy than colour slide? I think not. Just put them side by side under an enlarger, it's plain as day that the slide is smoother. It's pretty hard if not impossible to use a grain focuser with modern slide films like astia. The closest I've come to that with b&w is maybe rollei atp. N.b. I am not talking about detail really, I am talking about the appearance of grain and whether you notice the grain across a steep tonal boundary. I base this on a fair amount of enlargement to b&w from colour slide and I am always happy to share results.

Anyway, I'd not go from colour print film to b&w print film. I do go from colour slide film to b&w and I like the results. Here are a few reasons why I do the process slide-> b&w:

* obviously going from slide -> neg is easy, it's just one step. You just enlarge to your b&w film, that's it.

*smallish colour slides enlarge very well to large b&w sheets, allowing you to contact print. The parent slide contributes virtually no grain to the interneg, at any typical enlargement. E.g. I do astia -> tmax fairly often now. Easy, smooth, and it works well. I am not saying that it's as good as shooting, what, 8x10 b&w film, but then therte are a lot of things I can do with MF slide that I cannot do with an 8x10 camera!

*the only drawback I see is that you have to have all the tonal info in the parent slide, if your highlights are 'clipped' then you're screwed! so one has to expose the slide properly and if you're shooting 35mm or MF then bracketing is highly advisable.

* at the enlarger, you can colour filter the slide and manipulate the tones on the fly.

* at the enlarger , you can also manipulate the focus and get view-camera like focus effects.

* overall, I simply find it very easy to look at a slide and see whether it is what I want.

Of course *most* (almost all) of my b&w prints come from b&w negs, and not from this anaolgue conversion process. Nevertheless, I do think Ive gotten some effective results and I think that there is plenty of room for exploration here. Finally, bear in mind that doing something that not everybody else is doing can be a good thing!

P.S. Scala is glorious, I still think so.

 

[36cm2]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8330/4.3.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

Keith, or anyone else know where I can find a more in-depth tutorial on what Keith just desribed? I've got Velvia slides (MF and 4x5) from a recent trip that I would love to transpose to Acros 100 down the road. Very interesting.

 

[keithwms]

I haven't prepared a tutorial but here goes.

First of all you'll likely want a panchromatic b&w film for best results; I use tmax. Acros would be fine, but compare spectral sensitivity charts and see what that tells you. I suppose you could decide whether you want a low or high contrast developer but truth be told I use tmax developer with tmax and I use ID11 1+1 on just about everything else, and xtol now and then.

You can simply sandwich the slide to the b&w neg and contact print, but I prefer to enlarge the slide to the b&w film so that I can contact print a larger b&w neg. Any way you slice it, you'll be enlarging at one step anyway. I personally prefer the final print to come from a contact print, whenever possible, because I like matte fiber which has issues with flatness.

Bear in mind that if you do decide that you want to contact print the b&w neg, you'll want to do so emulsion side down. That means that you need to flip your slide in the enlarger so that when you flip your b&w neg...

Exposure is easy, I treat the film just like paper... only with the safelight off Just expose in test strips, toss the film in the developer and off you go. If you want to get fancy you can make yourself an exposure versus development matrix by first exposing strips and then cutting the sheet into perpendicular strips and then developing those for different times. Thus you can pinpoint the best exposure/development combo. But why not "K.I.S.S." the first time.

The exposure through the slide will be pretty quick... maybe seconds. Until you get the hang of it, why not stop down the enlarger to f/16 or so and test a wide range of exposures.

Small tips... it's pretty hard to focus the slide, for reasons I mentioned above. But be patient and don't resort to stopping down the enlarger lens excessively or else you'll soften the dupe neg.

The dupe neg can be retouched, what fun. The neg can of course also be Se toned if you feel you need a bit more contrast. Or you can deliberately overexpose your b&w neg and reduce it back with farmer's reducer. Just have fun. Time spent doing this is time not spent at a computer

Here is one of my results, to give you an idea. I started with a poorly exposed 35mm astia slide. The slide was overexposed:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Please notice three things: the overexposure on his back, the tad of motion blur (also evident along his back). It was shot quickly with an om-1 that I hadn't used in a while, what can I say, I screwed up a bit. Anyway please also notice that the focal plane is perpendicular to the lens-subject axis.... just as it is for pretty much any 35mm shot. This process I am describing is akin to re-photographing a photograph... so you can go to town and apply tilts, if you fancy.

Now the analogue b&w conversion. Not my best result to date, but here it is:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The tonality is quite strong, yes? Doesn't have to be but in this case it was what I was after. The highlight and the unintentional blur sort of evokes halation, maybe. I applied a wee bit of lens tilt in the enlarger, to make the focus a little bit more selective... look at the foreground rock at right and at left.

Just experiment and have some good, clean, analogue fun

P.S. Consider also contact printing your 4x5 velvia slide to fuji fp100c and doing an emulsion lift.... fun for the whole family...

 

[36cm2]

Awesome. I think I got most of that. You may get some questions a few months down the road when I actually try it. Many thanks though, Keith. That's some good stuff.

Leo

 

[sanking]

It really is something of a toss-up in IMO. I go back and forth on this all the time as there are advantages both ways.

Basically, a B&W film of the same ASA is usually sharper and will have less grain than a color film. Very important if you print only by analog methods.

On the other hand, if you scan the color film as an RGB file you then have tremendous flexibility in tonal control in PS in converting the file to B&W. It is basically like you are still standing in the field and have every filter imaginable to use to control tonal values. You really have to see this in action to understand how powerful a tool this can be.

Sandy King

Have a nice Contax G2 recently bought. Now i use Ilford Delta 400 films BW. But i wonder why not use a color film like Fuji PRO 400H or Fuji Superia X-tra 400 and do conversion in LR or PS.

What are the specific advantages and disadvantages doing this?:confused:

 

[markbarendt]

I haven't prepared a tutorial but here goes.
...

Wow, that's cool.

Forgive my ignorance here but is there any technical reason why a C-41 film would not be considered?

The reason I ask is that, if true, that option would open up RA-4 printing options to E-6.

 

[WRSchmalfuss]

You can try also the C-41 ROLLEI Digibase CN 200, there you have both B&W and color, just as you wish! Available also as 120 film!

 

[keithwms]

Well, if you start with a colour neg then you'd have to make either a b&w or colour interpositive first, then a final b&w printing neg. You can do it for sure, but it's harder because you then have two steps over which to control contrast. Controlling contrast with colour materials is going to be harder. But doable.

Mark, do you mean going from E6 -> c41 and then RA4 prints? That's doable but again it introduces another generation. What I do for my E6 prints is drum scan and lightjet, which produces *no* generational optical losses, *no* colour balance issues... and the output is on RA4 paper. Not to incite arguments here but people who think E6 has to be done on ilfo/ciba need to wake up and smell the coffee

 

[keithwms]

P.S. Let me just add that if a person wants to do a b&w conversion with virtually no generational loss then drum+LVT is the ticket. But it's pricey and not as much fun as doing your own thing

 

[markbarendt]

Well, if you start with a colour neg then you'd have to make either a b&w or colour interpositive first, then a final b&w printing neg. You can do it for sure, but it's harder because you then have two steps over which to control contrast. Controlling contrast with colour materials is going to be harder. But doable.

My question was for starting with E-6

Mark, do you mean going from E6 -> c41 and then RA4 prints? That's doable but again it introduces another generation. What I do for my E6 prints is drum scan and lightjet, which produces *no* generational optical losses, *no* colour balance issues... and the output is on RA4 paper. Not to incite arguments here but people who think E6 has to be done on ilfo/ciba need to wake up and smell the coffee

I had not realized that there was a reasonable analog way to get to RA-4 from E-6.

 

[keithwms]

Well, whether lightjet is truly analogue is a subject of debate. I think it is analogue output in terms of visual impact and in terms of the feel of the paper and its storage properties, which is enough for me. But some folks may argue that if you get out your microscope, you can see exposure dots in the lightjet prints at a frequency of ~300 dpi. Anyway, if you need giant prints with shadows that aren't blue and you don't want to contrast mask and you don't want to pay a fortune... then lightjet is the ticket. My one and only complaint about lightjet is that I wish there were a truly hard matte surface available. Matte is ok but not quite as matte as I like. I don't like any reflection off my prints, esp. colour prints. But apparently I am in the severe minority... most colour output I see is on glossy. Maybe I can just sandblast my prints

Drum + LVT arguably shows more respect for the source positive or neg than any other duplication method, it's a fabulous way to enlarge without introducing lens losses. I'd argue that drum and LVT are things that analogue photographers should be fighting to keep alive (as opposed to lumping them together with straight digital or lesser digital neg methods). It's a really, really clever confocal scanning technology.

Anyway let me suggest sending some slides to our local lab, Stubblefield photo in Charlottesville, for some lightjet samples. You can speak directly to John Stubblefield and get the full scoop. He used to do ilfo/ciba and is a wonderful resource.

 

[keithwms]

My question was for starting with E-6

Ah okay, sorry. So sure, you can make a dupe c41 neg from a slide. I think it'll be difficult to get it just right. For one thing I'd worry about the light source, it'd have to be bang on 5000K.

 

[markbarendt]

Ah okay, sorry. So sure, you can make a dupe c41 neg from a slide. I think it'll be difficult to get it just right. For one thing I'd worry about the light source, it'd have to be bang on 5000K.

After reading the tutorial I was actually thinking of enlarging from slide onto MF film using either my C700 Super Chromega or C67 head. I would hope that I could balance properly with one of them.

I do like to shoot a bit of Provia now and again and I have the family collection of ~5000 slides from my childhood and it would be fun to work some of the better ones.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

One reason color negs may not come out as hoped for is the contrast range in a typical shot. I've noticed that a nice color shot often is a flat all gray B&W when desaturated. My presumption is that this is typical of color material's H&D curve, but the use of color fools us into thinking there is contrast.

I'm basing this observation on using (gasp!) digital images, I have no experience with similar analog work flows.

Someone mentioned Panalure w/o that name. I don't think there is any color neg to B&W paper left on the market, is there?

 

[srs5694]

Someone mentioned Panalure w/o that name. I don't think there is any color neg to B&W paper left on the market, is there?

I haven't looked into it in any detail, but my understanding is that both Oriental and Ilford do have such products. The Ilford product is intended for use in Lightjet or similar digital machines, but should work under a darkroom enlarger. Sorry I don't recall specific product names.

 

[BetterSense]

What are the specific advantages and disadvantages of doing this?

For the purposes of traditional photographic process, shooting black and white film is vastly superior to digital conversions, because digital conversions are not traditional photographic process at all. This reminds me of why I hate digital cameras....you can't put film in them, so they are worthless to me, since they are not actually proper cameras at all, but digital image aquisition and processing devices, and they have no place in my workflow because I work with film. Digital cameras cannot be better or worse than film cameras, because they would have to be film cameras in the first place to be even comparable. Such it is with the comparison of digital conversions and black and white film.

The original topic starter makes a comparison where there is none to be made. Digital images and black-and-white film are entirely different media. It is a mistake to follow the comparison. You need to look at your artistic vision, and look at the tools and media that you use to accomplish that vision. There is no other answer. It is not a matter of better.

What follows is entirely my opinion.
Few things artistically offend me more than digital black-and-white pursued in the typical fashion. Silver-gelatin wasn't invented black and white because people liked black and white or wanted it. It wasn't invented that way because black and white is superior. It simply is the case that silver gelatin photography produces monochrome images. It is what it is. It is nothing but a tool, a new medium. With this medium, and these limitations, people created art. That people capture images on digital sensors and convert them to black and white has no similar technical or, I argue, holistically aesthetic justification. It is the product of an artist using a young medium in imitation of an older and distinct one, in an attempt to edify his own, and not doing it well. This compares to the way the earliest films were directed after the manner of theater performances by unwitting directors with no vision of their own for the tools in their hands; they could think of nothing to do with their new motion picture devices but to point them at the stage. This phenomenon seems inevitable when new media are invented. The mutant work that results is an insult to both media, that neither has the essence of the original nor is improved from it. By making digital black and white images, the digital practitioner reveals that he has an incomplete conception of how his medium informs his work as well as that he respects neither his medium nor the medium he imitates. I am reminded of the glassware nick-knacks that I find at the local dollar store, carefully manufactured in chinese factories so as to appear imperfect like blown glass. Neither a genuine artifact of glass-blowing craftsmanship, nor an honestly designed and engineered example of the technical superiority of modern industrial glass making, what results is kitsch of the lowest sort, peddled to misunderstanding, ignorant consumers of the lowest taste.
I am sure there are digital artists who insist that they make monochrome images because they like the aesthetic. I do not have a problem with this in itself, I only wish that they fully ask of themselves why it is that they like it, and I probably disagree with their answer in any case.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

For the purposes of traditional photographic process, shooting black and white film is vastly superior to digital conversions, because digital conversions are not traditional photographic process at all. This reminds me of why I hate digital cameras....you can't put film in them, so they are worthless to me, since they are not actually proper cameras at all, but digital image aquisition and processing devices, and they have no place in my workflow because I work with film. Digital cameras cannot be better or worse than film cameras, because they would have to be film cameras in the first place to be even comparable. Such it is with the comparison of digital conversions and black and white film.

This kind of elitist, illogical, and emotional nonsense gets my hackles up.

The only kind of "real" camera is one that takes film? What about all of the pre-film technologies? Glass plates? The original camera obscura? You realize that a digital camera and a film camera are 99% the same, it's just what the light falls onto that is significantly different.

That you choose to dislike digital on emotional basis, is fine, but don't try to pretend that there is a logical reason, or that just because you don't like them they are hence inferior.

Digital cameras are a tool to accomplish something, and they solve many problems inherent to film technologies. Those same problems are why Land invented his Polaroid systems.

I notice you have an (analog) turntable for your photo. I have several and a nice collection of period and genre vinyl. But I also have mp3's on the computer and CD's. Likewise, I have about 8 film cameras and one decent digital camera. All of these are used for different reasons. I love all of them, but that turntable is nasty to carry in my car, you know?

Different tools. Enjoy the diversity.

 

[keithwms]

Different tools. Enjoy the diversity.

Agreed!

 

[sanking]

The main thing is that we should not waste too much of our time responding to that type of BS.

Sandy King

This kind of elitist, illogical, and emotional nonsense gets my hackles up.