BW or color film for BW prints

[Alan Klein]

I've converted some color to BW by scanning color film and then converting using LR3.
sample color: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3690/11021823226_c91ca5eac0_b.jpg
sample conversion using LR3: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7401/11078738426_8ec5e4c348_b.jpg

Some people say you have more control in post to work with the colors. However, I'm intrigued about using BW film in the first place. What are the advantages of using one or the other? If I was going to try BW film, which would you pick and why? Thanks.

 

[jeffreyg]

Alan,

I use Ilford Delta 400*, 100* and HP5** . In medium* and 4x5** and scan on an Epson flatbed with SilverFast software with excellent results.
I do most of my printing in a wet darkroom but I can get beautiful prints with my ancient Epson 2200 as well. If you have existing B&W negatives why not try them.

HOME

 

[hsandler]

Hi Alan, I use an Epson 4180. I can get good results by converting Ektar or Portra scans, but I now shoot black and white film, mainly for convenience. It is much cheaper to develop at home, no trips to the lab, and its fun to play with developing regimes and methods. The results are sometimes more grainy than converted colour though, and the films tend to curl more. I mainly stick to Delta 100 for fine grain. There is less grain, in general, when the scene is high contrast because little or no expansion of contrast is necessary in photoshop. In flat lighting, grain is more apparent. Actually, I have done conversions from slide film with good results when the lighting is flat, but I no longer shoot slide film except in studio conditions when I can control the contrast.

 

[Alan Klein]

Jeff: The last BW film I used was 35mm when I was stationed in Japan in 1966/67. I think I still have them. But where? I could just shoot a couple of different types of 120 MF. The scanner works better on the MF film rather than 35mm. By the way, I have looked at your porfolio a long while and have admired the fine art finish of your work.


Howard: I looked at your porfolio - commercial and personal. Both are really great. I like your portraits particularly. But I only found one B/W film shot. I didn't look at all of the details however and I could see that one has more grain than the color conversions. Which final propduct do you like overall leaving out the darkroom "fun" which I wouldn't be doing in any case?

The sample conversion I posted above was from Velvia 50 which is pretty high contrast. The sun was starting to go down and my original aim was a decent color shot. What would you call the conversion from - flat or contrasty? DO you think satrting with BW with this shot would be better than the conversion or just different?

 

[hsandler]

If you are having a lab develop the film, you are better off with colour negative film. The C41 process is completely standardized, whereas, black and white is best tailored to your film and exposure index. The conversion example you posted would probably hold a little more detail in the highlights of the fence post and the shadow area at bottom left if shot on either black and white or colour negative film, but I like it as is.It is what I consider contrasty as a scene.

My portfolio is kind of scattered. Virtually anything commercial I do is digital, except a few stock photos on film. I have only been shooting film seriously for 2 years. Most of my black and white film work is on flickr, not my pbase site or my own site. I only post photos 500 pixels high on the web, so grain is hard to judge.

 

[Alan Klein]

Howard: Thanks for the suggestion. Photoshop Lightroom does give a lot of play since you can adjust for each color to get the tones you want. The film in the above sample is a chrome which I prefer doing. I found that trying to adjust negative color film like Ektar 100 is harder. Plus I can see immediately with chromes which exposed picture (I bracket) is correct. Also, it's easier for me than negatives to scan and adjust. The downside is there are less stops with chromes. So I suppose the gradation of tones will be less as well. Maybe I'll try Portra 160 to convert to BW. I tried it once and it did scan pretty well and seemed to provide pleasing BW tones , at least on the screen.

 

[jeffreyg]

Alan,

Thank you for the compliment on my work. Since you are using color check out OnOne software they have a stand alone / plugin called Perfect Photo Suite that has as one of its features Perfect Black and White along with many other features that are rather easy to use and are compatible with Lightroom and Photoshop. They probably have a trial version o you can try before buying. I know many prefer PhotoShop with no plugins butthis one is quite good and can be used by itself.

HOME

 

[hsandler]

I have been able to get what I consider good black and white out of converted slide film. here's one from Provia 100F, in dull lighting.
http://m2.i.pbase.com/o1/94/41794/1/139313232.lE6wActB.frank_kim_519_web.jpg
And here's one converted from Portra 160 in studio lighting.
http://m5.i.pbase.com/o9/94/41794/1/150662575.QCvzuyCi.guitar_film_344bw_web.jpg
I have not tried black and white with Ektar yet, but in theory it should work well. It's got really fine structure, like slide film, but a bit more dynamic range. I agree it can be hard to get the colours right in Ektar, but for black and white conversion, it should not be as sensitive to minor colour errors, like excessive blue in the shadows or overly red skin. I just got a deal on a brick of Ektar, so I will try soon.

 

[Alan Klein]

Jeff I recently bought Topaz BW plugin for Lightroom. Haven't really got into it yet. Not sure if I'm ready to start another conversion program just yet, but thanks for the suggestion.

Howard: I really like the conversion from Portra 160. Those are the tones and gradients I'd be looking for. Do they hold up on a print, if you done that yet, and what print processes do you use?

 

[hsandler]

Yes the Portra 160 one printed well at 8x10. I have printed others to 11x14. My print standards are probably not as high as those who often frame and hang their work; most of mine goes into an art portfolio. I don't print myself, I just send the file as sRGB jpg to a lab and they print it on Fuji Crystal Archive as if it were colour using a Noritsu printer. I lucked out, and the lab I use has a printer profile close to my monitor without any fancy colour profile conversions or soft proofing, and very good neutral gray in their process; sometimes I used to tone the images a bit sepia in photoshop to mask any issues with the lab's colour balance, but lately have stopped doing even that.

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you are only scanning there isn't much reason to go with black and white film over color. I like to print black and white in the darkroom, so for me it's an easy choice to use black and white film. But it has the disadvantage of needing to use contrast filters on the camera vs doing it in software during a conversion. Also, I sometimes don't know if I will want a color version, so I need to shoot a second sheet on color film. So if using color film works for you I would keep doing it.

 

[John_M_King]

If you still have your darkroom and print RA4 colour, then it is possible to print normal B&W onto colour paper using your normal filtration with slight alteration. The only difference is to introduce a piece of colour negative above the negative you are going to print. I have done it only this week.

The first result was slightly cyan, so when that was corrected I managed to get a pure monchrome image with no casts, although it would not be difficult to introduce one - sepia springs to mind. What I did notice was the grain of the B&W negative was no where so obvious using it this way.