Why Convert Color to B&W?

[Michael Heald]

Hello! Just curious. In the recent issue of Lenswork, a photographer stated that he took his photos in color, scanned them, and then converted them to B&W for the final output.
I've thought that the DR of color compared to B&W films was much smaller. What advantages does the color to B&W approach give to a photographer? Best regards.

Michael A. Heald

[Ken Lee]

If you shoot in B&W, you are limited to the spectral response of the film, corrected by any filter you might use when you shoot the picture. In Photoshop and similar tools, you have more flexibility - you can adjust the brightness of different colors.

Do a web search for Photoshop tutorials on "Convert to B&W". In Photoshop CS3, the conversion tool is especially good. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, it's best for you to look at some of the examples that are already out there. It's enough to make you seriously consider shooting with color film all the time.

Here (http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/DrBW_SM.mov) is a link to a short video that shows it in action.

[bob carnie]

Micheal
I do a lot of converting to black & white from colour files from capture as well as from scans of colour originals. I am using the Harmon Fibre base paper .
In Cs3 the convert to black and white is a very powerful tool that is amazing to work with. As suggested you can get a tutorial on this feature and see its beauty.
With landscape scenes the ability to put your curser on colour tonalitys and move the tones , darker or lighter , you can separate the colour pallete of the scene in black and white.
In this application you can also do a very quick selection of options of different coloured filters from deep blue red, infared, to yellow green red, as well you can customize as well.*haven't figured that one yet*
I now photograph more of my personal work in colour negative as this tool allows me to convert post exposure.*I think this method of working flys in the face of the adage of previsulization* but it does open up the ability to photograph in colour , then in post processing look at your imagery in colour or quickly convert your files to black and white to see the effect of no colour.
I still work in black and white film for specific projects , but I must admit for general practice, fun, holiday photography I shoot only colour and then convert to B&W in PS 3.

[Frank Petronio]

The ultimate range of color (and digital) is less than B&W film but still... there is more tonality in a color neg than you could ever hope to exploit... so maybe I'll lose a stop but I get more control... and by the time it's ink on paper, I'll take a slightly darker shadow in the trade off.

My problem is color neg is more $ than B&W...

[Michael Heald]

How does expansion and contraction come into play with color? This is one of the tools that is talked about a lot with B&W negatives. Best regards.

Mike

[Alan Davenport]

Then there are those of us who have chosen to eschew the wet darkroom entirely. My local pro lab doesn't do B&W sheet films in house, but sends them out and tacks on a nice surcharge, so it's more economical to shoot transparencies and convert. I also get the choice of color or B&W from a single exposure.

[vinny]

If you're talking about the images from the Disney Concert Hall, go to his website http://rodericklyonsphotography.com/mbr_purchase.php
"All images (except Disney Concert Hall) were shot on film..."

[SamReeves]

If you shoot in B&W, you are limited to the spectral response of the film, corrected by any filter you might use when you shoot the picture. In Photoshop and similar tools, you have more flexibility - you can adjust the brightness of different colors.

Do a web search for Photoshop tutorials on "Convert to B&W". In Photoshop CS3, the conversion tool is especially good. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, it's best for you to look at some of the examples that are already out there. It's enough to make you seriously consider shooting with color film all the time.

Here (http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/DrBW_SM.mov) is a link to a short video that shows it in action.

I agree. I've been guilty of using channel mixer on more than one occasion. A very powerful tool that's worth looking into. :)

[Frank Petronio]

Most people don't push or pull color neg, I don't think it is quite as easy to use different processing times without introducing cross-curves of unexpected, inappropriate color.

E-6 chromes can be pushed or pulled, with slight changes of contrast and grain.

But B&W film is the most accomodating to push/pull (expansion/contraction).

IMO I don't bother, I process it all the same, consistently and let God sort out the good negatives... like I said, a little extra dynamic range is nice but if you didn't have it, you probably wouldn't notice it's missing....

[Bruce Watson]

What advantages does the color to B&W approach give to a photographer?

I'll be the hard-ass. ;)

The advantage is it doesn't require the discipline necessary to do excellent B&W work. Specifically, you don't have to work as hard at visualizing the image you want because you are going to "fix it in post." Therefore you don't have to manipulate image capture to match your vision -- you can apply a "filter" later in post. This in turn encourages the it-doesn't-work-in-color-maybe-it'll-work-in-B&W attitude. Excellent B&W is seldom an afterthought!

I believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out (GIGO) principle. I want my negatives to be as close a match to my vision as I can get, with the correct colors, correct tonal values, etc. Color or B&W. I want to do as little work in post as possible. It's part of mastering the craft for me. And part of that is knowing at exposure time whether or not the final image is going to be color or B&W.

Shooting in color and then converting to B&W may make it easier to make a good B&W print, but it makes it more difficult to make an excellent B&W print. There's more to excellent B&W than what you can do in post.

I'm sure there are exceptions - there are exceptions to every rule. And the digital capture people don't have a lot of choice due to the dearth of B&W digital capture options. But that to me is an excellent reason to continue to use film, rather than looking for work arounds.

But I like life out of the mainstream. Hell, I threw away my cell phone four or five years ago. So decide what you want to do and have at it. "There are many paths to the waterfall." I'm not terribly interesting in how you got there; I'm really only interested in your results - excellent prints speak for themselves.

[bob carnie]

Though I do agree with you Bruce regarding how this will affect ones approach to image capture, as I posted the previsulization issue does change with this method, I have to say that this workflow is new and different and I suggest it is really worth exploring.
I have seen exceptional prints using the convert to black and white then print on fibre paper, that will stand up to any bwneg to bwprint .
I believe we are at the beginning stage of a workflow process that will ultimately have wonderful results from the different workers that go down this path to the waterfall.
I do not think that those who use this method of working with digital capture and scan from colour images are thinking , *this will be/can be fixed up in post*, rather more like I wonder how this scene will work using a different approach with other options at my disposal.

The

I'll be the hard-ass. ;)

The advantage is it doesn't require the discipline necessary to do excellent B&W work. Specifically, you don't have to work as hard at visualizing the image you want because you are going to "fix it in post." Therefore you don't have to manipulate image capture to match your vision -- you can apply a "filter" later in post. This in turn encourages the it-doesn't-work-in-color-maybe-it'll-work-in-B&W attitude. Excellent B&W is seldom an afterthought!

I believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out (GIGO) principle. I want my negatives to be as close a match to my vision as I can get, with the correct colors, correct tonal values, etc. Color or B&W. I want to do as little work in post as possible. It's part of mastering the craft for me. And part of that is knowing at exposure time whether or not the final image is going to be color or B&W.

Shooting in color and then converting to B&W may make it easier to make a good B&W print, but it makes it more difficult to make an excellent B&W print. There's more to excellent B&W than what you can do in post.

I'm sure there are exceptions - there are exceptions to every rule. And the digital capture people don't have a lot of choice due to the dearth of B&W digital capture options. But that to me is an excellent reason to continue to use film, rather than looking for work arounds.

But I like life out of the mainstream. Hell, I threw away my cell phone four or five years ago. So decide what you want to do and have at it. "There are many paths to the waterfall." I'm not terribly interesting in how you got there; I'm really only interested in your results - excellent prints speak for themselves.

[RDKirk]

There are two parts to the issue. Both have been addressed, but not as discrete considerations...rather as "right" and "wrong."

First is the technical/practical/material consideration. If you don't have a wet darkroom, it's difficult to make the best of black and white film. Maybe even impossible. If you don't have control of development, you can't take advantage of all the benefits of extending and contracting its dynamic range...and if you don't do that, you're not going to get much better than with color negative emulsions. Even if you plan to scan, you need to do your own development to use black and white to its greatest advantage (although, frankly, setting up for development alone isn't that much of a problem).

But there are also technical issues with scanning conventional black and white film because of the silver content of the negatives. I prefer using chromogenic emulsions if my intention is to shoot black and white for scanning because the negative does not retain its silver.

But beyond the technical/practical/material considerations, there is also the aesthetic thought process. Yes, if you intend a black and white end product, it's better to be thinking in that way before you press the shutter release. Your perception of the subject, your lighting of the subject, your choice of exposure (exposure is always a matter of choice), all should take into consideration whether your end photograph will be a matter of color tones or shadow tones.

Most of the color photographs I've seen rendered as black and white are, IMO, rather insipid because the photographer did not take this into account. Rarely is an effective color image going to translate into an equally effective black and white image just by removing the color.

[bob carnie]

One way to see if this method has any merit , expose a scene for black and white as you would normally, then use digital capture or colour film of the same scene, then print both ways . I believe that with this new version of PS3 and its capabilities you may be able to pull out more from the colour capture than that of the black and white neg. They will be different for sure, but both equally fine and I think there is no problem asthetically working either way.

[r.e.]

This is a really interesting thread. I have CS3, but I haven't tried this yet. Historically, I've shot colour when I want colour and B&W when I want B&W, so conversion doesn't come up much as an issue.

If this is true, it raises big questions about whether there is any point, if one is printing digitally, in shooting black and white film. There's no reason why one can't use colour stock while previsualizing with B&W in mind.

I have a question. I shoot a lot of B&W in low light and push development. To give a specific example, I often use HP5+ pushed two stops. Has anyone tried using the CS3 converter with an ISO 400 colour negative film, say Fuji Pro 400H, pushed a couple of stops?

If it works, the remaining issue for me is that with B&W I don't have to worry about filter correction (and more importantly light loss) when shooting in tungsten or fluorescent lighting.

[Frank Petronio]

Previsualization may be fine for rocks and trees... but if you want to capture movement and life it really is nice to have some post-shooting options. Cropping is a huge benefit, as is color correction.

Filtering for B&W to put the sky tones where you want them... how is that morally different than color correcting a color print? Or burning and dodging?

You can't tell me with a straight face that old Ansel knew exactly where he was going to burn and dodge the second before he made his "N minus 1.283" exposure... (which he probably bracketed btw).

If it is more "pure" then you could always let your exposed images sit around for a year or two so you're looking looking at them with a "cold" eye, ala Winogrand. Maybe that is sufficiently strident for the puritans?

[Kirk Gittings]

Frankly we convert color (a color world) to B&W every time we make a b&w image.

There are limitations in converting color to B&W digitally. The amount of tonal change is really dependent on how saturated the colors are. The more the saturation, the more you can move the tonalities. Hence it is in your interest say if you want a black sky from a light blue sky you need to saturate the blues in the scan (if you do it later in PS you will get more aggravated noise-shows up as a kind of grainyness). Trying to get extremely dramatic skies from a low saturation image in PS is not possible just via B&W conversion. Whereas you can do it easily with B&W film and filters.

I have done a ton of this. You see allot of it on the web with big dramatic tones, but what looks cool on the web might print like crap. This is not a cure all, just another tool. If you know what you want from a scene, I still think it is preferable to shoot a filtered b&w that way.

[bob carnie]

I think a few months ago someone started a thread which conveyed that we were in the most wonderful period of time for photography, I think this is so , and I am glad I am of age to benifit.

[tim atherton]

I dunno

To date (and I've looked at a lot of this stuff) I have almost never seen colour converted to greyscale that doesn't look like... colour converted to greyscale (however well it's actually done).

This is especially so for a workflow that's digital all the way through (so far, those who seem to be going to the bother of shooting colour film and then scanning it and converting it are in something of a minority - just not the same amount out there as digital greyscale from start to finish)

I've tested most of the filter options out there (Tri-X plug-ins etc), as well as the funky new options in PS3 and I've yet to see much that looks good.

I don't have the same response when I look at b& w film that has been shot, digitized and printed.

These are some particularly heinous examples of this look - not the out out there, but pretty blah (scroll through)

http://singularimages.wordpress.com/

To my mind, it's greyscale photography, not black and white photography

(mind you, I'd be interested in seeing some of Bob's stuff though)

[bob carnie]

Tim
When you are in Toronto next , give me a call and drop by, we just hung 70 framed pieces in our lobby . 1/3 enlarger fibre prints and 2/3 digital fibres from all kinds of input and media. Lots of different toning techniques in this group. This body of work will be up until Jan, then we are taking it on a bit of a travelling road show to Conneticut and New York .
Bob

I dunno

To date (and I've looked at a lot of this stuff) I have almost never seen colour converted to greyscale that doesn't look like... colour converted to greyscale (however well it's actually done).

This is especially so for a workflow that's digital all the way through (so far, those who seem to be going to the bother of shooting colour film and then scanning it and converting it are in something of a minority - just not the same amount out there as digital greyscale from start to finish)

I've tested most of the filter options out there (Tri-X plug-ins etc), as well as the funky new options in PS3 and I've yet to see much that looks good.

I don't have the same response when I look at b& w film that has been shot, digitized and printed.

These are some particularly heinous examples of this look - not the out out there, but pretty blah (scroll through)

http://singularimages.wordpress.com/

To my mind, it's greyscale photography, not black and white photography

(mind you, I'd be interested in seeing some of Bob's stuff though)

[mikeb380]

I'll be the hard-ass. ;)

The advantage is it doesn't require the discipline necessary to do excellent B&W work. Specifically, you don't have to work as hard at visualizing the image you want because you are going to "fix it in post." Therefore you don't have to manipulate image capture to match your vision -- you can apply a "filter" later in post. This in turn encourages the it-doesn't-work-in-color-maybe-it'll-work-in-B&W attitude. Excellent B&W is seldom an afterthought!

I believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out (GIGO) principle. I want my negatives to be as close a match to my vision as I can get, with the correct colors, correct tonal values, etc. Color or B&W. I want to do as little work in post as possible. It's part of mastering the craft for me. And part of that is knowing at exposure time whether or not the final image is going to be color or B&W.

Shooting in color and then converting to B&W may make it easier to make a good B&W print, but it makes it more difficult to make an excellent B&W print. There's more to excellent B&W than what you can do in post.

I'm sure there are exceptions - there are exceptions to every rule. And the digital capture people don't have a lot of choice due to the dearth of B&W digital capture options. But that to me is an excellent reason to continue to use film, rather than looking for work arounds.

But I like life out of the mainstream. Hell, I threw away my cell phone four or five years ago. So decide what you want to do and have at it. "There are many paths to the waterfall." I'm not terribly interesting in how you got there; I'm really only interested in your results - excellent prints speak for themselves.

Amen, Bruce!
While in NYC, I worked printing theater and dance photos, in wet lab, for Max Waldman and there is no way to duplicate what I did using PS. Won't happen. Just point and shoot and "I'll fix it in PS" is the lazy way. I taught classes here for members of the photo club and pushed all manual. People didn't want to do that, after all they had $2000 point and shoot cameras and they wanted to use the "features"

I shoot digital and if the photo isn't right as it comes out of the camera, it goes in the bit bucket. There is no way to "fix" a lousy photo, whether in wet lab or in PS. People today are just too lazy, they want to buy the easiest way of doing things. I have an EOS 300D and see no reason to "upgrade" to anything else.

No color film is going to approach the results of using B&W film properly exposed and printed. That's why I'm setting up a darkroom in my apartment, I'm anxious to get my hands wet and smell the perfume of stop bath! do this, shoot a gray scale on color slide film and put it in PS, convert to B&W and see how many of the steps you can differentiate. Print it out and let us know how it turned out.

Michael

[Frank Petronio]

The ironic thing about Tim's example and other examples of "poor" Color/Digital to B&W conversions is that in nearly all the cases, the image would benefit from more contrast and a shorter dynamic range.

Which counterdicts what most people are saying... lol

And boy, I probably have some hollowers where I got lazy, but I sure would hate to Google myself and find my work sited as a particulary heinous example. I hope that poor guy did you wrong cause you probably ruined his day... when he finds this thread.

[tim atherton]

The ironic thing about Tim's example and other examples of "poor" Color/Digital to B&W conversions is that in nearly all the cases, the image would benefit from more contrast and a shorter dynamic range.

Which counterdicts what most people are saying... lol

And boy, I probably have some hollowers where I got lazy, but I sure would hate to Google myself and find my work sited as a particulary heinous example. I hope that poor guy did you wrong cause you probably ruined his day... when he finds this thread.


okay... maybe I should have said a particularly good example of this particular "look"....

(+ our mexican "friend" never misses a chance to make personal digs about my work - guess I'm used to it....)

[MJSfoto1956]

Most people don't push or pull color neg, I don't think it is quite as easy to use different processing times without introducing cross-curves of unexpected, inappropriate color.

Actually, my lab is happy to push/pull color neg -- in a stretch I've done 2-stops. But one stop is more manageable and the results are good.

[Kirk Gittings]

I've tested most of the filter options out there (Tri-X plug-ins etc), as well as the funky new options in PS3 and I've yet to see much that looks good.
That because it is no easy fix! You have to shoot and scan color with the needs of b&w conversion in mind. It requires a very deliberate work flow.


I think a few months ago someone started a thread which conveyed that we were in the most wonderful period of time for photography, I think this is so , and I am glad I am of age to benifit.

That was me and every day, I am more convinced it is true. Having said that, I wish I had today's tools and the landscape of 100 years ago.

[tim atherton]

That because it is no easy fix! You have to shoot and scan color with the needs of b&w conversion in mind. It requires a very deliberate work flow.

(Which was why it would be interesting to see Bob's pictures)

On the whole, though, I was talking much more about shooting digital from start to finish, not starting off with colour film

(although I'm not entirely convinced by it's utility? What's the big general advantage of using colour film over b&w film? If you need a special workflow, presumably you aren't really getting dual purpose negs that will give both a good colour and a good b&w image?)

And as someone else stated, one of the biggest problems underlying this is that a vast majority of the pictures (not talking Kirk's examples here) are originally taken as colour pictures - especially "in the mind/minds eye" of the photographer.

And 99% of the time, take the colour away from a good colour picture and you don't end up with a good B&W picture. And adding the original colour to a good B&W picture will rarley make a good colour picture...? different beasts

[Kirk Gittings]

I do shoot color negs, but I rarely do it except when in an odd lighting situation that typical filter usage won't do what I want. And for one recent exhibit that I shot both 4x5 film and digital and ended up using the digital all the way through. This really doesn't read except when large. The color jpeg from original raw file and the conversion done in ACR and then tweaked considerably. The two files were layered so I could create some transparency and movement in the figure. The final print was 20x24 and held up really well because of how deep the tonalities are. This is currently on exhibit at the 1x20, Downtown Contemporary Art Center show in Albuquerque. It was all preplanned right down to shooting a test of the wall to see if I could the tonalities of the wall to do what I wanted.

[MJSfoto1956]

...And for one recent exhibit that I shot both film and didital and ended up using the digital all the way through.

Nice Kirk!!

[r.e.]

The advantages of using colour film and converting to black and white, especially for 35mm or 120, is that it simplifies management of stock and, unless one is doing one's own processing and/or lives in a major city, greatly speeds up turn-around time.

I spent part of August in Newfoundland, where getting B+W processed is a major hassle unless one knows about a particular individual who does it on the side.

I'm going to Afghanistan this fall, and I would love to eliminate an entire category of film to bring, concentrating only on a selection of speeds. The fact that I'm going to bring along a large format camera makes simplifying stock all the more attractive.

I think that it is obvious that one can visualize (pre- or on the fly) in B+W while using colour stock.

Indeed, the feature films in the last few years that have been released in B+W have mostly, if not exclusively, been shot in colour and been converted (desaturated). For an example, Good Night and Good Luck.

[Kirk Gittings]

Nice Kirk!!

Thank you. It is a little out of my norm, shooting a figure.

[Ken Lee]

The pre-visualizers are like Mozart, who wrote as though he were taking dictation. He rarely edited or made corrections. The rest of us are more like Beethoven, who had to work and re-work his music. Either way, we're in good company.

[tim atherton]

The advantages of using colour film and converting to black and white, especially for 35mm or 120, is that it simplifies management of stock and, unless one is doing one's own processing and/or lives in a major city, greatly speeds up turn-around time.

even if?:

[QUOTE]You have to shoot and scan color with the needs of b&w conversion in mind. It requires a very deliberate work flow.

Does that allow for an optimum neg for colour and b&w?


I think that it is obvious that one can visualize (pre- or on the fly) in B+W while using colour stock.

presumably though, not generally both at the same time?

I would say you can get a good image on colour stock that will work well in b&w or colour - but not usually both at the same time...?


Indeed, the feature films in the last few years that have been released in B+W have mostly, if not exclusively, been shot in colour and been converted (desaturated). For an example, Good Night and Good Luck.

I think that a lot of the time it's fairly obviously so.

I'd compare those few recent films (like The Good German) with the opening section of say Michael Winterbottom's Jude, which was shot on Ilford stock as I recall, and the difference is quite noticeable

[Kirk Gittings]

Quote:
You have to shoot and scan color with the needs of b&w conversion in mind. It requires a very deliberate work flow.
Does that allow for an optimum neg for colour and b&w?

I personally don't really think so though it is possible of course. For conversion I want a very saturated film with a large dynamic range which doesn't really exist. So I shoot color negs for the DR and then pour the saturation into the scan. There certainly is not a scan that serves both purposes.

[r.e.]

Tim,

I come at what Bob Carnie and others are saying as a skeptic. I'm just saying that I'm prepared to listen and that I'd like to see examples, especially controlled tests.

Note that I said that I would want to see comparable (not necessarily equivalent) results.

I don't know if you replied before I edited my post to include specific examples relating to Newfoundland and Afghanistan. There are tradeoffs that sometimes have to be made. For example, yesterday I met a Toronto-based photojournalist who has a book out about her work, and that of three other photojournalists, in Iraq. She went with digital rather than film, and for reasons that make a lot of sense.

Regarding your rhetorical question about visualizing in both colour and B+W at the same time. I'm not going to say that it can't be done, only that I can't do it. I agree with you. One caveat. I'm a lot more comfortable with the verb "seeing" in colour or B+W than I am with "visualizing", pre- or otherwise :)

I haven't seen Jude, but I am pretty familiar with Michael Winterbottom's films and with the work of his cinematographer, Marcel
Ziskind. What a film like In this World demonstrates, a film shot with a basic, essentially prosumer, video camera, is that there is more to quality than what MAY be, in this discussion, a matter of fine distinctions. The hallmark of Winterbottom's and Ziskind's work is that they have made the best of the technology that they have at hand.

Winterbottom is the perfect example of a guy who isn't about to get tied up in knots over the kind of debate going on here. It is one of his strengths as a filmmaker.

[tim atherton]

I spent part of August in Newfoundland, where getting B+W processed is a major hassle unless one knows about a particular individual who does it on the side.
.

maybe not on that one in particular (in the "old days' he could have told you where to get your C41 processed after hours), but you should make contact with Greg Locke one way or another... :)

[tim atherton]

For example, yesterday I met a Toronto-based photojournalist who has a book out about her work, and that of three other photojournalists, in Iraq. She went with digital rather than film, and for reasons that make a lot of sense.
.

Leistner?

Was the end result colour or B&W (or both)

I think that's going to be the case for most heading off somewhere like that (though I do know of one well known conflict photog who headed off to Iraq a while back with just rolls of Tri-X...)

And yep - "seeing" in B&W and colour... (pre-visualising is pretty much total BS... :) )


BTW - I think I'm pretty much in total agreement with what you are saying

[Kirk Gittings]

I come at what Bob Carnie and others are saying as a skeptic.
What are they saying exactly? I don't see any consensus at all.

[r.e.]

Tim,

Her Iraq work is in colour. Given how she pulled it off (being smuggled across the Turkish border into Iraq, accidentally winding up with a US cavalry contingent in the middle of no-place for four months straight), I am not in a big hurry to question her disinterest in carrying around rolls of film.

I will say this. Her portrait of the Crazy Horse cavalry group is amazing, and completely offside what everyone else was doing.

She's about to embark on a project that involves several people and disciplines, for which she'll be shooting 8x10, inspired by Edward Curtis.

Thanks for the Newfoundland reference.

Kirk,

I do understand that there isn't a consensus.

[tim atherton]

OT...


Tim,


I will say this. Her portrait of the Crazy Horse cavalry group is amazing, and completely offside what everyone else was doing.
.


yeah - I was working on some stories at The Walrus at the same time as they were putting together her story on that - it's great stuff.


Greg Locke

http://blog.greglocke.com/

http://www.straylight.ca/greglocke/about.htm

[r.e.]

There's a bit of a digression going on here, but if anyone is interested in looking at the story that Tim is talking about, it can apparently be downladed at www.ritaleistner.com

The Walrus is a Canadian magazine, relatively new. I'm not quite sure what to compare it to in UK or US terms. Anyway, the story might also be on their site.

The photographer/author was accused by a human rights activist, as a result of the work that she was doing on this story, of being a warmonger, which is pretty bizarre.

[bob carnie]

Rita is a friend , who I worked with in the late 90's. Before she went to Iraq she spent 2 years at ICP doing a masters class. She was photoghraphing in Asia before ICP and rented my colour darkrooms for awhile. She is a lovely lady , very determined and I am very happy for her recent success. She has the right mindset for what she is setting out to do.

What is this consenses about??
The OP asked the question about bw conversions.
I am discussing my experiences with converting colour original materials or files to BW fibre prints.
I am not saying it is the end all be all. I have done a lot of testing with various degrees of success, some IMO spectacular considering the original input some absolute crap , not worthy of display.
This is my small world testing, I can only imagine what others can do and I think those possibilities are endless given time.
I have tried to work from as many original sources my clients can throw at me so that one can see the deficinceys , artifacts that bad input can produce.*believe me there are a lot of failures.*
But when all the right stuff happens, I think most photographers on this site would be very suprised at the possiblities.

For my personal work in Black and White, I use TriX in D76 and push the film 1 stop.
I have been making solarizations and lith prints for years now exclusevley for my own work.
I am now using colour film extensively for the ability to separate the colour image on the Lambda CMYK FP4 negatives to do colour carbon prints . For me this is the only reason that I use colour stock as I eventually want to make some permanent colour prints.*I am not there yet but I am exposing a lot of colour film*

By having at my disposal lots of images on colour stock and black and white stock I am in the current lucky position of seeing output on different stocks as well as various methods of getting to that final print.

The moment Deveere and Harmon decide to work on placing the digital heads in the Universities and Colleges worldwide and letting the young students work with old and new technologys , watch out, you have seen nothing yet.
It will be like a time warp back to the 70's when I was in photoschool with energy to burn and us old farts can stand back and watch the magic happen.

[Ted Harris]

An interesting thread indeed. First a response to Tim's comment "This is especially so for a workflow that's digital all the way through (so far, those who seem to be going to the bother of shooting colour film and then scanning it and converting it are in something of a minority - just not the same amount out there as digital greyscale from start to finish)" ... Not sure I agree and further, how do you know it started out as color? Having said that, the only time I do it is when I am doing portrait and figure work and in those instances, when I am shooting digitally (Fuji S5) I always shoot in color and often convert to black and white in PS. I am sitting here right now evaluating a group of images, same shot, some printed in color and some in black and white, a number of different crops, and the only one that works for me is a black and white.

OTOH, when I am shooting film, especially LF, and think the image has both color and black and white potential I will shoot both ways. The image you see in my avatar is an example. I shot the color first and then had a few minutes to shoot some B&W before the sun set. The pictures have very different values to me. I have printed the B&W large for exhibition and hated it. OTOH, I have sold many boxes of notecards of the B&W image. The color shot however, is a winner as an exhibition print and was on the catalogue cover of a recent exhibition.

Not sure what this proves other than both images have value. Oh, yes, I don't think I can get the same tonal values from the transparency converted in PS that I get from the B&W negative ... now that this thread has started though I am making note of it as a project for a snowy day sometime this winter.

[Jack Flesher]

I am an adherant to the "shoot color and convert to B&W" group, but can tell you without reservation it is NOT the same thing as shoot in B&W to begin with --- the spectral response of the films is different. (I do it because I don't have the space or time for a wet darkroom, and there are no local labs that process B&W near me any more.) Like Tim and others have pointed out, *most* color conversions look like color conversions to me too. However as Kirk pointed out, HOW you do it can make a big difference. Here I think the trick is to apply a B&W spectral response curve and saturations BEFORE the conversion to replicate the respective tones that B&W emulsions respond to. That said, I can tell you that even then you are only getting close, and maybe close enough for many, but probably not close enough for a B&W purist. The final issue is one of total tonality; B&W emulsions usually have more latitude and thus generally show better shadow tonality. Again, this can be manipulated slightly in Photoshop, but still not the same as B&W, at least IMO...

Here is a color conversion I did using the above teqniques. The emulsion was 8x10 Fuji 160 Pro, exposed at 100 for a bit more shadow definition but no blown highlights, shot with the Cooke Portrait --- yes the Cooke illuminates 8x10 :). The pears are green, red and brownish-yellow.

The final conversion, cropped a bit: http://jack.cameraphile.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album19&id=3colorssoft_1200web

And a color version for comparison: http://jack.cameraphile.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album19&id=3colorssoftweb

Cheers,

[Jack Flesher]

PS: As respects digital B&W, the only camera I have used I feel does a credible job is the Leica M8. It leaks a bit of IR and IMO this makes it more closely match the spectral response of traditional B&W emulsions, at least for digital conversions.

Not the greatest images, but if you are interested here is a link to B&W conversions from the M8:http://jack.cameraphile.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album05&id=50Lux_wdieopen_B_Wlamp_md

Another: http://jack.cameraphile.org/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album24&id=Perimeter_B_W

Cheers,

[Michael Heald]

Hello! Thank you for the responses. B&W negatives don't require much resources to develop, and are cheeper than color for me. I then scan on a 4990 and print 8x10, occasionally larger if I think I've got something nice.

Prints can show about 8 stops, correct (unless carbon or platinum, but I'm not sure how many more). B&W negatives an show between 4 and 10 (or more depending on the negative and development). Is this true?

The difference with color negatives is that it is limited to about 6 stops, 5 for trannies.

Say there is a two stop difference between shooting B&W and shooting color for B&W conversion. How many folks find that the tonal range difference would affect their choice of B&W film vs color film? Or is it more subject related than film related? Best regards.

Mike

[Chris Strobel]

I choose B&W film for an important reason, I can afford it :D

[Kirk Gittings]

Another reason, as it dawned on me while I was shooting B&W out in Arizona today. To get the DoF I needed with the filter (23A) I wanted, required a 6 second exposure in slightly breeezy conditions with Acros leaving every blade of grass a blur. I actually don't mind that so much as long as there are solid elements like rocks amongst the grasses, but if I had shot a color negative with no need of filtration and added the filtration in the conversion......(I had Pro 160 with me), I could have a much shorter exposure.

[Bruce Watson]

Another reason, as it dawned on me while I was shooting B&W out in Arizona today. To get the DoF I needed with the filter (23A) I wanted, required a 6 second exposure in slightly breeezy conditions with Acros leaving every blade of grass a blur. I actually don't mind that so much as long as there are solid elements like rocks amongst the grasses, but if I had shot a color negative with no need of filtration and added the filtration in the conversion......(I had Pro 160 with me), I could have a much shorter exposure.

There's a reason I'll buy. Good one.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Maybe because I am partly colour blind and tend to see things more in tonality than colour to begin with, but I can almost always tell a colour to B&W conversion.

I have no issue with such a thing being done, in fact, I've enjoyed very much some of the conversions I've seen people do.

But there is a difference, a certain - dunno how to explain it - a certain "softness" - for lack of better words - to almost all colour to B&W conversions I have seen. I suspect there are a variety of reason for this, starting with how the person who is making the image sees the picture in their head to begin with, even on a subconsious level I suspect.

I find this is even true with other media - for example, an artist who does a pencil study of a subject followed by a full colour water colour or oil painting - although this is backwards to the process we are talking about here. :)

to me it's kinda like comparing real maple syrup to artificially flavoured maple syrup - some of the later is actually not bad syrup on it's own, but it's not the same thing. It boils down to whatever you like best I suppose.
joe

[Harley Goldman]

I regularly shoot color and convert to B&W. Sometimes I convert an image I intended to shoot in color, but mostly shoot with the intention of converting. I have not souped a print in 40 years so I cannot compare to traditional, but I have been quite happy with prints from the conversions.

[ThinkBox]

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/video_workshop/

Check this out - go to photoshop section and there is a neat video tutorial that shows these advantages.

[Paula Kay]

I always do it in post. I like to have fine control over which colors become darker and which become lighter. I might want the sky to become a rich black or a totally blown out white, depending on the image. I had not been able to get my head around how to do that until I had a quick look at a webpage that explained it in seconds and everything become clear. I regret not knowing this earlier.

Linky: Converting color photographs to black & white (http://www.chrislongley.com/blacknwhite_conversion/black_and_white_with_photoshop.html)