Printable View
I have to make a decision: shoot 4x5 color film (positive or negative), send it out for processing, scan and convert to B&W -OR- shoot B&W film, develop myself and scan. I'm presently doing the former. I do like the adjustments I can make to the scans with Lightroom.
Is there a clear quality advantage to the latter? The only advantage I can see is that B&W film is cheaper than color.
There is no particular advantage to shooting b&w for scanning. One may prefer the "look" of scanned b&w over converted color film. B&W requires more discipline in some ways because you must make appropriate filter choices in the field and the tonal relationships are basically locked in. I believe there is something valuable to be learned from mastering filtering for b&w, which allows one to previsualize final prints better even if you return to color conversion.
You can distort the color of the shot before converting to black and white to emulate the effect of filtering, or with more delicate adjustments, different kinds of Black and white film. Maybe not as good as shooting monochrome from the outset but it does give you options to play with.
One definite advantage is that B&W film is generally sharper (higher resolution) than color film of the same ASA.Quote:
Originally Posted by dyuhas
Sandy King
What Sandy said. The better sharpness is due in part to the far fewer layers in B&W film.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanking
In my experience, B&W film also exhibits less graininess than color negative film of the same ISO rating. In the past I've been using 5x4 Tri-X processed in XTOL 1:3. I found it has about the same graininess as 160PortaVC, which is a stop slower. I'm currently (finally!) making the transition to TMY-2 which I expect will have even less graininess than Tri-X. Initial testing looks very promising.
I just had ~ 70 sheets of Ilford Delta 100-Pro processed in Dave Woods' reversal chemistry in order to furnish a B&W transparency (http://www.dr5.com/). The silver is removed in this process making it ideal for scanning. Compared to RVP-50 (my standard E6 film), I find this gives me almost an additional 1.3 stops in shadow detail, and on the lightbox, the Delta-100 is sharper than RVP-50.
The limited captured stops of colour transparency film rules it out as a viable source for quality B&W. Also, Lightroom isn't an adequate tool to make the best of your images for print.Quote:
Originally Posted by dyuhas
B&W film has a much higher range than color. Sharper also, as others have mentioned. However, you must be making tiny scans to be using Lightroom. You could also try a better scan....Quote:
Originally Posted by dyuhas
Lenny
EigerStudios.com
I have come to regret shooting on B&W film in the past. I **love** the control that Lightroom gives me in mixing color channlels from my scanned color images.
It gives me much more control than I ever had in the field over relative brightness values of different components of an image, such as bringing up - or pushing down - a darker green on a sign, versus a lighter, more yellowish green of foilage.
I used mostly color negative film for the past 10 years and am happy that I made the switch from B&W film. Also, after shooting and being happy with 6x7 for many years, I don't find grain an issue with 4x5. It is a bit more of a challange to manage and control a color negative scan, but worth the effort in my mind.
I shot B&W film exclusively for 20 years, until 1998. I loved that at the time. There is a classic Tri-X look and feel, and a classic feel to TMX/TMY. I guess it depends on how much of a purist you are, and whether you want to take advantage of new tools available, like Lightroom.
I am physically challanged, so making images is a very difficult process for me. I like to be able to "interpret" images on the computer, by working with Lightroom to create an image that expresses my intentended interpretation of a scene.
The great yellow father no longer makes photo paper,and i don't know of anybody makeing anything like panalure,that never was that good because it was rc.
One disadvantage of scanning B&W film is that the ICE dust/scratch removal procedure won't work.
"I think that if shooting for publishing I might go with the color route for sales and convert for the b&w stuff if you wanted to shoot just one film. Otherwise a couple of holders of the other would not be a big deal. Fine art b&W would be a different route. Depends I guess on your intended uses. Great thing is you have choices." Wayne
IME I did this professionally for many years shooting both chromes, color and b&w negs of the same shot for different purposes. If you go this route, try to pick color and b&w films that have the same ASA to avoid errors in the field. You can work much faster if you do and in changing light this can be important.
__________________
One thing I've noted doing a series of juried art shows last year... those interested in purchasing B&W prints always ask how a print is produced... whether it's shot on B&W film or whether it's a conversion from color images. Those interested in purchasing B&W prints want prints shot on B&W film, and the interest level drops considerably if they know it's a conversion. The same is true of some art judges... they often ask about how a print was produced, and about how a print was printed.
It may not mean much as time goes by... and it means little if one is only interested in shooting for one's own pleasure... but... if one is interested in sales I believe making conversion black and whites instead of shooting black and white film greatly reduces interest and prices of B&W prints.
I have never ever been asked whether it is a conversion or not from collectors or museums.Quote:
One thing I've noted doing a series of juried art shows last year... those interested in purchasing B&W prints always ask how a print is produced... whether it's shot on B&W film or whether it's a conversion from color images. Those interested in purchasing B&W prints want prints shot on B&W film, and the interest level drops considerably if they know it's a conversion.
Why not use quickloads, then you can easily keep a few sheets of each type with you.
That's interesting to note, because last year, out of 7 juried art shows (Northern Florida), we were asked about the black & whites at 4 shows by judges. Up until last year, I did some color conversions (especially since I've always shot color transparencies more frequently than B&W film). After assuming this may be an important issue in other venues as well, I've taken up shooting way more black and white films.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
May be worthwhile to understand the process of post processing color to B&W. I'll probably shoot B&W. I have, however, been studying the John Beardsworth books on digital Black and White Photography. It seems to me that if more photographers take advantage of the post processing methods of converting color to BW, we may see BW film diminish in availability.
I'm not overly concerned that may happen, but I want to know how to make the transition if it does.
My experience is that potential buyers of my prints have little or no interest in knowing whether the print was made from an original B&W negative or from a color negative or transparency. I am sometimes asked if the print was made directly from an in-camera negative by contact printing or with an enlarged negative. And if I have several prints on display people will often be interested in looking closely at the prints to compare prints made by contact printing from LF and ULF negatives or with digitally enlarged negatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by anchored
Given that there are so many other more important considerations in evaluating a print I am quite surprised that any knowledgeable person would attach importance to whether the original negative was B&W or color.
There are clearly some advantages to shooting color film and B&W film when the ultimate goal is a monochrome print. Color film allows for much greater control in post-scan processing while B&W film is usually sharper, has finer grain (when comparing films of same ASA), and higher dynamic range. Why that would have any importance to a potential buyer is beyond my level of understanding as print maker.
Sandy King
Quote:
Originally Posted by anchored
Just tell them what you think they want hear. No one can tell the difference anymore.
Sigh...Quote:
Originally Posted by robert amsden
When did Ansel get demoted to Saint? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by robert amsden
"Digital photography is an abomination to St.Ansel ,saint Edward & saint Brett."
You don't know your scriptures very well in St. Ansel's case. He said many times in his later days how he was looking forward to digital photography developments. He had already been utilizing some proto digital printing techniques by using digital unsharp mask to sharpen the foreground of Moonrise in the last poster series and was impressed with where that technology was going. IMO given his enthusiasm for experimentation and pushing boundaries, he would have been in the thick of digital photography, pushing its aesthetic and technical qualities and we would all have benefited from his involvement immensely. Now whether he would have found current technology up to his exhibition standards yet is another question. but whether he would be working on it? I personally have no doubt. Of course at well over 100 years old now.......he might not have been working on much.
I absolutely agree with you Kirk, someone with his passion and desire to explore and understand would have definitely pushed the limits of digital photography...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
Check out this BW conversion software. Complete Control for Professional Quality
Black & White. Something worth trying the free trial:
http://www.niksoftware.com/silverefexpro/usa/entry.php