Why use B&W film if scanning ?

[QT Luong]

Assuming that you scan your film, process/print digitally, and want a B&W print, what are the technical reason to use B&W film instead of color negative film ?

Kirk has pointed out in http://www.largeformatphotography.in...d.php?p=284081 to one situation where shooting color film gives you better results thanks to the finer separation options available with the color image.

In which situations would the opposite be true, and why ?

PS: pardon the question, I am a color shooter myself and don't know much about B&W.

[Matt Miller]

Not a technical reason, but isn't B&W film much cheaper?

[Kirk Keyes]

The other Kirk wrote (in the above mentioned thread),"When we encountered some great faded reddish pictographs on yellow sandstone, though I switched to color negative for conversion. Why?....in my experience with similar sites there is no filter which will help separate these two complimentary colors. With color conversion though I can neutralize the yellows, saturate the reds and then get superior separation of the pictograph from the sandstone background in the b&w conversion."

Would some sort of a magenta filter have done what the other Kirk wanted here? (I.e. remove all yellow and some blue to increase red but still maintain some input from red.)

[Bruce Watson]

Assuming that you scan your film, process/print digitally, and want a B&W print, what are the technical reasons to use B&W film instead of color negative film?

Kirk has pointed out in http://www.largeformatphotography.in...d.php?p=284081 to one situation where shooting color film gives you better results thanks to the finer separation options available with the color image.

In which situations would the opposite be true, and why ?

The spectral response of B&W films isn't necessarily as linear as color films. Many people perceive this as part of a B&W film's character. This is desirable enough that there are now several software packages on the market to help you simulate the look of B&W film from digital captures or color film captures.

B&W film has greater latitude than color film in general. That is, modern B&W films can capture just about any real-life subject brightness range (SBR) in a nice linear fashion. Color negative films aren't far behind. Color tranny film requires a considerably more restricted SBR in comparison.

B&W films tend to be sharper then their counterparts at a given ISO. With certain developer treatments they can be a fair amount sharper.

B&W films tend to be somewhat less grainy then their counterparts at a given ISO. With tranny film that graininess is in the shadows where it doesn't show well.

B&W films are more amenable to N- and N+ development. Color films will only let you push and pull them a little (a stop or so) before they begin to complain.

B&W films have greater longevity in storage then their counterparts.

And of course, B&W film is considerably cheaper then color film, and B&W processing is considerably cheaper than either E-6 or C-41. B&W processing is simple enough that most people do their own B&W processing rather than send the film to a lab, whereas lab processing is the norm for color films.

[Bill_1856]

Just off the top of my head: 1) better exposure latitude, 2) ability to use color filters on the original shot, 3) by selecting your B&W film and developer, it is possible to give a specific "look" to the final outcome, whereas color negative film is pretty much blaugh in texture, and the grain is generally "ugly," 4) possibility of conventional printing if you decide to, 5)$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Eric Leppanen]

As already mentioned in another thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=29163), use of color film can save 2-3 stops of exposure where strong B&W filters would otherwise be required. As an 8x10 shooter, carrying some Portra 400NC is sometimes the only way I can get a shot in windy conditions or in low, rapidly changing light.

Everything is a compromise, though. 400NC is not very saturated and therefore getting strong tonal separation after B&W conversion can be challenging. Sometimes it is just better to return to the location later under more favorable conditions, where shooting filtered B&W film is more feasible.

[Dan Fromm]

QT, back when I was contending for something or other in photo competions for aquarists, there were basically two classes. Black/white prints and color slides.

I then shot FX and Kodachrome 25. The people I competed with shot only Kodachrome.

I made my competition b/w prints from FX negatives. My competitors made theirs from Kodachromes.

I usually won the b/w print class, and for two reasons. My prints were always by god sharper than theirs. FX is sharper than Kodachrome. And because I made my prints myself while they sent their slides out to be printed, mine were better done. Its easier to do it right oneself than to explain what's wanted to a technician.

Cheers,

Dan

[Stephen Best]

Assuming that you scan your film, process/print digitally, and want a B&W print, what are the technical reason to use B&W film instead of color negative film ?

Here's a controversial question :-). Why shoot LF at all if the end result is going to be 8x10 B&W inkjet prints as someone was offering here recently?

I recently did some B&W prints on Harman's new paper with files originating from a Nikon D80 with my best lens for this camera (currently the 85mm/1.8) dialing in filtration with the software and the results looked pretty darn good. Not quite an 8x10 silver gelatin contact, but the results were limited by the output process, not the capture. Other than movements plus being able to better see what you're going to get with LF, why bother at all with the above process for small prints? The ability to filter after the fact seems like a dream for B&W. Now that I've seen what I can achieve I plan to add some better glass (Zeiss ZF) and explore this further. I shoot 4x5 film for larger colour prints and will continue to do so until there's a viable digital replacement (none on the horizon that I can see) so I'm not arguing that LF doesn't have its advantages.

[Brian Ellis]

I've never been able to think and see in b&w with color film in the camera. I don't know why that is but every time I load color film I end up making photographs that work only with color. In order to think and see in b&w I have to have b&w film in the camera. I've heard others say the same thing so this may not be as crazy as it sounds.

Apart from that, I process my own b&w film, I might be able to process color but I never have and on the rare occasions when I've used it I send it to a lab. Which is much more expensive and time-consuming, plus I use the zone system with b&w and its use with color, at least when using a lab, seems more limited.

[rippo]

rats, brian, you beat me to it!

i can't think in black and white if i know there's color in the camera (or digital). i've tried, i just can't do it. i've even tried shooting in b/w jpg mode on my dslr, but it's not the same. if i know i can shoot color, all i see are colors. if all i have is b/w with me, i see form and composition and ignore the color.

weird.

oh and when it comes to price, not only is the film cheaper, but developing it costs pennies if you do it yourself, which i do. since i've never bought anything new when it comes to large format, cheapness is a major asset. even all my chrome 4x5 film i got expired, second-hand. which is perhaps the only good reason to live the next town over from Brooks Institute.