B&W prints from color slides/negatives?

[Jon Warwick]

I shoot 5x4. If it appears that Acros won't be available in Quickloads, and if I am correct in thinking that no other slow-speed film is now available in B&W in either QL or Readyload formats ...... I believe there are 2 options that are left open to me

(1) Use individual B&W sheets and load them using a tent etc; or
(2) Start using color Slide or Negative film (which are still available in Quickloads or Readyloads), and then get a lab to drum scan that color slide / negative and tranfer it into a B&W image via Photoshop (or whatever program they might be using).

I found Quickloads to be massively convenient, lightweight, dust-free etc, which is why I am angling down the slightly odd route above in scenario 2.

Given the output will always require a drum scan ..... which slow-speed films would you recommend for the best blend of (1) sharpness / low grain; and (2) exposure latitude?

Finally -- is the final image (ie, a drum-scanned color negative/slide that is transferred into B&W in Photoshop) going to produce an image that looks truly B&W, and have the same excellent sharpness and fine grain that I enjoyed with Acros 100?

Thanks

[Joanna Carter]

I have just started negotiations to manufacture a film envelope system that can be used in Quickload holders (and should also work in Readyload and Polaroid holders).

Yes, it means loading the envelopes in the dark but it allows you to use any type of 4x5 cut film that you like in these holders.

The envelope is so designed that you can also add exposure notes and convert it into a storage envelope.

[GPS]

I have just started negotiations to manufacture a film envelope system that can be used in Quickload holders (and should also work in Readyload and Polaroid holders).

Yes, it means loading the envelopes in the dark but it allows you to use any type of 4x5 cut film that you like in these holders.

The envelope is so designed that you can also add exposure notes and convert it into a storage envelope.

Unfortunately, with this system you will loose the great advantage of Quickloads mentioned by the OP - the dust free film... :(

[Joanna Carter]

Unfortunately, with this system you will loose the great advantage of Quickloads mentioned by the OP - the dust free film... :(
Agreed, but since dust still seems to get sucked onto the film as soon as you withdraw the envelope in the camera, your film will be as dust free as you can keep your darkroom :). The main advantage of my system is to allow you to carry more film in less weight and volume than you could in DDS, and to be able to use your favourite film.

[GPS]

Agreed, but since dust still seems to get sucked onto the film as soon as you withdraw the envelope in the camera, your film will be as dust free as you can keep your darkroom :). ...

Unfortunately, it's not just a dust free darkroom it's a question about - it's a question of dust free air in your darkroom, which is much more difficult to control than to clean a darkroom.
As far as I know photographers didn't complain about dust coming on Quickload film from withdrawing the envelope - rather they praised the dust free film in them...:)

[Joanna Carter]

Unfortunately, it's not just a dust free darkroom it's a question about - it's a question of dust free air in your darkroom, which is much more difficult to control than to clean a darkroom.
As far as I know photographers didn't complain about dust coming on Quickload film from withdrawing the envelope - rather they praised the dust free film in them...:)
And has it been your experience that you have never had any dust marks at all on your films when you print them?

[Bruce Watson]

which slow-speed films would you recommend for the best blend of (1) sharpness / low grain; and (2) exposure latitude?

Color films have many more layers than B&W films. The layers add of course. This means that color films are somewhat more grainy than B&W films of the same ISO rating. It also means that color films are not as sharp as B&W films of the same ISO rating. Neither of these things is a big concern in LF, but they still exist.

If you think about it for awhile, you'll see that in a three dimensional color space, say the HSV space (hue, saturation, value), B&W communicates only with the variation along the "value" axis (think "luminance" if it helps). What this means to you is that you need a color film with offers a lot of freedom along the value axis. Another way to think of this is dynamic range, or the ability to capture large subject brightness ranges (SBR). Negative films clearly out perform tranny films in this regard.

People who have done some work on shooting color film with the express purpose of creating B&W prints have reported that they get better results with high saturation films. My speculation is that the high saturation films tend to spread tonal information out more so that it's easier to get a good spread of tones when you convert down from three axes to one.

Combining these two bits of information leads you to want to shoot the saturated versions of color negative films. Like 160PortraVC, and Fuji Pro160C.

Me? I've tried it and gone back to B&W every time. Why? B&W is far cheaper, I can develop it myself and control how it comes out, film holders aren't that bad and I can keep them clean fairly easily (it's not dry and dusty where I live), I like the way B&W film captures tones, and I value the increased sharpness and decreased graininess. And since I do my own drum scanning it's easy for me to get good scans from my B&W film.

So I'd urge you along the lines of using B&W films. But if you want to go the color route, and you want single sheet packets, I think your only viable choice is going to be Fuji Pro 160C. Last I saw Badger Graphic Sales carries it in quickloads. (https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3050)

[GPS]

And has it been your experience that you have never had any dust marks at all on your films when you print them?

No. That's why it's nice to eliminate the dust on film at least as much as Quickloads do, isn't it..?;) :)

[sanking]

Color films have many more layers than B&W films. The layers add of course. This means that color films are somewhat more grainy than B&W films of the same ISO rating. It also means that color films are not as sharp as B&W films of the same ISO rating. Neither of these things is a big concern in LF, but they still exist.



On the other hand a color film scanned in RGB offers tremendous control of tonal values in the conversion to B&W in Photoshop. This is a very powerful tool that is basiclally the same as being able to choose any color filter you like when exposing a sheet of B&W film.

Course, part of the power of this tool is in its indiviudal exercise so if you are paying someone else to scan and print your negatives it may not be useful to you.

Sandy King

[Don Hutton]

The price of Quickload C41 and Acros was never very different. Processing C41 is dead easy with any sort of heat controlling processor. In terms of results, on reasonable sized prints (up to 20x24... or so) you will be just fine and any differences in grain/sharpness will not be noticable. If you are making huge prints, you may see some advantages going to B&W emulsions. However, as Sandy points out, there are some huge advantages in terms of tonal control to working from a RGB color scan. If it makes sense from an economic and convenience stand point to do it, I wouldn't hesitate.

[Bruce Watson]

On the other hand a color film scanned in RGB offers tremendous control of tonal values in the conversion to B&W in Photoshop. This is a very powerful tool that is basiclally the same as being able to choose any color filter you like when exposing a sheet of B&W film.


Yup. Left that out. Too early in the morning?

[Tim Povlick]

I have just started negotiations to manufacture a film envelope system that can be used in Quickload holders (and should also work in Readyload and Polaroid holders).

Yes, it means loading the envelopes in the dark but it allows you to use any type of 4x5 cut film that you like in these holders.

The envelope is so designed that you can also add exposure notes and convert it into a storage envelope.

Wow! This is a great idea! I sure hope you can bring the concept to market as I'm very interested in this. Lugging 10 film holders Vs 20 QL's - I'll take the QL's anytime, especially since one can make notations easier. I am not at all concerned about the dust - I have been cutting Aero PanatomixX-II film from 9.5" spool and it picks up a lot of dust. A good blast of canned air just before closing the film holder fixed that problem. This is in 10x8. With your system, I'll be able to use PanatomicX in QL format, something that was unthinkable before.

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Tim

[rdenney]

Course, part of the power of this tool is in its indiviudal exercise so if you are paying someone else to scan and print your negatives it may not be useful to you.

Yes, absolutely. I have made several color images using a digital camera and then converted them to black and white in Photoshop using the Channel Mixer tool. That tool allows me to control the filtration with far greater control than with filters in the field.

But there are some caveats. One is that some lenses show chromatic aberration. Using a filter and black and white film in the field can minimize or prevent the effect of the aberration from reaching the film. I've made some conversions to black and white where I attempted rather extreme filtration, and the effect was ugly along the edges where lateral color had been visible. For some types of aberration, they can be fixed in Photoshop using the lens correction tool, and if that works, it should be done before the black-and-white conversion. But that tool assumes the pattern of the aberration is centered on the image, and it therefore won't work well if you used camera movements.

There is nothing preventing you from using the filter in the field, even with color film. A red filter will make Velvia look red, but it will also darken the blue sky as well as filter out the effects of lateral color. You won't have nearly as much control over the filtration effect in Photoshop, but it would have the same general effect as with black-and-white film.

It's true that color film doesn't have the same sharp grain structure as black-and-white film, so if the enlargement is sufficient that the grain becomes a feature of the image, don't expect color to have the same look. As was mentioned previously, that's usually not the case with large format.

As with anything, the devil is in the details. Some people are so accustomed to the look of their particular black and white film (and the result of their development process) that doing what you suggest would be anathema. But I've done it and it works, and the prints don't strike me as looking weird or unnatural.

Rick "for whom the later color issue has been a problem with small format mostly" Denney

[Marko]

On the other hand a color film scanned in RGB offers tremendous control of tonal values in the conversion to B&W in Photoshop. This is a very powerful tool that is basiclally the same as being able to choose any color filter you like when exposing a sheet of B&W film.

It's even more powerful than that because it lets you do that selectively - apply any color filter locally and combine two or more filters in order to obtain desired tonality. E.g. apply red filter to the sky and green to foliage...