For BW project, shoot color or BW?

[kevs-2323668]

I'm going to venture into a BW project soon on 4x5. Question: in old time film days obviously I'd buy BW. But today, everyone is getting scans, is there any reason still to go BW film over color film?

Now I'm not the most adept BW conversion guy in Photoshop. I just add the BW adjustment layer. But I could get more sophisticated, and buy Nik products etc. so hence, reason for this question. thanks

[Bill Burk]

I'd stick with B&W film, and I would choose the type of film (tabular or traditional) based on the grain structure (sharp/fine or soft/grainy) I want.

Color turned to black and white has a different look. There are several layers with competing curves and the silver is replaced with dyes. I think this reduces resolution. Chromogenic films exist for the grainless look, if that is a goal.

It would feel odd to me to use a grain-simulating software to add grain that could have been there in the first place.

[kevs-2323668]

thanks Bill, yeah, not going for grain. -- what is tabular vs traditional?

In short, you feel that BW film will look vastly superior and scanned and converted in PS color?

[Bill Burk]

I shoot Kodak film, so the Kodak brand tabular grain films are the T-Max family, of which I shoot 4x5 T-Max 400 (TMY-2). I moved to 4x5 to get crisp granite landscapes and found it immediately gave me what I wanted.

For roll-film formats, I shoot the traditional grain films, Panatomic-X, Plus-X, Tri-X. I've found I can occasionally get 4x5 quality, but the traditional grain film gives me soft pictorialism-type results. It can have high resolution, but the slightly soft grain is better suited to nature shots with soft things like moss versus granite.

If you are not going for the grain, then Chromogenic Black and White film is worth considering. The results I had when I tried it in the 70's from 35mm were almost grain-free, as with color film the silver is replaced with dyes. This changes the optical property of the negative. Compared to color film, a Chromogenic black and white will have a few layers with different light sensitivity but all with the same color sensitivity. So you get a long exposure latitude, and you don't have layers of color that might have competing edges (and properties that you discard).

An acquaintance once showed me black and white conversions from Kodachrome slides I think it was, I was disappointed with the jagged artifacts of the images. I believe it was related to the color to black and white conversion.

Now an advantage of shooting color then converting to Black and White, would be the opportunity to experiment after the fact with different color filters - electronically you could simulate having shot with a red filter and if it was over the top you could try simulating orange.

p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.

[vinny]

$$$$$$$ per sheet.

[Ken Lee]

The answer may depend on your subject (and budget of course). Some subjects don't need much filtering.

Kodak Portra has very fine "grain" and has a great dynamic range. See http://www.timparkin.co.uk/ for examples, as well as http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/.

You might decide to shoot only those subjects that already look best in monochrome.

[kevs-2323668]

thanks, Vinny, price per sheet probably negligible.

Bill, do you understand I'm not talking about converting to BW in a real darkroom, I scanning and then maybe going to BW --if color comes out as good as BW.

Tmax is pretty darn good with grain. What films are chromogenic and are they less grain than Tmax?

thanks Ken -- forget about filtering. I'm just shooting people portraits. What is your opinion then on this original topic?

[Roger Cole]

Chromogenic B&W films are great, I love them - but not available in 4x5, except for the rare expired box of XP2 on the market. XP Super has never, to my knowledge, been made in 4x5. More's the pity - it's a wonderful film for regular printing and should be even better for scanning. I shot a fair amount of 35mm XP2 back when I did my own C41. The only reason I don't shoot it in 35mm and 120 now is that I haven't jumped back into C41.

Chromogenic films - Ilford XP2 Super (35mm and 120) and Kodak TMAX BW400CN (35mm only.)

[Frank Petronio]

To do it right you would buy sample of each film you might want to use, shoot it, and then judge which you like best. Same goes for workflow - how you make prints (scan or darkroom, printing technique and materials). Otherwise you'll just be using someone's palette without knowing the options.

If you just want to start, shoot color neg, it gives you the most options going forward. But until you shoot a few kinds of B&W film you won't know the trade-offs. Personally I think color neg to B&W is great, but I pay attention to the color controls and curves when converting from color to B&W.

All NIK and other conversion software does is package those choices and commands to make it easier for you but it is more powerful to experiment and understand what you're doing rather than selecting some canned do-all. I wouldn't waste the energy learning about it when you might just as well master those commands in Photoshop and know what the Hell you're doing. It would probably take you an equal amount of time and save you a few bucks too.

[kevs-2323668]

thanks Frank, well that's why I'm posting! I'd love to hear others who have done this simple experiment and hear their opinions. You have not shot in color 4x5 and then scanned, then made it a BW and then printed?

[Bill Burk]

Wow didn't know they no longer existed 4x5...

Yes I get the fact you are planning a hybrid workflow.

So shoot color and convert to BW post-process, I don't think you will have bad results.

If I felt I wanted the relatively grain-free color aesthetic of color converted to BW, I would be very careful not to reveal two shots side by side derived from the same image where one is color and the one next to it is BW. If I converted an image to BW for my portfolio, I would lock it down virtually as BW and wouldn't allow color variants to hit the internet.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'd shoot color and convert to gray scale. There's a lot of control to be had in Photoshop. I also like options. What if your client asks, "How much for a color print?"

[Bill Burk]

thanks Frank, well that's why I'm posting! I'd love to hear others who have done this simple experiment and hear their opinions. You have not shot in color 4x5 and then scanned, then made it a BW and then printed?

Frank has, and his work is worth seeing.

[Frank Petronio]

thanks Frank, well that's why I'm posting! I'd love to hear others who have done this simple experiment and hear their opinions. You have not shot in color 4x5 and then scanned, then made it a BW and then printed?

??? I shoot color and convert it to B&W quite often. I also shoot color and use it as color. I use one type of film for everything. In the past I have shot most of the popular B&W films. I currently prefer the simplicity, consistency, and quality of using Kodak Porta 400 color negative film for everything I do. I think it is the best film ever made and perhaps the best film that ever will be made!

As far as the cost goes, it is a lot higher but I don't overshoot with large format, or at least I try not to. Static subjects get only one sheet and humans maybe 2 to 6 per set-up. I don't get processing errors like a lot of home B&W workers can get, and I have a digital workflow so it is easy to fix any scratches, sometimes even flare and fog in a worse case scenario.

[vinny]

thanks, Vinny, price per sheet probably negligible.

Bill, do you understand I'm not talking about converting to BW in a real darkroom, I scanning and then maybe going to BW --if color comes out as good as BW.

Tmax is pretty darn good with grain. What films are chromogenic and are they less grain than Tmax?

thanks Ken -- forget about filtering. I'm just shooting people portraits. What is your opinion then on this original topic?

assuming you're speaking of color neg (that's what most portrait shooters use), your looking at $35+ for ten sheets and kodak is the only option vs. efke, foma, ilford, kodak, etc. for $1/sheet or less. If it's not your $$ then what the hell.

[Ken Lee]

If you're shooting people, then you don't need to shoot in color unless you want to play around with the color of their clothing or the background.

Film Speed:
Grain aside, color transparency film is very contrasty and slow by comparison to something like Kodak TMAX 400 or Ilford HP5+. Color print film like Portra is faster, and has much better dynamic range. I don't know what happens to it during long exposures: my guess is that different dyes respond to low levels in their own way. A fast B&W film with good reciprocity characteristics is TMAX 400. :cool:

Depth of Field:
Remember that the longer the lens, the less the depth of field. Shooting from the same distance to get the same perspective, a 225mm lens (portrait length) at f/16 (on 4x5) will have the same depth of field as a 75mm lens at f/5.6 (on 35mm or "full-frame" digital) - which isn't a lot. That may or may not be an issue. If you need to stop down to f/32 or more, then your exposures may be prohibitively long unless you glue your subjects down, or light them up, or find good lighting outdoors. If they are young, they may not want to stand still... etc.

Scanning Color Film
More easily said than done. Each film has its own profile, where the color balance varies across brightness range. Scanning B&W is already a high art, and scanning color is a professional specialty (in my humble opinion).

I'd shoot TMY or HP5+ at ISO 250 and consider myself fortunate. With the savings in materials, you can make many more shots - which can often be the key with portraits: more important than color versus b&w.

[sanking]

First, you can make excellent B&W prints whether you start with a color negative or a B&W negative. Depending on film you might have a slight resolution advantage with one or the other, or a slight grain advantage. But that depends more on the film itself than on whether it is color or B&W. There is no inherent look, IMHO, with either type film.

The advantage to shooting color negative film is that you will have a tremendous amount of control of tonal values if you scan in RBG and convert to B&W in PS. Since you are in a digital mode at this point there will also be a huge amount of control of grain/noise and sharpness. The disadvantage of color is cost, and most importantly, less dynamic range.

The advantage to B&W is cost, more personal control of outcome, and greater dynamic range.

Either way, to take full advantage of color film you will need to have good PS skills, and to take full advantage of B&W you will need to have good skills in exposing and developing.

Sandy

[Roger Cole]

Greater dynamic range in B&W? Compared to color transparency, absolutely yes, but compared to color neg?

[sanking]

Greater dynamic range in B&W? Compared to color transparency, absolutely yes, but compared to color neg?

Well, yes. B&W film, if exposed and developed appropriately, is capable of capturing a much wider subject brightness range than color negative film.

Sandy

[kevs-2323668]

thanks, there is no client, it's fine art. I do see one future series as a BW print series, but if color is only $2 a shot more, and the prints will look just as good -- is not that a great option to be able to print color down the road if you want to? You may not ever do it, but who knows?

I only bring it up because I come from pre digital where is was insane to not shoot BW for BW prints.

Now if Frank or others were adamant that the prints will come out vastly better shooting with organic BW film then I'd probably then go BW film.

I'm going "hybrid" as most do now -- film to scans, PS to prints.

[Frank Petronio]

I said you should try both color and BW film and see for yourself....

[kevs-2323668]

Frank, then what the point of posting? But yeah, that's ideal. Ton of work....

[Frank Petronio]

You're a better photographer than 99.9% of the shooters on this site, just not with a large format film camera yet. Whatever project you do will probably be significant, so before you embark on all that work, why not blow off a couple of rolls of Portra 400, Porta 160, Tri-X, Ilford FP-4, Kodak T-Max 100 and 400? Each has a very distinctive look and appeal that will play an important role.

It's not like a raw digital file that you can boss around, the film plays an important part of how your shadows and highlights render. That's why people get so bent over the Zone System and developers and such.

Sure using color neg is an easy way out and I do it myself but I honestly can not make it look like real B&W film. It's definitely superior to digital capture and online you couldn't tell the difference, but once you start printing these images, you'll see. Or it sounds like you won't, because having not run a few tests, you'll never know.

Think about photo school or books... if the instructor/author wanted to, they could simply give you a step-by-step recipe to do work exactly like theirs. But if they did that, would they be serving their students' best interests?

[Bill Burk]

The BW movie, "The Artist," was shot on color film. At first I was quite puzzled. But I have my hunch that film cinematographers are already "dialed in" with color film. If that's the reason, it makes sense to me that they would want to stick with what they know, instead of ramping everyone up on old-school processes for a single project.

I have "dialed in" an all-analog BW process -- film to prints, so it makes sense for me to stick with BW film.

Have you decided whether you are going to develop yourself or go to a lab? When I shot both color and BW, I would send out my color. I found many labs that could do excellent color work. I never did find a lab that could do BW the way I like it. Whenever I did send it out, it took several weeks and came back grainy. (Competent labs exist. I just didn't want to pay custom processing prices).

[kevs-2323668]

Going to a lab Bill.
Frank thanks! you are so cool. I might call you later about this.... But that last answer sounded more definitive -- go BW if you want to optimal prints in BW. nice tips.

[Peter De Smidt]

Going to a lab Bill.
Frank thanks! you are so cool. I might call you later about this.... But that last answer sounded more definitive -- go BW if you want to optimal prints in BW. nice tips.

That's not exactly what he said. What he said entails that bw prints from color negatives look different from those made from conventional bw film. Different doesn't necessarily mean better or worse. As Frank said, try a few things and decide for yourself what suits you.

[Bill Burk]

And go work with your lab to see what they do best. I saw some amazing BW prints by the Icon and I believe they were shot on BW film.

[Brian C. Miller]

The BW movie, "The Artist," was shot on color film. At first I was quite puzzled. But I have my hunch that film cinematographers are already "dialed in" with color film. If that's the reason, it makes sense to me that they would want to stick with what they know, instead of ramping everyone up on old-school processes for a single project.

The reason was far simpler.

There was no more Plus-X film.

Burbank man's '50s genre homage, 'The Ghastly Love of Johnny X,' is last to use Kodak Plus-X movie film (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20754139/burbank-mans-1950s-genre-homage-is-last-film)

Bunnell put in a call to his Kodak rep, who confirmed his worst fears. The company instituted a worldwide search, though, that netted some 90,000 feet of unexposed Plus-X, most of it in France.

Bunnell said he got the stock just in time; the folks who made "The Artist," who wound up shooting the Oscar winner on color stock they digitally converted to black-and-white, came hunting for the last of the Plus-X right after he'd secured it.

"If I had found my money any later, I would not have been able to finish the film on Plus-X," Bunnell observed.

I had posted about it in the Lounge, but nobody paid any attention.

[Frank Petronio]

Just curious, what does 90K feet of general purpose color 35mm film stock run?

They'd shoot that in about a month of production? Or is faster/slower than that?

And what does a good 35mm movie camera cost to rent?

[Bill Burk]

Surprised to hear the simplicity! The Kodak store sells film, and you can buy it in 1,000 foot rolls.

I think I can maintain consistency in my portfolio by sticking with BW films having similar characteristics to the film I used to use. I can make prints from my inventory of vintage negatives indistinguishable from current work. Prints from 1980 vintage shots on 35mm Panatomic-X are compatible side-by-side with recent shots on the same film. Granted, it's the last batch and I will need to find a replacement soon or change my strategy as I continue shooting 35mm.

When I started shooting 4x5 about 4 years ago I didn't have much of an inventory of vintage negs to be compatible with so I switched to 400TMAX. I swear I can see a distinct difference in appearance between traditional grain and tabular grain. My current 4x5 work has a crisper look than any of my vintage 35mm or 120 work. I like the new look.