Posted by Doug Andrews on June 12, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I have a DSLR and have occasionally done some B&W conversions and the results have been ho hum for the most part. I also have my 35mm film body sitting around in my sock drawer gathering dust. Haven't really looked into much but seem to recall reading that shooting traditional B&W film can give a look that digital B&W conversion doesn't always convey (unless one is really savy at the conversion which I ain't). Was wondering if I should load up my FM2N with some B&W film to carry with me in the field and try a bit of it. Any thoughts on this? Also, any suggestions on a B&W film to try. I have access to pro labs so using the Kodak B&W film that can be processed at Wally World via C-41 isn't neccessary. Thanks.
I still use MF camera loaded with BW film. My favorite is Ilford 50 + D76 combo.
Posted by Toni Lankerd on June 13, 2007 at 9:13 AM
I saved one film camera for B&W film and occasionally shoot a roll using Ilford HP5, which is my film of choice.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on June 13, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Black and white film has far more contrast latitude than digital. If you are doing digital black and white, you are essentially shooting BW as slide film, in terms of contrast. There is nothing wrong with this, and I have certainly made use of it artistically.
Film also looks different that digital, especially BW film. Not better or worse, just different. (okay, your mileage may differ).
If I regularly shot BW, I'd probably go the route you are - one main camera for color and a second for BW. You can always make the digital conversion later on the color, but it is going to be a lot tougher to get the tonal range without using BW film.
Doug, I think the issue is more than just film/digital or specific film selection. In B&W photography much of the success of the image depends on the processing and printing. This is different from some color photographers who try to get the image "right" in a chrome, then match the print to it. With B&W, the capture (film or digital) is at best a starting point to much more elaborate processes. Practically all fine-art B&W work you will see out there relies heavily on the processing and printing skills of the photographer.
Digital color capture actually gives you a lot more flexibility in creating B&W images. Dynamic range may be a bit less than B&W film, but I know of very few situations where this will be an issue. On the plus side you get to see the effects of tonal separation filters in real time and can tune it to your liking on your screen, rather than guess what a given filter might do, or keeping field notes on how to compensate for exposure in development etc.
One of my favorite toys is Alien Skin Software's Exposure plugin for Photoshop. You can choose from a couple dozen B&W films that are very true to the original source, or you can roll your own. It also has popular color films as well, like Fuji Velvia. You get great results without putting much thought into it.
The real "problem" with B&W is getting the image you've created on your monitor onto the paper in your printer. Epson's Advanced Black and White driver does okay but it doesn't give you a lot of knobs to turn and you have to remember to tell PS to not manage color for the printing process. Otherwise you get a color cast that you're not seeing on your screen. Friday I should receive ImagePrint RIP for my Epson 7800 which gives you tons of knobs and dials for tone mapping into B&W space.
ImagePrint is hellishly expensive and I would not have bought it for personal use. It is for our studio printing. Quad Tone makes a decent product that you can get into for under $100. They're at http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html.
By the way, last year I bought an EOS 3 that I carry around with Ilford Delta 100.
I shoot Fuji Acros quickloads and Ilford Delta 100 on my 4x5. I also occasionally carry HP5, but prefer the Delta for my tastes. B&W film requires experimentation to see what you like. IMO, the differences between different b&w films are more subtle and difficult to articulate than for color transparency films. Try a few out and see what you like. I've also always liked Kodak Tri-X for a nice grainy film.
I agree with Guy's comments about digital b&w. The thing to keep in mind is that b&w photography - whether film or digital - requires thinking in b&w. Tonal contrast is critical; color is meaningless (for the most part). When you're selecting digital files to experiment with - or are out shooting - be aware that a very nice color image won't necessarily convert well to b&w if it's dominated by similar tones.
Discussion
7 repliesFilm also looks different that digital, especially BW film. Not better or worse, just different. (okay, your mileage may differ).
If I regularly shot BW, I'd probably go the route you are - one main camera for color and a second for BW. You can always make the digital conversion later on the color, but it is going to be a lot tougher to get the tonal range without using BW film.
Digital color capture actually gives you a lot more flexibility in creating B&W images. Dynamic range may be a bit less than B&W film, but I know of very few situations where this will be an issue. On the plus side you get to see the effects of tonal separation filters in real time and can tune it to your liking on your screen, rather than guess what a given filter might do, or keeping field notes on how to compensate for exposure in development etc.
Guy
The real "problem" with B&W is getting the image you've created on your monitor onto the paper in your printer. Epson's Advanced Black and White driver does okay but it doesn't give you a lot of knobs to turn and you have to remember to tell PS to not manage color for the printing process. Otherwise you get a color cast that you're not seeing on your screen. Friday I should receive ImagePrint RIP for my Epson 7800 which gives you tons of knobs and dials for tone mapping into B&W space.
ImagePrint is hellishly expensive and I would not have bought it for personal use. It is for our studio printing. Quad Tone makes a decent product that you can get into for under $100. They're at http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html.
By the way, last year I bought an EOS 3 that I carry around with Ilford Delta 100.
I agree with Guy's comments about digital b&w. The thing to keep in mind is that b&w photography - whether film or digital - requires thinking in b&w. Tonal contrast is critical; color is meaningless (for the most part). When you're selecting digital files to experiment with - or are out shooting - be aware that a very nice color image won't necessarily convert well to b&w if it's dominated by similar tones.