Advice for a Colour Film Photographer who wants to shoot B&W Film

Hi There

 

Through out my life I have been chiefly a 35mm colour photographer starting off on C41 and then graduating to E6. I have also used B&W film too but not as much.

 

I am formerly 35mm colour landscape photographer trying to be like Galen Rowell but based in the UK.

 

E6 photography is getting really expensive now and although I have a digital camera, I love the analogue photography process so I am now edging towards being totally B&W on the analogue side. The expense is made easier by the fact that I can still get films from Ilford of 24 exposures which keeps the cost down (I used to be able to get Tri-X 24 exposures in the UK too but now that is getting harder and I love Tri-X - it is so easy to work with). So, I will be trying Delta 400, 100 etc., and using my old B&W favourite HP4.

 

My question is does anyone have any good tips for getting decently exposed pictures in B&W? I am not in a position to develop my own film and have to rely on a lab and sometimes the results can be variable. Therefore, exposure and filtration need to come together I suppose to make every shot count with decent, balanced exposures. I have used B&W in the past for photographs of my children as they have grown up and the odd scenic and the results have been very rewarding.

 

The other factor of B&W photography is one of the 'inner eye'. As a colour photographer I know what I am looking for given the materials I am using and how to control them. Sometimes the colours make the photo - not the subject (do you see what I mean?).

 

But what are the rules (if any) for B&W scenic photography? To me, the lack of colour means that there is more emphasis on content or graphic quality Have I got this right?

 

In short, how does a B&W photographer think?

 

Many thanks!

The one small tip - consider contrast vs. color. When I was working at photography frequently using films alternately on the same shoot, I used a B&W viewing filter. Tiffen still makes one.

...I used a B&W viewing filter. Tiffen still makes one.

 

B&H Photo sells it for $44.10 - see:

 

tiffen b&w viewing filter | B&H Photo Video

 

OUCH. I'll pass. I've shot so much B&W, I can almost see in B&W LOL.

I've shot so much B&W, I can almost see in B&W LOL.

Yes, as have I and on a good day...

Just the best brief tip I could think of with or without the filter. ;)

You can find blue filters on Ebay for far less than $44. I have had one since a teen. Bill

I took one course in photography and the teacher had a strong bias saying that color was just a way to cover up bad photography. I use Ilford most of the time but when I use Tmax what a difference. But I also find that photoshop etc makes up for a lot in improving the differences.

For landscape, my one big tip would be to ditch 35mm and move up a format to at least 645.

 

I like FP4plus as an all-round film that's easy to print and process.

T-max 100 has finer grain, but the tone curve can be a bit tricky unless you use Tmax developer with it.

 

I bought a so-called B&W viewing filter when I was a student. All I got was a deep brown bit of theatre gel. Complete waste of time. Although it certainly didn't cost 30 quid back then!

Not a fan of digital, but one use for one here is to select the black & white mode if it has one and preview the scene with that. Also it's a good way to test color filter effects on photo as well.

I was going to mention that the poster stated that he does not process his own film so he needs advice in that light

buy some film n start experimenting.

 

developing your own is very easy n requires very little equipment. you'll need a daylight tank, a couple reels and a few chemicals. you can load the tank in a closet.

 

scan the negatives, photoshop them n print m at wallgreens. otherwise start a small darkroom in your kitchen n print at night.

Edited August 19, 2018 by paul ron

I shoot medium format 120 Tmax 100. People say Delta 100 is similar although I have no personal knowledge. I send my film out to a pro developer who processes it in Xtol. I like Tmax for it's fine grain, nice tonal gradation and ability to scan easily. If you're shooting with skies, I'd get an orange filter to darken them; red filter for dark dramatic skies. I use a tripod for all of my shots. I use an Epson V600 for scanning (flat) with its Epsonscan software and do post processing in Lightroom or PS ELements.

 

Here are some samples.

BW Film - MF

But what are the rules (if any) for B&W scenic photography? To me, the lack of colour means that there is more emphasis on content or graphic quality Have I got this right?

 

In short, how does a B&W photographer think?

 

 

Good metering - to avoid pure white highlights and pitch black shadows, both of which might have no subject detail within them to work with. Some B&W films are naturally contrasty, I believe Fomopan is such a film, I have rolls of it but haven't used it yet because my preferences are FP4 and Delta 100. With the Fomopan I will experiment to see if I like it

 

But metering is very important, you can meter the whole scene bit by bit and calculate an average setting, or you can meter a main subject and go with that one exposure setting, and of course the exposure of the other subject matter in the scene will be a bit off, and that means there may be some loss of detail in highlights and shadows

 

With color, you strive for correct exposure and true colors. With black and white, you strive for correct exposure and a good range of grey tones in between anything that might be black in the scene, like a badly burnt tree from a bushfire, and anything white like a very bright cloud in the sky on a sunny day

 

It's best if you know your film and what it's capable of producing from various meter settings without going outside the specs of the film

One advantage of using black and white is you can alter development times to change the various tonal qualities, or zones, in the negative. With color, if you have a good exposure for the darks in a scene, the highlights may be blown out. If you change the exposure so the highlights now have good exposure, the darks will be pure black with no tones. With black and white if you have good exposure for the darks in a scene but the highlights will be blown out you expose for the shadows but give minus 25 to 50 percent less development time to the film to bring the highlights into a good tonal range. Easy-peasy if you are using large format.

 

The Zone system, as it is called, is easy to understand: What is the Zone System?

If you REALLY need to have your film processed, your best bet is to locate a lab and ask them about which film you should use and they may even be able to help you with the correct EI for their processing line. Under exposure can be death in B&W so you need to work with the lab to match your exposures, under different situations, with their process. They may not customize much for your rolls.

 

At the same time, don't write off processing your own. It's easy, cheap, and allows to customizing the processing for different rolls and different film stock. After loading the film into a tank, the processing can be done in any bathroom or kitchen. Then, you can send the processed film to be scanned or proofed. As you get better, you will be able to determine which shots you like from the negs and only have those printed.

When I was young and could only afford black and white, my father did pretty much only slides.

 

Slides are (still) much cheaper than prints, if you get prints (sometimes double) from each frame.

 

But now, it is easy to get C41 film scanned, and not printed, so cheaper than E6.

 

But otherwise, I just always shot my black and white in the usual way.

 

I never (until very recently) had any of those fun filters like yellow (to make the sky dark).

My one, dear-to-my-heart, B&W film is Ilford XP2. It has a creamy appearance from the dye-clouds (it's a C41 chromogenic film) as opposed to 'grain'. It also has the ability to make printable images at an incredible range of ISOs without any processing adjustments.

 

Otherwise, in the last days before digital, I shot mostly in color-negative and then adjusted for B&W prints (some color negative films worked better than other for this because of masking and such)..

Ilford XP2

An extremely interesting and valuable film, particularly for use in cranky old cameras wielded by similar individuals! :D

After a lot of years shooting monochrome, which was what I could afford to use and to self process, I was finally making a decent wage and could buy and shoot as much slide film (within reason) as I cared to. Darn near killed my photography, and it took me a while to figure out - I do enjoy the color, but when I get a really decent Monochrome, it is a bit special to me.

I used a few rolls of the Ilford XP2 when local minilabs were available. The knothead running at one of the nearby Wal Mart swore they couldn't process it although the C41 marking was clearly visible. Took the roll to a different store and the negatives were great. Some labs would produce peach colored prints, but others had the proper paper to give black & white. I preferred to print them in my own darkroom. The Ilford XP2, in my experience, seemed easier to print than any of Kodak's chromogenic black & white.

For those who don't have facilities to process conventional black & white, the Ilford XP2 is a good option.

I used a few rolls of the Ilford XP2 when local minilabs were available.... ...Some labs would produce peach colored prints, but others had the proper paper to give black & white. I preferred to print them in my own darkroom....

 

What IS the proper B&W paper to print these negs on? Eventually, I'll set up another darkroom, and I'd like to try the film/printing out. Thanks.

I was thinking of a paper that used same process as color paper but produced black & white images. I don't think it's made any longer. If setting up a darkroom you can use your current black & white paper. I most use Ilford Multigrade IV. I hope this helps.

yes, if you don't have a darkroom enough to develop rolls of black and white film, XP2 is a good choice.

 

There are enough C41 labs around, and the price is reasonable.

 

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1909/product_id/703/

 

XP2 doesn't have the orange mask of usual C41 films, including the Kodak

black and white C41 films. It should still be able to print with the usual C41

printers, but with different filtering.

 

For prints on black and white paper, the low gamma, usual for C41 films, likely

means that variable contrast paper, maybe with the filter for grade 3.5 or so.

(The gamma is about 0.5, so select the appropriate filter for that.)

 

As usual for C41 films, the low gamma allows for a large exposure latitude.

 

Ilford suggests ISO values from 50 to 800 without change in development time.

Note that this also means that it is difficult to blow out the highlights.

(Unless you actually expose at EI 50, in which case it is, but then hard to lose

the shadow detail.)

 

It should also scan well with the usual scanners.

 

But if you really want to get into using black and white film, developing it yourself

isn't hard, and you don't even need a darkroom. A changing bag and film tank,

in addition to the chemistry, is all you need.

My question is does anyone have any good tips for getting decently exposed pictures in B&W?

 

Apart from the suggestions on film already given, at the core since you're used to shooting slides, you're probably already perfectly OK with exposing correctly. Slide film is a lot more touchy when it comes to exposure errors.

As for the film: XP2 is indeed a very nice option. That said, developing at home isn't hard, does not require a dark room (as many think) and it adds a level of satisfaction of having crafted the image oneself. It's worth considering, as a "next challenge".

 

The other factor of B&W photography is one of the 'inner eye'. As a colour photographer I know what I am looking for given the materials I am using and how to control them. Sometimes the colours make the photo - not the subject (do you see what I mean?).

 

But what are the rules (if any) for B&W scenic photography? To me, the lack of colour means that there is more emphasis on content or graphic quality Have I got this right?

 

In fact, this is the key reason why I once started with B&W film - to better train that pre-visualisation on how a scene will render in B&W. I guess there are no hard and clear rules, but to me there are some clear differences in "seeing in colour" and "seeing monochromatic"; in the monochromatic you have to be aware of tonality. Since colours tend to look different enough, it can be hard to understand that they'll end up being a similar grey. Take a tomato plant. In colour, you get the green leaves clearly distinct from the red tomatoes. But in B&W, the red and the green end up a very similar shade of grey, unless you use a filter.

Without colour, another thing that seems more apparent are textures, and differences in textures. Which indeed leads (in a way) to B&W being more graphic normally. I don't know if it is really more emphasis on the content, but without colour, especially for landscape/nature, you do need to be more aware about the composition - a nice field of spring flowers makes a lovely colour image, but in B&W it won't do much.

 

That all said, it comes automatically after a while. Get started, maybe start shooting without filters first to understand how colours pan out, and then a bit later add a yellow or orange filter to your kit.

 

 

An extremely interesting and valuable film, particularly for use in cranky old cameras wielded by similar individuals! :D

After a lot of years shooting monochrome, which was what I could afford to use and to self process, I was finally making a decent wage and could buy and shoot as much slide film (within reason) as I cared to. Darn near killed my photography, and it took me a while to figure out - I do enjoy the color, but when I get a really decent Monochrome, it is a bit special to me.

 

When I was young, it was black and white, as that is what I could afford. Color was much more expensive than today.

( I remember when I started in 1967, age 10, that black and white reprints were $0.07 and color $0.22.)

 

In college, I could afford slides, and mostly did that. I have lots of slides from dorm life, memories for my

classmates that most others don't have.

 

I also did some pages for my college yearbook, which required black and white. I had a 50 foot roll of Tri-X to

do that, and a little more left after the yearbook was done. The last roll sat in the camera

(Canon VI) for 30 years, before my father found it, and I developed it (in Diafine).

 

Page House a long time ago | Facebook

 

Monochrome is special in a certain way, and it is especially interesting from days long ago.

(I have negatives back to 5th grade.)

 

I did yearbook photography in 7th and 8th grade, too:

 

 

 

 

Is 8th grade P.E. class. It seems strange now that I would have brought a camera out to P.E. class.

(It looks like soccer practice. Maybe not as hard to do with a camera as flag football.

Usually I had a Canon VI for these.)

 

I never especially got into art photography. (That is, fine arts.)

 

Even for scenic (vacation) pictures, I never tried any of the fun artistic tricks that one might do.

Just a good representation of the actual scenery.

 

For me, a lot of it was (and is) the actual mechanics of doing it, especially in

darkroom work. (I did my own darkroom work for all the yearbook photography.)

I started in 1967, age 10, that black and white reprints were $0.07 and color $0.22.)

I was a few years ahead of you - dam', I'm getting old! I started at ten or so, but it was 1954. Did the yearbook in HS as well. One great thing for many of us - photography can be lifelong!

Funny that.

Did the yearbook thing as well....

Still have some of the actual prints I took from those days.

Some of one of my favorite teachers around here somewhere.

She is 72 now and still teaching.

Wired the darkroom in 11th grade but never got to develop any film in it.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Moving On