Medium Format Black and White methods

I would like to work on my B/W photography, but was interested in

general opinions.

Has anyone did a comparison of images captured on B/W film v. images

captured on color film and converted to B/W through processing?

I know it sounds trivial, but I was thinking that good color film

would have a wider dynamic range that would translate into more

shades of gray in B/W images. I am sorry, I do not know much of the

technical specifics with all the different films and emulsions.

Has anyone tried this approach?

On what paper are you talking about?Panalure is very contrasty!What do you mean converted in processing?B&W films are silver based,most color films are dye based.

For ease, try the Ilford XP2+ or Kodak Portra B/W. They both can be process

in C41 for almost instant results and work well with in camera filtration. Your

results will be better though when using regular B/W film for B/W prints...

More shades of grey? No, I don't think so.<br>The one major thing that affects the tonality of B&W is the fineness and number of grains per unit area of film, and generally that means using a slower film, or a larger format.<p>If your negative has a lower contrast in the first place, which it must have to encompass a wider subject brightness range, then that means you'll most likely have to increase the contrast at the printing stage.<br>This actually increases the coarseness of tone, in my estimation, because harder paper grades have a shorter linear region in their characteristic curve.<p>The same goes for digital scanning. If you start off with a low contrast scan, and with a fixed number of bits to represent the grey levels, then anything you do to increase the contrast of the image will actually involve throwing away bits, and hence reducing the number of shades of grey that you have.

I've shot tons of b&w film and have done a fair amount of converting color to

b&w digitally. My personal opinion is that while you potentially have more

options at the post-production stage with converting color to b&w digitally, the

overall quality of the print (assuming you're outputting to a print) isn't going to

be as good. To me, printing a Tri-X/HC-110 negative on the FB paper I

happen to be most keen on at any given time is going to give me a better final

product than doing something digitally and outputting it on my Epson. Of

course, some people may find they get better digital prints than traditional

prints, but for me silver prints still have a big edge on digital prints for b&w.

<p>

My suggestion to you would be to work on your traditional b&w skills and then

give the color-b&w thing a shot. It seems to me that good darkroom skills help

a lot when you're doing most other things like that.

David makes a good point. Personally I feel that there is a nice quality to a true B/W print that you don't get with a conversion. I'm hard pressed to describe it, but the whole image just seems well.....smoother. There is just a nice flow to the tones. Plus every B/W film has it's own feel and look. You don't really get that when you are converting a color image.

If you're talking about digital processing of color to black and

white in Photoshop, then I can comment. I typically shoot

medium format color transparencies and scan them for output

both on a LightJet and for conversion to black and white.

 

First of all, my understanding is that black and white film will

yield a much wider dynamic range than color transparencies

and even color negs. You can also control the density range by

using the zone system and using push/pull processing. With

color films you're pretty much relegated to using neutral density

grads to try to control contrast ranges. This often doesn't work

depending on where your contrast occurs.

 

Many people who print digital color are combining images in

Photoshop to control the contrast range. They will expose both

for the highlights and shadows and combine the images in

Photoshop to create an evenly balanced final image. If you are

skilled in Photoshop this is a good way to control the contrast

range.

 

I print my black and white on quadtone Epson inkjet printers

using both the Woolf curves and the Piezography software. Both

methods yield fine results. You can read more about this

software at: www.piezography.com. The prints resemble long

scale platinum/palladium prints. They don't look like typical

black and white fiber prints because of the matte texture of the

papers, but they do print very nicely albeit differently from what

you may be used to.

<I>I was thinking that good color film would have a wider dynamic range that would translate into more shades of gray in B/W images</i><P>Your concept is correct, just terminology being a bit off. Here's the real explanation devoid of the typical religious undertones and silly explanations regarding grain shape, etc.<P>Yes, color neg films have a much larger dynamic range than typical B/W films, but classic B/W films have a much larger DENSITY range. Density range is the measurement of clear film stain vs the densest area of the film that can be developed under typical processing. Color neg film, or the chromogenics are weak in this area, but have the advantage of massive exposure lattitude. Classic B/W films and most slide films have very strong density range, which accounts for the sparkle of fine art Tri-X prints and intense detail of colors in slide films.<P>Color neg and the chromogenics essentially compress more information into a smaller bucket while conventional B/W and slide films compress less information into a bigger bucket. Depends on your application if you need a bigger bucket (lots of density range), or simply want to dump a lot of water (color neg films). <P>In general, the appeal of most fine art B/W images is the long density range of both classic films like Tri-X coupled with the long density range of fiber based paper. If your scene lacks a lot of dynamic range, desaturating color neg films will result in a very murky image. You can of course digitally add contrast or play with the histogram, but you simply can't add density information that isn't there.<P>Given a 1:1 scene comparison the film with the greatest density range without blowing out highlights or losing shadow detail will generally produce the better image. Could be color neg or classic B/W depending on the environment. This also translates heavily into the digital realm being that desaturation is so easy.<P>My advice on this is more of a compromise. Color print films are too brutally convenient to process and scan to ignore, and I've never had a complaint about a panalure print from a color neg. Still, the density range part of the equation can't be ignored, and desaturated Reala doesn't quite look like HP5. This where slide films come into play because they provide both convenient commercial processing (E-6) and have a stronger density range than color neg films. Desaturated slides are what you see mostly in terms fashion type photography in magazines or displays.

For one thing, monochrome negatives are more archival than color negs or slides. 20-year-old color negs fade, while 100-year-old monochrome materials can still be used for printing if properly handled.

Thanks all.

I should have been a bit more clear insomuch as I typically use Fujichrome Velvia 50 (RVP) and have been quite please with the results on a 6x4.5 camera. I also spend time working on digital images scanned using photographic editors like Photoshop. I have found that in digital IMHO you will get a better B/W photograph if you do not use the in-camera conversion to B/W, but take a color photograph and then convert to B/W using channels mixing. Sometimes desaturation will work, but it appears to often be a bit more course in the conversion.

 

I will purchase some Tri-X and give it a go in the traditional sense.

 

Regards,

The main difference between an image captured on true black and white film and one produced by desturating a color image is in the tones that particular colors take. Tri-X is panchromatic film, which in theory means that it responds to all colors equally, and thus records what photoshop calls "luminance". However, this response is not completely linear, and thus certain colors appear lighter or darker than others and the film has a distinctive signiture, the "classic B&W look" that so many praise. When you desaturate an image in photoshop, on the other hand, you are numerically discarding all color information. This process gives the image tones a different feel than real black and white film. There is no objectively superior result, but I prefer the snap of Tri-X in most situations. Of course, you can play with the R G and B chanels of the image seperately to get all kinds of effects. Try looking at each chanel seperately and watch the tones to see what I mean.

<I>The main difference between an image captured on true black and white film and one produced by desturating a color image is in the tones that particular colors take.</i><P>While spectral response is different between various emulsions, it is NOT the main difference in terms of image characteristics between classic B/W films and color. "luminance" is also nothing more than a fancy description for density in a particular region of corresponding spectral response. Again, density range is the key. <P>If spectral response were the main difference between color and B/W films all I would have to do is add corrective filters to Fuji Superia 100 to make it look like Tri-X. Channel mixer is an *awesome* tool for nulling out the spectral differences between emulsions and customizing a certain look, but it can't replace density range.<P>Tri-X is not a true Panchromatic film, certainly not the newer versions, and aside from Xpan and a few other scientific materials, no popular B/W emulsion has flat spectral response.<P>Who here likes the look of TMY 400 over classic Tri-X? Again, the rather synthetic look of TMY compared to Tri-X is because TMY lacks the density range of Tri-X. TMX in 6x7 vs desaturated Velvia or Provia...hmm...I'm not sure TMX wins. Super fine grain, but where did all the density range go compared to Plus-X?<P>My Advice for Tim is my typical pro-experimentation and objective stance regarding any process. Provided you can do your own B/W processing I certainly support trying the classic B/W films, and especially the older, silver rich films like HP5 and Tri-X vs color desaturation. Then do your own evaluation. Scanning is also something I strongly recommend be handled personally when it comes to classic B/W films. My little Epson 1640 flatbed makes better B/W film scans that any high end dedicated film scanner I've tried.

OK guys, especially Scott, you have to help me with this:

 

I seem to have learned that TMX has less inherent density range than TX, but if you look at the datasheets from Kodak I can't see much difference (see attached file for both the old and the new flavors of both films)). It looks more like it is dependent on how you develop. Or am I missing something?

 

So if it is true (and please tell me when I'm wrong), that TMX can be developed to a similar density range as classic silver rich emulsions, then it should be possible to some 'sparkle' similar to TX out of it.

Here is the file with the <a href="http://www.photo.net/users/bernhard/TmaxTXDensity.jpg">density plots</a>.

I've experimented with the following:

Digitized shots printed monochrome at a colour lab, colour film printed monochrome on a colour machine, C41 process b/w (CN400 and XP2)printed on colour machine, C41 process b/w printed (CN400 and XP2)in a black and white lab, and black and white printed at a black and white lab. The results are that I now loathe printing my black and whites (whether C41 or true b/w film) on any thing other than real black and white paper. I don't print my own b/w (yet), however my friends work on my negs has blown me away. C41 b/w films can be printed in the dark room and yield good images if printed there rather than your colour lab. Digital shots (whether shot digitally or scanned negs) edited in photoshop yield an OK print, however the character of the film is missing, which is why there are plug ins in photoshop like "Grain Surgery" that add film grain back in. B/w film on b/w paper is where b/w starts to enter the realm of fine art and the results have truly converted me to learn to use the dark room to make my own prints. Hope this helps

Bernhard, Re: Density range/Dmax of TMX,

I use TMX in 4X5, D76 1:1 developer. TMX gets blamed for a lot of

things from thin negatives to blocked up highlights. A few mistakes

on my part have showed me how long and straight the TMX 'curve' is.

I also use HP5+ and like them both. ( not yet used the 'new' TMX I

still have a years supply) I like TMX esp for low light and pinhole

as reciprocity makes it faster than HP5 past 1-2 minutes exposure.

Also, contrast is _easier_ to control with TMX for the long exposures.

TMX too thin or blocked up highlights sounds like process control.

There are plenty of other reasons to prefer another film over TMX.

After two years of participating in photography websites, I've realized that there is nearly always a technical and aesthetic difference between a traditional B&W print and a desaturated color digital or color slide. The technical reasons are well discussed above. Aesthetically, the desaturated stuff is just missing somethng to the eye. I've found that even with my low-end equipment, a Tri-X, Pan F, or TMAX 100 negative printed on fiber-based paper scans much better, with finer resolution, than any color slide I've tried. I've also found fiber-base prints make better scans than RC prints.

Scott -

 

You mention you're getting best results for traditional B/W film from your Epson 1640 flatbed -- could you elaborate? Is this versus recent dedicated film scanners, and even for 35mm, or just larger formats? I'm in the throes of a scanner decision right now, so am keenly interested.

 

Cheers,

 

John