BW film or colour neg for scanning to print BW (again)

[roger a.]

Has anyone changed over from conventional fast BW film to colour

negative for scanning and printing Black and White? I know there have

been previous threads on this subject ? I?m particularly interested

to hear from anyone else who had standardised on one film for years

like I have who has made the change.

 

I have used HP5 and Perceptol 1:2 as my only film and developer for

about 20 years, but I have almost completely changed over from the

wet darkroom to scanning (Canoscan 4000) and printing on an Epson

1290 with black ink only. The prints are not the same as good wet

darkroom prints, but I like them better.

 

I occcasionally shoot Fuji Superia 400 colour neg for other people

(which prints nicely to 12?x18?), and I have converted a few shots to

BW for myself.. It?s sharp and fine grained (possibly better than

HP5 or Tri-x). I think with more time I can get the tones how I like

them.

 

I can add filtration later using the computer (Picture Window). This

gives me a genuine 400 ASA, where Tri-x or HP5 are about 200 ASA, or

effectively 80 ASA with an orange filter. This is an advantage over

XP2 and other chromogenic BW films. Alternatively I can shoot Reala

at 100 ASA for very fine grain.

 

Another advantage is that it?s getting increasingly difficult to get

BW chemicals without importing them.

 

What is everyone else doing?

[gwilburn]

Roger, I'm on a parallel path. I've been shooting mainly HP5+ and developing then scanning. Lately I've been using Fuji Superia 800 and scanning. I think I'll move to Superia 800 for all my street work and general photography. The conversion to B&W looks good to me and I like the option of going colour if the scene looks better in colour.

 

For portrait work, I want to experiment with Portra UC and the consumer Kodak Hi-Definition films.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Roger,

 

Ask this question to 3 people here and expect 5 different answers. Obviously most people generating a digital B&W file today are going to be starting with a colour image and converting by one of the numerous means available. The tonal control is immense.

 

Personally, I began the path to digital B&W by converting colour images; and I was rather pleased with the results. However, I decided to spend some time with traditional B&W emulsions, both to get a feel for what the media really looks like and to understand its characteristics.

 

I then thought I believed that the colour neg was the answer - reasonable exposure lattitude and tonal control through the colour channels. However, after a few rolls, what I realised was that, although it worked sometimes, I basically could not achieve the look of traditional B&W emulsions.

 

In the end - this has taken 2 years of consciously work on this dilemma - Ive chosen to stick with B&W film as the origin of a digital B&W image.

 

Im not a big fan of Tri-x and for me HP5 has its place but it isnt a look I want every time. If I can deal with the speed, Ilford Pan F50 is absolutely beautiful but (for what I photograph) Im beginning to become partial to Delta 400 for the purpose of scanning; its also a full speed B&W film. All of the above usually in Xtol 1:1. And the worst B&W emulsion I could recommend is TMX... great fine grain sructure but its far too tonally challenged.

 

regards

Craig / Beijing

[scott_eaton]

Conventional B/W film (other than perhaps the TMAX and Acros emulsions) has sufficient superior density range than color neg film to warrant experimenting with it. There is a unique tonality with classic B/W emulsions that is difficult to emulate with lower density range materials like C-41 films. Reala vs Plus-X perhaps being the most extreme case I can think of.

 

The problem is scanning, and under most circumstances modern color neg emulsions will walk all over conventional B/W films in this situation. Virtually every brand of scanner has different film tables and algorithms that may/may not do a decent job with classic B/W emulsions. If you're one of the lucky ones who've managed to figure this out, you can exploit the additional density range of classic emulsions.

 

A couple other things I have issues with. First, anybody that can't get 400 speed from TXT and HP5 with decent shadow detail needs to alter their processing procedure. I've worked for two local newspapers, and out of a staff of 30 journalists none had problem getting true speed from TX, HP5, APX 400, etc. Thier images also looked better than the majority of limp wristed zone system types unable to get full speed from HP5.

 

Next, there's this stuff called slide film - wonder if you've heard of it. The new Astia and Kodak E100G offer extremely high resolution scanning, and stronger density range comparisons to classic B/W films. If desaturating color neg films lacks the midtone sparkle of classic B/W film, don't discount slide film.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

As for Scott's comment:

<p>

<i>If desaturating color neg films lacks the midtone sparkle of classic B/W film, don't discount slide film.</i>

<p>

I'll completely concur!

<p>

If the exposure lattitude of Kodak EG100G and Asitia/Sensia are sufficient and can be controlled enough for you needs, these slide films produce absolutely stunning conversions to B&W.

[link]

<i>Has anyone changed over from conventional fast BW film to colour negative for

scanning and printing Black and White?</i><p>

 

I have. I just really like the ability to custom "color filter" the b&w version using the

chanel mixer in photoshop. What's really cool, is that you can also create a chanel

mixer adjustment layer, check the monochrome box (to make a b&w image) and then

set the layer itself to "luminosity". This leaves the image in color, but with the tonality

changes (through the use of colors) that you made for the b&w version.<p>

 

Here's an example:<p>

 

<center><img src="http://fujirangefinder.com/files/0441/

tacoma_forest_v2_.jpg" heigt=680></center> <center>Kodak portra 160 NC

converted to B&W

using the chanel mixer</center><p>

 

<center><img src="http://fujirangefinder.com/files/0441/

tacoma_forest_color.jpg"heigt=680></center> <center>Same as above setting the

chanel

mixer layer to luminosity</center>

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Lately I've been using Fuji Superia 800 and scanning. I think I'll move

to Superia 800 for all my street work and general photography.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

I've been shooting Fujipress 800 lately. Just bought a dozen rolls for $40 at Adorama

(and some grey-market Gold 100 for $1.69/roll). I shoot it at 400-640 and it has a nice

look for my purposes but rather obvious grain. I've been doing night street

photography with a normal lens wide open and it works for those photos, but many

might find that the grain might be intrusive for general use.

[roger a.]

Thanks for the comments everyone ? I?ll certainly carry on experimenting with colour neg for a while!