Film suggestions for b/w landscapes: C-41 or colour transparencies?

[paul_g2]

I will be shooting for 3 weeks this summer in the Canadian Rockies,

mostly landscapes. I am wondering what the best way to get good b/w

prints. I don't do my own developing. The choices are:

 

1) Shoot Ilford XP-2 or Kodak BW400CN; or

 

2) Shoot Velvia 50 and/or Provia and convert to bw in PS after

scanning.

 

It seems a shame to not to use the filters I have collected for bw

photography over the years, but I guess these effects can be

generated in PS. I will be using a Nikon Coolsvan V ED.

 

Thank you for your suggestions.

[ilkka_nissila]

In my limited experience, and judging from other people's work, I would choose Velvia and then convert to black and white using curves and/or channel mixer. This produces very nice results especially if you like contrast. If you want lower contrast prints then it may be better to use negative film. However, for nature generally I prefer slide over negative film. Check out the Scottish photog Colin Homes's work in Practical Photography magazine over the last few years. Magnificient results from 4x5 Velvia converted to black and white.

[discpad]

Paul, you didn't say what size film: 135, 120, 4x5 inch?

 

Also, give us a quick description of the lenses and filters you have, too!

 

Will you be using a tripod? If so, you can shoot slower films and stop down the lens into the "sweet spot" to change the depth-of-field and contrast... [And Yes, the contrast vs sharpness of a lens varies with aperture, since the MTF changes...]

[discpad]

Oh, and don't forget to bracket your exposures: You'll end up with, say, three good photos, and you'll pick the best to enlarge. Even if you do a simple 3-shot bracket (film is cheap!) at one stop under, spot-on, and one stop over, you can be surprised at what the film actually captures vs what you *think* the film captured.

 

Shooting a bracket is much more important than any of the films & methods you listed above.

 

----------

 

In fact, I'm a bit puzzled: Since you're an experienced B&W photographer, judging by your collection of folters for B&W you've accumulated, why not shoot real B&W film? Then, when you shoot your brackets, shoot a second bracket with a certain filter... And why not another with a second filter?

 

Like I said, film is cheap; but this sounds like a trip of a lifetime, so don't skimp!

[jtk]

Since you're limited by the need to use a lab, why not shoot your preferred B&W film and have it processed by a good lab? I agree with Ilkka otherwise, though I dislike Velvia generally due to its cartoonish way of rendering shadows. If you do use slide film Dan's advice to bracket becomes far more critically important than if you shot B&W.

 

With the Nikon V, everything will scan beautifully and easily except Velvia. If you shoot B&W silver, you'll need to scan the negs as slides, then invert in Photoshop...or use Vuescan and save a step. Vuescan allows more grain control if you tend to shoot/process grainy film as I do.

[jtk]

OOPS, you didn't include any conventional silver films in your options, for some reason. I hope you're not planning to trust your film to a minilab...they're getting worse, day by day.

 

Even if you work in a dusty space and feel you MUST use Nikon's Ice, therefore want to use a C41 B&W film, I strongly urge a genuinely professional lab, rather than a bogus "pro-am" minilab operation (Fuji, Noritsu etc). I find conventional silver film is easy to keep clean enough for minimal dust spotting with 4000ppi Nikon scans.

[mike_smith41]

If you are going to the expense of going with your camera equipment, why in the world wouldn't you shoot decent B&W film? Use Ilford panf+50 or Kodak plusx125 and send it to a pro lab for processing. You will be very, very glad you did over the other films you mentioned. You can't use ICE in scanning, but clean your film and holders and learn to dust spot in PS, it's not hard at all.

[paul_g2]

Thank you for your replies.

 

I will primarily be shooting in 35mm format using a Nikon FM3A (my wife gets the D70s), although a borrowed a baby Rolleiflex from a friend for the trip. I use Berlebach ash tripod with a RRS BH-40 ball head. We have a second lightweight Manfrotto 818B tripod. I use an assortment of manual focus Nikkor prime lenses (20mm f4 AI, 28mm f2.8 AI-S, 55mm f1.8 AI, 85mm f2 AI, and 135mm F2.8 AI) as well as a Nikkor AF 70-210mm F4.5-5.6 zoom. Despite my collection of 52mm colour filters, I have only been shooting b/w for about a year. I got them used on eBay as a set.

 

I sometimes shoot Ilford PanF 50 or Delta 3200 for low-light without flash, but I'm frustrated by not having control over the development process and high developing costs. Also, ICE won't work with conventional b/w films if I'm not mistaken.

 

What scans the best is my primary concern (conventional b/w negs, C-41 processed b/w negs, or colour transparencies), and price of film and developing is also a concern, as I plan on shooting a lot of film. I may shoot some of each. There may be certain subjects (macro, sunrises, sunsets) that call for colour and one always has the option of converting later in PS.

 

One of my primary questions is how conventional b/w negatives scan versus C-41 processed films like XP-2 and BW400CN. I have heard that BW400CN also has low contrast relative to other b/w films and colour transparencies. I have never shot XP-2. Your opinion versus BW400CN versus XP-2 would be appreciated.

 

I have a fair amount of experience of exposing colour transparencies (mostly Velvia) during my Ph.D. work and have learned to bracket and expose reasonably well through trial and error. I was usually taking pictures of rocks though. Black and white landscapes are relatively new subject matter for me. I would also like to hear the merits of shooting Velvia versus Provia. I have heard Velvia has more contrast with vivid reds, yellow, and greens, but can make caucasion skin look odd. Also, any comments on Velvia 50 versus 100 or 100F?

 

Thanks.

[eye-of-searle]

I have shot both XP-2 Super and the newer Kodak BW400CN. I definitely like XP-S super much better for it's smooth grain (or should I say almost complete lack of) and contrast. I shoot it mainly at 320 and sometimes at 250 for a little punched up contrast. XP-2 scans great on the Coolscan V and you get to use ICE. BW400CN scans pretty good as well but I find I have to do more post scanning adjustment with it in PS.

 

I have a good lab that will process the XP-2 and provide a CD for proofs for about $5. I use the CD to pick out the potential keeper and then scan the choosen negs.

 

XP-2 cannot match the complete tonal range and contrast of Traditional B&W but it does come pretty darn close. Others will disagree. But hey, that's what PS is for right? I have yet to be dissapointed with XP-2 Super.

 

Jim

[eye-of-searle]

BTW, My other favorite file to shoot and scan is Fuji Reala color. It's simply an amazing film that scans very well and is easily converted to B&W in PS. And cheap!

[mona_chrome]

Don't know xp-2, hate cn and why would you shoot chrome as an alternative? If you are

going to scan, don't put yourself in a corner with the limited range of chrome film. I shot

landscapes in about every conceivable weather situation last summer-over a month on the

road for a client-and shot all color negative film--Portra 160vc 4x5 and 160vc and 400vc

120 film. It converts great to black and white, has an incredible lattitude to get those skies

and land in the most contrasty of situations. I have shot color negative for almost everything

I have done over the last 7 years for personal and clients-big clients-and it is the best way to

go outdoors-whether you are going color or b/w--it's getting scanned after all, by you!

[lilly_w]

Paul, this is likely a departure from your intended plan and no disrespect to your treasurer...I would highly recommend purchasing a 'used', second Nikon film body. It sounds as though you'll be going through the film when not snoozing or dining. By all means afford yourself the small luxury of having the exact film loaded and reaching for it without a second thought of 'wishing' it were loaded...and if your FM3A has a hiccup? Sure you've got a D70 on-board but...honest-to-goodness black and white film we're talkin'! Or C-41 b/w. Have your lab process w/out printing in the interest of economy. Upon your return launch the 2nd film body if you so desire. Consider a couple rolls of Ilford FP4 Plus (ISO 125) rated at 64 or 100.

 

A fully functioning and respectable-looking FE2 can be had for a song (US$150); FE's and FG's for even less. I dislike 'torching' the last 4, 6, or 8 frames just to load the preferred film...or rewinding half a roll only to have to advance it back to the unexposed portion. I think you may even find the mornings / evenings more appropriate for color and the mid-day storms the ticket for b/w. There's a time and a place for frugality...three weeks in the Canadian Rockies strikes me as being neither. In any event, enjoy.

[wilfred_wong]

i'd use reala or provia. i don't think the contrast of velvia 50 is good for convert to B&W(difficult to pull shadow details).

[steve_swinehart]

Either shoot XP-2 or color negative film. The transparency films have an extremely poor dynamic range when compared with XP-2 or a color negative film. You'll be able to hold shadow & higlight detail under more conditions with XP-2 or color negative films. This is especially true if you're shooting at altitude where the sky / atmosphere becomes very clear with little haze or diffusion to soften the lighting, and the contrast ratios go waaay up.

[robert goldstein]

I like shooting Astia 100f and converting to B&W in Photoshop. This allows the luxury of applying colored "filters" after capture, rather than before, which is really a very powerful tool. I prefer Astia to Velvia and Provia, because of its lower contrast and wider lattitude.

[steve_swinehart]

You can apply filters in PS using color negative film also. The film gets reversed or inverted to a positive image - after that you can apply filters just like you do with transparency film since it's in RGB format.

[mona_chrome]

The use of channels to convert to black and white--and the ability to selectively mask the

process-really eliminates the need to apply "filters" in photoshop. But there is a point in that

applying a filter in the field will have a different effect than one applied in photoshop--you

are working with the real raw file out there, but it is really hard to mask for different filter, or

intensity,

effects in the field!

[g._armour_van_horn]

I'm with Lilly, buy another body. If I were out shooting with my F3 for any length of time I'd definitely have my FM along as well. (I'd have my F4 with me too, but I don't ever use it much, probably because my lens selection in MF is so much stronger.) Since your trip isn't until the summer, you can grab a couple of "user" bodies off eBay and test them in plenty of time before the trip. Remember that the FM still works when every battery has died, so it's an outstanding body to have in your kit even if you don't need the extra bodies to make switching film easier.

 

Incidentally, the main reason I don't use my FM more is that in the studio I really need the 100% viewfinder of the F3, so that's the body I always grab first. The secondary reason is that the MD-12 for the FM eats batteries a lot faster than the MD-4 on the F3, and I'm addicted to motor drives.

 

If I had the chance to spend that much time in the Rockies I'd buy another F3/MD-4, and have Astia, Provia, and Velvia loaded in the three bodies, but I shoot chromes exclusively. You could load one body with XP-2 and another with a traditional B&W emulsion, or load one with Provia and one with B&W.

 

Van

[scott_eaton]

<I>One of my primary questions is how conventional b/w negatives scan versus C-41 processed films like XP-2 and BW400CN</i><P>You will be using a tripod, right? Should I describe the quality difference between a high rez 100 speed slide film like Astia when scanned vs the bland, grainy, 400 speed B&W chromos? I can start by kicking the guy in the head telling you to shoot B&W conventional film and taking it to a "good lab". What ever the hell that is. By far the worst advice in this thread is to shoot classic B&W films and take them to a lab. Ignorant is more like it.<P>If your intent is to scan, and you know how to scan chromes, you're on the right track. You're just getting responses from B&W zealots who have no clue what a film scanner is, but are giving you advice to keep you in their club. <P>Shoot a slow speed slide film like Astia, Provia, or E100G, and desaturate them with channel mixer.<P>Sorry, but most of the quality landscape work on photo.net from desaturated chromes *blows away* the grainy and irritating 35 conventional B&W work. Matter of fact, I'll warn you right now you'll regret bringing small format conventional B&W film along. You'll soon get a few resopnoses to buy a monorail 4x5 and shoot Tmax 400. <P>Slow speed print film lacks the density range of slide film, so I woulnd't consider print film unless you need 400/800 speed, or possibly Reala under very contrasty conditions.

 

 

You get the point Paul.

[anthony_valvo]

For B&W landscape I like EFKE 25 in the Dr5 process (B&W slides). You get a slide for easy scanning with the tonal range of BW and super fine resolving power.

 

Get the film here: http://www.jandcphoto.com. and check out Dr5.com

 

Anthony