Any advantage of B&W

[mike_chalmers]

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>I shoot medium format, 99% of the time on Portra. I've shot some B&W in the past but never had as good results as converting the portra in post.<br>

My workflow is shooting > lab processes film (they know how I like and do a great job) > I scan myself with as much dynamic range as possible > I colour in Photoshop and do B&W conversion at this stage.<br>

If I know I'm intending on black and white, I shoot with this in mind and use light differently but shoot it in colour.<br>

I still have some TRI-X that's been in my bag for a while but I'm never inclined to use it - I always think I'll get better (and more flexible) results from Portra. <br>

So, my question is - is there any advantage to shooting straight B&W and under what circumstances? I shoot ~portraits 99% of the time.<br>

Totally happy to be shown my ignorance on this topic as I'm sure there's something I'm missing - and would love to put the TRI-X to work!</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>C41 is the process for color films, 1 developer and a narrow range of times, 3 minutes ± 10% for over/under development.<br>

B&W has a wide availability of developers that produce different tonal effects with different films.<br>

B&W is easy to process your self at home.<br>

Shoot a roll of B&W bracketing each subject 2/3 stop either side of metered in 1/3 stop increments and have the lab process it normally. Examine the frames and choose the best as your EI for future rolls. When scanning B&W set the scan software to flat with ICE off then adjust in post processing.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Provided it is processed correctly and kept under the right conditions, B&W film will not change so much in archive. Color and C/N films stand a good chance of simply fading away in an astonishingly short time (Google™ for <a href="http://www.wilhelm-research.com/">Wilhelm Imaging Research</a>).<br>

Film is no more and no less "archival" in general than digital, if you store each in the particular ways necessary to insure persistence. So film of any kind really shares with digital the motif from the <em>German Requiem</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>all flesh is like the grass</p>

</blockquote>

 

[peterbcarter]

<p>It all depends on what you want. If you like your results.....fine look no further. Some people, for similar reasons, prefer B&W from a digital. Both have a distinct feel.</p>

<p>But like Charles alluded to, native B&W processing is a different fish with a multitude of choices all effecting the outcome. In true B&W filters can have a pronounced effect on tones that cannot be experienced in colour. What I do in developing has reduced my post work to spot removal and levels; all photo manipulation is done chemically and optically before the shutter fire.</p>

<p>My opinion is there is no colour photograph that couldn't be done better in B&W.</p>

<p>How is this.....</p>

<p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5642/22688512449_1cefd47f5b_z_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Nikon F100, Sigma 105 OS MACRO, Orwo N74+,MCAT 1:1:150<br />, CYAN Filter, V700 Wet mount</p>

<p>Aside from light spotting, this is right out of the camera and into the scanner. It would take a lot of work (if possible) from a c-41 film. Also the less you manipulate your image in post, the less detail you lose.</p>

<p>So..... I have lots of C-41 film I just don't use.</p>

 

[glen_h]

<p>One question is to compare Porta against XP-2. That is, two C-41 films. With Portra, you can do some filtering after scanning. Both Portra and XP-2 give dye clouds instead of silver grains.</p>

<p>Some people like the look of the grain, even if it is fine enough that you don't really see it, from silver based negatives. </p>

<p>Otherwise, Portra costs more, but not that much more. Labs that develop Tri-X are harder to find than C-41 labs, but it is easier to do yourself. If you do find a lab to do Tri-X, they might charge more than for C-41, maybe enough to make the total price the same.</p>

<p>Try one roll of �Tri-X again, just to remind yourself of what it looks like. But otherwise I suspect that you are right, that for what you do, Portra is the best choice.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Main advantage of B&W film is that it lends itself to wet darkroom printing. - Some dedicated papers to print B&W from color negatives might have existed some day but most likely in less grades and at a significantly higher price.<br>

I did like the easier home processing of B&W film, but if you are happy with your workflow: Stick to it! <- Most important rule in photography. <br>

I didn't scan enough to make up my mind about the dust removal options for silverless films. - You'll lack them with Tri-X.</p>

[rossb]

<p>For me I use B/W film as I can develop at home. There are a lot of film and developers to choose from and experiment with. Overall the cost is lower then color, lab, scans and such. It is your own work which to me is nice.<br>

But if shooting color and converting works for you then it works. </p>

<p> </p>

[euangray]

<p>If you want to use traditional black and white film, you may find it necessary to develop this yourself at home. That isn't particularly difficult, but if you can't be bothered getting into that part of it, you may struggle to find a suitable lab.</p>

<p>A very convenient film that seems closer to your needs would be Ilford XP2, as mentioned by Glen H. XP2 is very easy to scan since you can use infrared dust and scratch removal, which isn't possible on traditional b/w films. XP2 actually scans very well indeed. If you're sending out to a lab and then scanning and printing digitally, XP2 is probably your friend. It is perhaps less useful if you are making prints in a wet darkroom.</p>

<p>FWIW, I like XP2 in 35mm, largely for the film's immense flexibility and the lack of intrusive grain at a useful speed. If I'm not concerned with grain for whatever I'm shooting, HP5 is always a good choice. In medium format on my Bronica SQ-A I am less keen on XP2 - the grain of HP5 is not intrusive in that format unless you want it to be and the fiddling about with C41 home development, although not difficult, is rather less convenient that normal b/w work for in this case not much great advantage. I use colour film too so I have the necessities for C41 home development anyway.</p>

<p>In my view, and of course it is subjective, medium format XP2 can look a little flat and sterile. That said, everyone's taste and need is different. I would suggest you try a roll or two of XP2 and send it out to your lab for developing, it's the same colour film process. See how you like it. But don't be afraid of developing your own silver b/w film, it isn't difficult or expensive.</p>

[euangray]

<p>ross b - I'd take issue with b/w being necessarily cheaper than colour.</p>

<p>Obviously if you send out for development it will cost either way, but traditional b/w development is these days by its nature more specialist and therefore expensive. C41 uses a single standard chemistry for all films and an automated process which doesn't require specialist labour, and is therefore cheaper.</p>

<p>Doing it at home, at least in the UK and with British prices, C41 colour development using a Fuji Hunt five litre kit works out marginally cheaper than traditional b/w with Ilfosol or DD-X, although there's not much in it. The Fuji kit costs about £50, but can develop eighty rolls of film. This costs less than the volume of Ilfosol needed to develop eighty rolls of b/w film.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>If you buy the chemistry, do it at home, and don't count the cost for your time, then black and white is cheaper. (That is, that you could have been doing other money making work at that time.) If you send it out, I would not be surprised for black and white to cost more. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my view, and of course it is subjective, medium format XP2 can look a little flat and sterile.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>XP-2 has a low gamma, like other C-41 films. I believe it doesn't have the orange mask that color C41 and Kodak's (now discontinued) BW400CN does. With the right filtering, it should still print on color negative paper. It should also print on black and white paper, but you will need a grade 3 or 4, or appropriate filtering with a variable contrast paper. <br>

<br>

The low gamma is what allows for the large exposure latitude of C41 films. Ilford suggests that you can use XP-2 from EI 50 to 800 with normal development. (If you send it out, they usually charge more for other than normal development.) </p>

<p>But as for Portra vs. XP2, it is hard to say. Cost is about the same, and you can always scan, and convert to black and white.</p>

[mark_tate]

<p>If you are happy with the results you are getting then that is all that really matters.<br>

I personally have never been one to do it that way, if I want B&W photos I use B&W film. If I want colour I use colour film, mainly Ektar100. <br>

I detest C41 B&W films TBH, to me they just look bad and lack luster. <br>

One thing to keep in mind though is that B&W films are much higher resolution than colour film, about the highest resolution colour film you can get now is Kodak Ektar 100 at around 150 LP/mm, slide film is around 170 LP/mm. Most B&W films are around 220 LP/mm with many films now getting 400 LP/mm and with Adox CMS20 that can get up to 800LP/mm. <br>

There are other things to consider as well, if you want your films to be still around in 100 years then a silver based B&W is the only way to go. <br>

With B&W films you really do need to do your own processing, there are just way to many process variables that can have drastic affects on the final negative. With C41 there are no process variables at all that can change the final image in a positive way, it is either right or it is wrong, if your lab is telling you at any time they are push or pull processing C41 they are lying. <br>

Many things you need to consider, what ever makes you the happiest is the best option. </p>

[euangray]

<p>That's the thing, though - I do process all my film at home whether C41 or b/w. For me, photography is a hobby and so I do not put a cash value on the time it takes.</p>

<p>Developing C41 (usually) takes longer. The minimum process time is about thirty minutes and you have to heat everything up before then, but some b/w processes can be lengthy too. There is also a bit more clean-up than with b/w. However, from a strict cost-of-materials point of view then, and depending on your favoured b/w developer, C41 is marginally cheaper.</p>

<p>Strange but true. The idea that developing C41 film at home is somehow fiendishly difficult or prohibitively expensive really needs to die, because it simply isn't true. In many ways it's actually easier than b/w because there are no variables. Although I haven't (yet) tried it, home development of E6 would be more expensive than either C41 or b/w, but still much cheaper than sending out, assuming you can find anywhere that still does it and assuming you do enough of it to get value from the chemical kits.</p>

<p>Time is not money for the hobbyist, but it is for the professional - which is why almost all professional photography is now digital. Film versus digital is where the cost difference is, not colour film versus b/w film.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I was going to disagree that C41 is cheaper than black and white, but obviously it must be for large labs. If you buy chemistry by the gallon, it might not be so expensive.</p>

<p>But in smaller quantities, and if you can't use it fast enough, it is pretty expensive. </p>

<p>When I was in college (about 40 years ago) I used two boxes of Unicolor quart E6, eight 36 exposure rolls each. I could mix up enough for two rolls from the bottled concentrates when I had two rolls ready. But it is harder to find the small kits now. Kits with powder, you have to mix it all, and then you have a limited time to use it.</p>

<p>It is pretty hard to beat the cost of either Diafine or HC-110 per roll. A 1L bottle of HC-110 does about 125 rolls for about $30. Then there is rapid fixer, which might cost even more per roll. </p>

[euangray]

<p>Actually that raises another point about home C41, and without wishing to sound like I'm being paid by Fuji here (I'm not) it is something of a misconception that mixed C41 chemicals don't last. In fact they do, if you look after them.</p>

<p>I buy the five litre Fuji Hunt X-Press kit. It develops up to eighty rolls, which for a hobbyist is a lot of shooting. I mix everything in full, storing the bleach, fixer and stabiliser in five litre plastic bottles previously used for car screenwash. These get stored under the bench, they aren't particularly sensitive to light or temperature. The developer goes in five one litre plastic mineral water bottles, which after filling are squeezed to exclude air then closed tightly and kept in my film fridge at about 10 Celsius. The litre batches are used sequentially, each one being good for about 16 rolls of film. I find they easily last seven or eight months. The bleach, fixer and stabiliser will last much longer than this and indeed will process two to three times the amount of film five litres of developer will.</p>

<p>Part of the misconception possibly arises because of the "blix" kits you can buy but should avoid like the plague - these really do not last long because bleach and fixer destroy each other rapidly.</p>

<p>So getting back to the OP's point, there is an advantage in b/w - it's not hard to develop at home and as others have pointed out the negatives will last for centuries. But in counter to that, there is C41 b/w film which matches his practice of using a lab for development. You can also say about XP2 or indeed any other C41 film that an inherent advantage is that you can completely change the exposure regime from frame to frame because the development process never changes - you can shoot half the roll at 200, quarter at 100 and the rest at 400, it's all developed the same way. You can't do that with any silver b/w film.</p>

<p>As for labs and costs, the reason b/w is expensive is that it does require an element of experience and judgement to develop it. C41 was deliberately designed to be operated as a single standard procedure with no variation, something more or less any barely trained store employee could do. That's easy to keep going now, whereas b/w needs people who actually do know what they're doing.</p>

<p>And that also may be of concern to the OP. Finding labs that can process silver b/w is not so easy these days, so if he doesn't want to develop his own - and learn how to do it properly - he could do a lot worse than consider using XP2 and sending it to his lab that can process C41. It might not be as nice in some ways as a "real" b/w film, but it isn't going to be any worse than converting colour film to monochrome.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I bought a C41 powder kit, but haven't opened it yet. I plan to use it for some films that I can't do elsewhere. I have some rolls of C116 that were supposed to have been kept cold before I bought them, and I keep them cold. No labs I know of will do that. I also have some C126, also kept cold. Some labs that do 35mm should be able to do 126. There is a nearby lab that will do 35mm or 120 C41 for $7.50/roll, develop only. </p>

<p>But at the rate I go, it could take me years to use a quart kit for C41. Glass bottles might keep it, if the lids seal well enough. </p>

<p>Since blix is less critical, one might get away with mixing only part of the powder bag. </p>

<p>Note that converting color film to monochrome allows one to do color filtering along with the conversion. You can get the effect of a yellow or orange or red filter, that you didn't use with the camera. If you don't plan to do that, then XP2 is probably a better choice. </p>

[mark_tate]

<p>Who ever said that C-41 chems do not keep, fact is it does keep rather well and better than most B&W developers. I have used mixed developer that is six months old with no problems or ill effects. Given I mix all my chems with Demineralized and STAGNANT water. <br>

I have a small batch of fresh mix that I am letting age for 12 months just to get an idea of its useful life, will be 12 months in Feb 2017. <br>

As for the cost well that can depend on your demographic as to weather it is worth it or not, for me it certainly is since I am in the land of empty, Australia. The few labs that are around are a long way from me and a rip off in price. There are still a few minilabs around but they only do 35mm and mainly shoot in 4x5 LF for colour. </p>

[eugen_mezei]

<p>Mark, what is stagnant water?</p>