stephen_persky Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Leica has been renowned for its black and white work in the past using traditional Darkroom techniques. Now with a digital workflow, that I am revising. Should I really shoot Blck and white film anymore? There are some great plugins to photoshop for conversion of color to black and white, lke the silveroxide filters. Slide film is defianately more convienent than black and white for many reasons. 1) easier scanning2) you have color when you need it.3) easier preview with lightbox (no need to make contact sheets)4) easier and faster and more consitent develpment. I guess I have strong arguments for an all color slide workflow. What I am really asking is: Am I missing anything by shooting color slide or the sole purpose of black and white? I compose and shoot based on Black and White. I try to visualize black and white when I take a picture; however, color slide film is proving to be more economical and easier from a work flow persepctive. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve g Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 B&W is more convienent for me because I can develop it myself, quickly. I am a college student (that means i am awake weird hours) and so prolabs open 9-5 M-F and even the walmart and walmart-likes open 9-9 7 days a week dont cut it for me. It is also nice to know that if something is wrong with my film, it is my fault..I take others out of the equation (in my experience this has been a good thing). B&W is also FAR more economical for me because once I bulk roll it, it costs me under $1.50 per 24exp roll. Plus development is cheap, cheap, cheap when I do it myself in my bathroom dev-only darkroom or the schools full darkroom. Plus the cost of enlargements is a fraction of what anyone will charge to do it for me. There are also technique/artistic advantages for me to develop b&w myself, because I can manipulate the film in certain ways as far as push/pull. I like to do available light shooting, so pushing 400 film to 800 is nice, or using some 1600-3200 labelled films at speeds varying from 1600 up to 22500 is nice. Slides also require much more right-on exposure, much less exposure latitude than negative film, and especially b&w film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_kreithen1 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Yes, if you develop B&W yourself what you give up by using slide film is the ability to manipulate contrast and control. If you study the density curves published by manufacturers it becomes clear that slide film can record 5-6 stops whereas B&W film can record considerably more. If you use color negative film, you come closer to what B&W can do in this regard, but what you give up is acutance. Also, B&W, often being a single emulsion - not multi-layered like color films, can be sharper. In addition to all this, B&W is incredibly cheap if you do your own development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 If you include the digital post work as a factor, then C-41 colour would be the logical choice, namely NPZ. But I couldn�t imagine shooting the same stock over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_l Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 >>"Should we really shoot black and white film anymore?"<< you ask this question in the leica forum? brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Ron, I placed it as a category under film in the Leica forum. I appreciate the input of other people of similar equipment that I may be using. I cannot begin to understand how bitter you must be to even take the time to reply with such a rude comment. I guess that it true what they say about the internet. It is a place where people with no social skills to truly shine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 You're ignoring the archival qualities of traditional B&W film, properly processed. I have boxes of negatives and contact sheets well over 40 years old that are still perfectly good. I have some 11x14 B&W prints of whaling ships from the late 19th century century that I bought in New Bedford, Massachusettes back in the 1960's. They look fine! Every color negative, and most of the color slides that I have(except Kodachrome) more than 20 years old shows significant fading. If you want your grandchildren to view your photos there is a good reason to "be oldfashioned". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 These photos were shot in the mid 1960's and printed in 2002. (Leica photos!) http://renericard.org/portraitgallery/kaplan.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Very nice photo's AL. thanks for everyone's input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_l Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 HA! you think that was rude? believe me that was extremely civil compared to what i wanted to say to you for asking such a ridiculous question. shoot whatever you want to shoot. asking the members of a forum who have spent large sums of money on the best 35mm film cameras/lenses avaiable if "we should really shoot black and white film anymore?" is comical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 There is also another option that I'm playing with. After about 45 years in the darkroom, I want sun!, so I am using chromogenic film (TCN, XP-2, etc.) and having the film processed at a minilab with a CD rather than prints. I can then make digital prints at home directly from the CD. Before, you ask, yes! I do appreciate all the pluses about silver rich geletan prints, and have boxes of them, but I'm at a point in my life that I am not too concerned that my prints will last 300 years past me death. I enjoy making prints and giving them to friends. Most labs will also make a CD from standard silver B/W negatives as well, if you process them first. I am also using my little Oly C-5050 digital in B/W mode with a -2 contrast to do direct B/W from the camera (which I will post below this) and then make ink-jet prints. The attached photo is from Kodak TCN, from a CD, and adjusted for internet posting.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rellimkm Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Why don't you just skip film all together? Black and white film is a different animal than a desaturated image from a scan of a slide. But, if it works for YOU....go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 The church photo was taken on a very bright day with chromogenic film, minilab processed, and digitally printed. The following photo was taken with a digital camera that has a B/W option, taken on a dark, misty day, of a friend, and directly downloaded to the computer.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msitaraman Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 If you standardize choice of film and processing (either a really good lab, or a streamlined home darkroom routine), B&W can be cheap, fast and fabulous. You can't beat the tonal range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd frederick Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Last comment: I have not found conversion from color (negs or slides) to be a satisfactory for me as the way I'm doing it (described above). Film is very much something we should shoot! It's just that we have many options concerning what we can do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_ilomaki Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Stephen Yes, we should!!! Your point is well taken if all that is wanted is a magazine cover or an advertisement, but since most digital software has 255 shades of grey, this is a far cry from a properly exposed TRI X neg from a Leica or similar lens, or in the extreme, a large format protrait on an 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 neg. Yes, Photoshop can manipulate images in a way that can not be done in a darkroom, but ther has never been an equal, IMHO to a contact print on platinum or AZO. Different yes, but a substitute for, no. I have scanned a B&W image of a flower into Photoshop, coloured the petals palest pink, added just a touch of green to the stem and left the rest white, grey and black. I could not do that nearly as efectively or subtley in the darkroom, but it took one minute in Photoshop. Use them both. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Ron L., please don't be offended, but you're such a perfect example of why most of us look at a guy with a Leica and think "no brains" that you should simply tattoo it on your forehead. Along with a red dot, of course. Perfectly valid question. Modern transparency film is an impressive tool, especially some of the pushed emulsions. Experiment a bit, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsaxe Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Am I the only one who thinks there is a very subtle difference between lets say Tri-X and Digital converted to B&W. When shot outside in daylight, film has more softer tones and slight very pleasing grain . The combination of photoshop and digital media is just too perfect. I think it looses its soul. On the other hand in the studio for commercial work that perfection is just what one wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elek Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 The one great thing about B/W film is that each has its own definable characteristics. Sure, you can try to repicate it with digital, but why go through the effort when you can get the real deal? People use Tri-X, HP5, Plus-X, Pan F, TMax or whatever, largely because of the look. Working with b/w negatives is a snap. Once you get a feel for it, you can pretty much tell how a print will look by analyzing the negative. Color slide film can be a substitute. However, it has very little exposure latitude. It doesn't push or pull as well as b/w and a simple Photoshop conversion to grayscale isn't always accurate. As for processing, you're at the mercy of the processor. If they have rigid control over their chemicals and machines, then no problem. But if they don't pay close attention to temperature and exhaustion of the chemicals, then you won't get consistent results. And b/w negatives can last for decades. Color ... pretty good but you just never know. Some of my wonderful Agfachrome with their soft colors are rapidly becoming Sepiachromes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 I'm just finishing up seven or eight weeks of work, building my new B&W darkroom, after doing without for a year and a half in our new home; and this guy asks if we should shoot B&W? Please! Be reasonable! I plan to shoot nothing but B&W for a year! OK, 3 months? No kidding, the darkroom's operational now, even though I still want to build a print washing tray under the main sink. Oh, and a couple shelves. And a film drying cabinet. No time for more chit-chat, I'm gonna go buy a brick of Tri-X. No, maybe Delta 400. . . And I think I'll try out a new developer or two. Acufine? Maybe even Rodinal, my dad used to like that. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I would think a lot of it would depend on if you want to print traditionally. Otherwise, you can jimmy up color film in photoshop pretty well. But for me, though I am doing a lot of digital output, I still reserve certain shots for printing and I like the choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benni Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Maybe it's just me, but I find that by eliminating the option of having colour, I end up with better results. It's - for me - a bit like just taking one lens; that also frequently leads to better photographs for me. Maybe it helps (me) better to focus on what's important if a few variables, like colour or B&W and focal length, have already been fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 >>> Ron L , mar 08, 2004; 09:11 p.m. HA! you think that was rude? believe me that was extremely civil compared to what i wanted to say to you for asking such a ridiculous question. shoot whatever you want to shoot. asking the members of a forum who have spent large sums of money on the best 35mm film cameras/lenses avaiable if "we should really shoot black and white film anymore?" is comical. >>> Leica lenses also shine at colour, and I don't believe I have personally shot more than a handful of BW films over the last five or six years. The cameras are nice, but they don't militate for a particular choice of emulsion in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 >>> Ron L , mar 08, 2004; 09:11 p.m. HA! you think that was rude? believe me that was extremely civil compared to what i wanted to say to you for asking such a ridiculous question. shoot whatever you want to shoot. asking the members of a forum who have spent large sums of money on the best 35mm film cameras/lenses avaiable if "we should really shoot black and white film anymore?" is comical. >>> Leica lenses also shine at colour, and I don't believe I have personally shot more than a handful of BW films over the last five or six years. The cameras are nice, but they don't militate for a particular choice of emulsion in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Currently I shoot colour negative and have done so for several years but I'm now considering switching back to black & white in the Leica and my Nikon F. Not only will it be cheaper but I'll also be able to get at my images more quickly. More importantly, working solely in monochrome should be more interesting, at least for a while. I'll probably continue to use colour negative in my Eos outfit so I should get the best of both worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now