B&W C41 films as opposite to regular color C41 converted to B&W

A

alexz

Well-known
Local time
10:12 AM
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
862
Well, once again B&W C41 vs color into B&W thread....;)
What would be the relative merits of shooting color C41 film (or even transparancies) and converting them into B&W after scanning ?
So far I made though my first roll in my recently acquired RF - managed to obtain some very nice and worm family-kind images. I used Kodak T400CN.
In the past, working intensively with my former SLR system (Canon) I used to shoot Fuji Press 800 (often pushed to 1600) when high-ISO was desirable (mainly rock concerts and some sports).
So I wondering whether a B&W C41 film is preferrable quality-wise to a color C41 or E6 that gets converted to B&W after scanning (yeah, photoshop..) ?
What do you think ?

Also, what is recommended technique for converting color scans into compelling B&W ?
I realize I can just take a single channel (R, G or B) out of the mix, but I'm sure there are much better ways to produce a nice looking B&W from color original (scan).
Please advise..

Thanks in advance, Alex
 
Alex,
pay a visit to the "thelightsrightstudio.com" site. It offers excellent tutorials and tips on the BW conversion technique.
More and more I shoot on colour film or digital and do the conversion in the pixelroom. This offers (at least to me) more flexibility.

Wim
 
Agree with Wim on more flexibility. Have the best of both worlds. Desaturating all colours works well for me. No reason to use a B&W C-41 film unless you're looking for specific film characteristics.
 
If you look around there are channel mixer settings which should approximate classic BW look with yellow, red or orange filters. I used to fiddle a lot with it, but found that for consistent classic BW look you have to shoot classic BW films.
 
Thank you all.
I think I'll take the plunge and burn a roll of Fuji Press 800 then will give a shot to B&W converting technique recommended by experienced users like you and as described on the particular PDFs (thank you Wim).
Will see how it gets compared to B&W C41 and also a traditional B&W (though will have to use a lab B&W service which is constly for that B&W test roll).

Best, Alex
 
I though I just read somewhere (on RFF? APUG? photo.net?) that the C41 B&W films are less grainy at 400 than many color films are at 100. Might be one reason to use the B&W film.
 
you might as well not even bother paying for a lab to do traditional B&W. It *will* look different than the converted color. All you need to do is look at some of the images in the gallery to see what it looks like.

TriX, HP5, etc. pushed to 800 or 1600 looks very different than any color film could after desaturation. They are different types of film. It isn't just that they are black and white - the very method of capturing an image is different. If it is black and white images you want, you can save a ton of money and time by just developing it yourself from traditional films. Going to the trouble to shoot color, pay for processing, scan, and then convert in photoshop is taking the long way around for something that is cheap and easy to accomplish in a straightforward manner.
 
Last edited:
40oz said:
you might as well not even bother paying for a lab to do traditional B&W. It *will* look different than the converted color. All you need to do is lookat some of the images in the gallery to see what it looks like.

TriX, HP5, etc. pushed to 800 or 1600 looks very different than any color film could after desaturation. They are different types of film. It isn't just that they are black and white - the very method of capturing an image is different. If it is black and white images you want, you can save a ton of money and time by just developing it yourself from traditional films. Going to the trouble to shoot color, pay for processing, scan, and then convert in photoshop is taking the long way around for something that is cheap and easy to accomplish in a straightforward manner.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally, I think you're right, 40oz. The problem is one of time and/or convenience. While I would like to follow the process you suggest, it's hard to argue with the convenience of dropping off a roll of color film at the local 1 hour place and ask for "develop and CD only." That way, I quickly get a low to moderate scan of all my shots and then, for those that might warrant something more, I can scan them myself. Overall, this approach is quick, relatively low cost, easier for archival, etc. Yep, would love to go back to developing my own film and even printing in a wet darkroom, but with the convenience of the 1 hour place, I just don't think it's gonna happen for me anytime soon.

-Randy
 
Randy just nailed down the point, exactly as he said - this is teh reason of using B&W C41 as opposite to a traditional B&W. Addmittedly, I have never followed a traditional B&W route (shame on me), have never had an opportunity to elarna nd enjoy wet darkroom, but the convenience of drop-in C41 films is really spoiling asking just for negs and a cheap low-res CD to use as a rough previews.
This is the way I proceeded yesterday with my first roll though my M6 (T400CN) - right off the CD I have chosen 5-6 images worth to spend my time scanning carefully by my Nikon scanner, 4 of them I display now in my RFF (and LUG) gallery. Saves lot so time and effort to me.
Perhaps (and I would love to) I'll be able to afford to try out and learn the merits of the tradiaiotnal B&W, but frankly can't see that happening in a foresable future...
 
I use both. Depending on how much "work" I want to do, as opposed to the cost variable. Ya gotta spend either time or money, no two ways about it! I'm just rounding into some sort of competency with the developing of the film, and won't ever again use a wet darkroom. Scanning into the computer is too easy.

When I expose C-41 color, I ask the lab (local drugstore) for negatives only, and manipulate the image in my computer until I have it "right", then print.

Regards!
Don
 
If you scan the film yourself anyway, there really is not much more convenience of having lab process it. In fact it takes longer and requires a commute, unless you happen to have a lab service in your building.
 
I may dare to disagree from my personal retrospective:
manual B&W processing (at least for not very experienced photog) may involve more commitment then using a lab for negs development (just pick the developed negs + low-res scans CD as rough reference). There are chemicals, darkroom to arrange, time to spend in it, etc...in busy family surroundings it may hardly be feasable and even so it can be a burden on your darlings.
Obviously, manual B&W route is a joy on its own, but I would argue the claim that it is easier to follow in everyday's life then just drop your C41 at your closest lab solely for negs development and just high-res scan the selected frames at your home convenience.
All said IMHO of course.
 
One way to look at it is that if you use color film and scan, then you can decide on the filtration to use for B&W images back home on the computer, or you can keep the colour image ... that's quite a bit more flexible than using B&W film, C41 or not.
 
Indeed Alex, what convenient for me may be not so for you. I just felt compelled to say it since people often exaggerate difficulties of BW processing, e.g. you don't need a darkroom to process film.

I don't do BW processing for fun: I have a family as well, but 1/2 an hour near sink at home is more convenient than taking a trip to the town. As a bonus you get real BW without messing with channel mixer and artificial grain patterns in Photoshop :)
 
That's right, cannot disagree.
I have several reasonable labs (at least as long as film development only with low-res CD proofs to be considered) within 5-10 minutes away from my home, several are on my way to work, so I jut drop the film in teh morning and pick either after work or the next day. Certainly, your situation may be different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom