B&W film is obselte if you're going to scan the negatives

N

Nh3

Well-known
Local time
4:12 PM
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
889
Location
Toronto
View My Gallery
... Buy the cheapest C41 color film from your local drugstore, shoot and get it developed. It will look atrocious with off colors and other issues but scan it and then convert it to b&w with your favorite post processing software. You'd get the 'the look of b&w film' and yet with the fine grain of color film which after converting to b&w comes out distinctly.

And since this is an experiment, compare a scan of your b&w film to a color one later converted to b&w.

I have attached a picture below which i took last winter with a Yashica GT - the film was a no-name $2 ISO 200 from local drugstore. The actual color version is useless.

Its not a great picture but it makes my point, you can download it and zoom to see the grain.

/Damn typo on the title - i meant obsolete!
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-21.jpg
    Untitled-21.jpg
    91.4 KB · Views: 0
I suppose this works, if lack of grain is a mjjor objective. Some people still like grain and that's why the traditional B&W emulsions like Tri-X still exist.
 
I can develop B&W at home but can't color - so no thanks 🙂
Developing is - at least for me - one of the things why i shoot film! Always a personal touch.
 
It isn't the same. Color neg films have lower acutance and the tonality looks muddier. You can do some photoshop work to remedy the tonality somewhat, but it still isn't up to the standard of BW film. Why would you do this anyway unless you also wanted color photos at the same time? If that's the case you'd not buy the cheapest color film, you'd get good pro film. Doing that will give you nice color and acceptable but not the best BW.
 
Im not convinced, the tones are not very good looking in that shot. I have done a lot of digital black and white conversion work from color film, black and white is still a better way to get a high quality end result. And besides if you are going to try and show this point you should use a "great" picture that shows off all the points you are trying to make, im not sure that shot is it.
 
sorry, I'm with everyone else. C-41 films are not the same as B&W.

I'll keep scanning B&W, thank you very much.
 
This is an experiment and I'm not saying its an absolute fact. Find out for yourself.

To me photography is about experimenting.
 
J J Kapsberger said:
Although the C41 BW films do seem to scan very well at home. From what I've seen.
Click to expand...

I have had excellent results with c41 black and white films, especially xp2, not so much the kodak....xp2 is excellent though:

434947195_bca7144819_o.jpg
 
No way is this true - you are describing the same process as used for digital BW conversions. You can get some nice results but not the same and not, in my opinion, as nice as real BW film.

Also film scans cannot be pushed around the same way that putty-digital can - so the conversions are limited in scope in a way that digital ones are not. If you try to for example darken a blue sky too much it can become a horrible mess with a film scan.

For me one of the major reasons to shoot film is that it already "looks right" and does not need endless tweaking in Photoshop. Otherwise why bother with film in the firs place if not for its inherent film look, which varies from film to film.
 
photogdave said:
That's fine. Just don't make your experiment sound like a pronouncement.
Click to expand...

Ok boss, I will do what you say. Is there anything else I should be aware of?

...

Look people, this is just a post if you don't agree with it thats fine, otherwise please don't start a flame war and relive your passive aggressive tendencies.

cheers,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom