B&W film vs digital retouch??

[travis.taylor]

I'm sure that this question will probably make me sound like the total newb that I am, but exactly what are the differences between the final product between a photo taken with black and white film versus color film made BW w/ photo editing software? I'm sure someone will chime in "soul" or something of the like, but are there any real, tangible differences?

Here are some from the Canon P w/ 35mm f2.8 caught on Kodak 400iso Color film de walmarto turned B&W in windows photo manager...

Am I capable of better B&W using B&W film? Or is it just "soul" and personal preference?

[/URL]
R2-04145-005A by travistaylor2,on flickr[/IMG]

This is actually my favorite photo of my girlfriend....

[/URL]
R2-04145-023A by travistaylor2, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/URL]
R2-04145-009A by travistaylor2, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[jwicaksana]

If by tangible you mean 'perceptible difference by eyes' I say YES! 🙂
But if tangible means able to be quantified or appraised in numbers etc, the no.
I've shot BW films and DSLR together to cover on event, then convert all the digital images to BW in Lightroom, then make albums from those images, the difference is very clear, to me and to those seeing the album. I'm sure my lack of skills in post processing does have a major play in this, but I see there is an inherent difference between film and digital sensor.
Color negative film converted to BW in post looks closer to native BW film, because the way they render light and highlight, and the grain, is unique.

They were sitting right across each other, shots taken within minutes.
Nikon F3HP + 35 f/2 AF-D + Lucky 100 pushed to 400 ($1 film pushed 2 stops) 😀


Canon EOS 600D + 18-55mm IS


Too many variables to count but here's something to feed the mind. 🙂

 

[Sylvester]

Black and white film is usually cheaper than GOOD colour negative film... at least on b&h...
Developing black & white at home is cheaper than 1h labs...
Wet printing colour negs on b&w is tougher than printing straight b&w negs.

 

[shadowfox]

No soul factor here.

B&W film comes with grain, you'd have to add it in digital cameras of today.

Why would you add grain? Depends on the subject, scene, and light. Some will be greatly enhanced with grain, some others won't.

To me, the above strictly applies to 35mm film vs digital up to 35mm sensor. Medium and Large format is a whole other ball game.

 

[thegman]

The grain of B&W film is different to that of colour. It's not better or worse, just different. Also I'd say often black and white film is more contrasty than colour film converted to B&W, i.e. B&W film can really go *black and white* whereas colour film converted to B&W will look more grey.

But with so many types of B&W and colour film, so many B&W developers, and so much difference in the scanners/scanning techniques. It's really wide open on how close or how far apart the two can look.

Personally, my favourite B&W film is Ilford XP2 Super, which processes like a colour film.

It really is a matter of preference though.

 

[mfogiel]

I would say, that colour slide converted to B&W is usually quite a bit different, due to a "shorter" tonal range, and it will look more "digital"
Colour print film on the other hand, will render very well the mid tones and highlights, but have a shorter scale in the shadows, as well as different (smaller and more soft) grain - in practice it will be similar to XP2.
Silver halide film - particularly if well exposed and slightly pulled, will give you a broad tonal range from the shadows to highlights, better edge sharpness and better defined grain.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Or is it just "soul" and personal preference?

I would say that the answer has to be yes.

 

[clayne]

We just discussed this last week:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133380

 

[Ronald M]

Black and white film is usually cheaper than GOOD colour negative film... at least on b&h...
Developing black & white at home is cheaper than 1h labs...
Wet printing colour negs on b&w is tougher than printing straight b&w negs.

Tougher? Impossible without skilled masking. This is why Kodak made Panalure paper, so the tones, mostly red, would reproduce correctly. It had to be handled in complete darkness as it was red sensitive. Also only available in glossy.

I also maintain I can convert a digital file to monochrome and have it look like any black/white film. Use Silver effects Pro or make your own curves so you get a soft or hard shoulder, how long a straight line section, and then put in a long or short toe. Then add grain , soft or hard, big or small, on a new layer. Then use blend if function to softly blend the grain into and out of the midtones. Grain does not show in highlights or shadows. Photoshop is your best friend.

 

[travis.taylor]

Thanks for the replies guys! Between your answers here and in the other thread,
I'd say I'll probably just keep shooting color and converting (aside of a few rolls of
B&W every now and then). I'm not confident enough to know definitively when
a photo will look better in color or B&W. Maybe with more experience I'll start shooting
more B&W film...