B&W vs. Color

[JeremyLangford]

Would it be an ok idea for me to only shoot color negs, and/or slide film, and then get them scanned to a cd, where I can decide, in photoshop, whether or not to keep it color or convert it to black and white?

I will not be developing anything on my own, so thats not a reason to use B&W negs. The only other reason to use B&W negs I can see is maybe price?

Or is there something I'm missing that makes B&W negs better than color negs or slide film?

 

[shadowfox]

I use C-41 B/W film (Kodak BW400CN or Ilford XP2 Super) regularly. I think it's the best of both world because you get the latitude of the color negative, without the dye, therefore giving you non-photoshop-converted "true" B/W.

As for "real" B/W film, most people who are "hardcore" fans, will tell you about different crystal characteristics that lends a specific "look" to the resulting image. I don't intend to pursue this dimension because like you, I'm not developing the film myself. Yet.

 

[oftheherd]

It sounds from you question as if you don't have a scanner of your own? In that case shooting in color gives you the advantage of having it in color in case you decide that makes the best photo, or converting it if you want b/w.

I am not the expert on Photoshop, but from those whose opinion I respect, some think it is perfectly OK to convert if done correctly, and there seem to be two schools of thought on the best way. Others believe using b/w film takes out that necessity, removing an imperfect step on your way to the best b/w print.

Yeah, confusing isn't it? All that said, those who really are good in Photoshop seem to be able to make very good b/w prints from color negatives. A color slide as you probably know, won't have the same contrast range if that will make a difference in your b/w.

 

[ferider]

Would it be an ok idea for me to only shoot color negs, and/or slide film, and then get them scanned to a cd, where I can decide, in photoshop, whether or not to keep it color or convert it to black and white?

It works very well for 400 ASA and below at daylight. Once you shoot when it's
darker, I find it difficult (low lights get blown black out of proportion). I used
to do what you describe, but recently started to use Fuji Neopan, in addition
to color negative film.

On the downside for B+W film, when you scan you don't get dust correction
with ICE. Major difference in post-processing time. Same when scanning is done
in a lab - expect B+W negative scans to be "dirty" unless you pay for manual
postprocessing.

Roland.

 

[Nikon Bob]

No reason in the world not to try it out and see if it works for you. If it does not work for you then you can try the alternative.

Bob

 

[JeremyLangford]

On the downside for B+W film, when you scan you don't get dust correction
with ICE. Major difference in post-processing time. Same when scanning is done
in a lab - expect B+W negative scans to be "dirty" unless you pay for manual
postprocessing.

Roland.

What is ICE? Just a thing in the scanner that removes dust from the scan? Are you saying it doesn't work with color?

 

[vrgard]

ICE is software to remove dust & scratches from scanned film images. Only works with color film (and C41 processed B&W). Others can explain better than I, but that's the short answer. You can also do a Google search and likely find lots more about it.

-Randy

 

[ferider]

Like Randy said; here are more details:

It works with color but not with B+W or Kodakchrome.

Essentially, when scanning color, the scanner will use 3 channels (RGB)
for color and a 4th channel (Infrared) to detect scratches and dust particles.
Then the result of the 4th channel scan is subtracted from the color
channels. For B+W this doesn't work since dust/scratches and object look the same
to the scanner.

Which means when you do B+W from color negatives you have less work to
do than from B+W negatives.

Best,

Roland.

 

[JeremyLangford]

Like Randy said; here are more details:

It works with color but not with B+W or Kodakchrome.

Essentially, when scanning color, the scanner will use 3 channels (RGB)
for color and a 4th channel (Infrared) to detect scratches and dust particles.
Then the result of the 4th channel scan is subtracted from the color
channels. For B+W this doesn't work since dust/scratches and object look the same
to the scanner.

Which means when you do B+W from color negatives you have less work to
do than from B+W negatives.

Best,

Roland.

Wow, you explained that good. So thats definately a plus to color negs.

Does this work with slide film? Do places like WalMart and Walgreens use ICE? Do places like WalMart or Walgreens develop slide film?

 

[ferider]

Wow, you explained that good. So thats definately a plus to color negs.

Does this work with slide film? Do places like WalMart and Walgreens use ICE? Do places like WalMart or Walgreens develop slide film?

Thank you !

It does work with slide film except old Kodakchrome.

I'm pretty sure it's built in in all big scanners in the one-hour shops these
days.

Don't know about WalMart or Walgreens but my shop (Ritz/Wolfe camera)
has to send slide film in and they take two weeks .... while I can get
negatives back in a few hours.

I recommend a good negative film in any case, like Fuji Reala or Superia.
More dynamic range and cheap (less than US 3 per 36 roll at B+H).
If you want more contrast you can level in PS. Superia you can get at
Cosco's, too

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[JeremyLangford]

Heres a guess at rating the dynamic range in 35mm films. Does it look about right?

1)Black and White Negs
2)Color Negs
4)Black and White Slide Film
3)Color Slide Film

 

[ferider]

1, 2, and 3 seem OK. I have never used 4 but maybe somebody else can
comment.

Best,

Roland.

 

[ruben]

So far so good taken for granted that you leave out BW manual printing.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Tuolumne]

One of the advantages to using color film and converting to B&W during post-processing is the ability to do a filtered B&W conversion. This essentially lets you select from an almost infinite range of color filters that you can apply to the photo during the B&W conversion. The effect is as if you had all of those filters with you when taking a B&W image and used them all to get the most favorable image. This is impossible to do in real life with B&W film.

Almost all post-processing programs will let you do this in one way or another but the easiest to use is Google's Picasa which allows you to do it with a single click. You then run your mouse over the entire color spectrum and see what the different filters do to the look of your B&W image. It's alot easier to do than explain. And the looks are very very different, depending on the filter you select (or none, for that matter, too). Try it and see.

You may have a hard time going back to regular B&W film after this. The effect is much greater in cityscapes and landscapes than in street shooting, so your type of photography will play a role here, too. But if you shoot scenes with vistas of any kind, it's very hard to give up the flexibility of shooting in color and doing filtered B&W conversions for straight B&W film.

/T

 

[ferider]

Let me show two examples. Both were done like /T said, the first one
used a digital red filter, the second a digital yellow filter:

The first one is perfect for me - would have been difficult to do otherwise.

The second one (at candlelight with 400 Superia) could have used B+W
film .... it's for these type of shots that I am starting to use Neopan.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Tuolumne]

Roland,
If you have the unfiltered B&W files to post, that would be a very useful comparison.

/T

 

[JeremyLangford]

This thread has helped me a lot. I think for now, I will shoot color negs and get them scanned somewhere to a cd. And then once they're on my computer I will decide to keep them color or convert to black in white.

I guess the only time I will use B&W negs, is if I need to push or pull by developing myself, or If I need a very high dynamic range.

Does this plan seem like it makes sense?

 

[ferider]

Roland,
If you have the unfiltered B&W files to post, that would be a very useful comparison.

/T

Have to dig them up at home. Here is the use of a digital yellow
filter where I have both available now (on Reala):

She liked the B+W better. Yellow is usually pretty good on skin ...

Hope this helps.

Does this plan seem like it makes sense?

Totally. I have used the same strategy.

Roland.

 

[JeremyLangford]

One last question.

When getting negatives scanned, are they put on the cd as jpegs? Is there such thing as scanning to RAW?

Would WalMart or Walgreens scan at a good enough resolution to get me a 8x10 at 300dpi? (thats usually the biggest print I do.)?

 

[Tuolumne]

Roland,
I meant the B&W file unfiltered and filtered, rather than the color and filtered B&W. That would show what filtered conversions can do best, I think.

/T