If faked B/W is OK do we still need real B/W?

[Dan Chang]

Dark room is dead, so the B/W will be soon follow the trend, I have seen some pros use color film coverted to B/W, print on inkjet paper. They look very good. I have given up processing my own film due to chemical harzad problem, C41 film is cheap and still easy to process and you can burn on cd in the same time. Do we still need B/W film?

 

[peterc]

Do we still need B/W film?

YES!!!
You can't push or pull C41 very easily. Different B&W films have different characters (and that can be altered by choice of developer) so you pick the film for the job. The dynamic range of B&W films can't be beat.
I'll stop now.

Peter

 

[Chaser]

In this line of logic we don't need film, classic cars, hot meals, cotton sheets, natural clothing fibers, toys for children, rangefinder cameras, fire places, oil paints, etc....
some people just like certain things.

 

[kmack]

Of course it is not a need. It is a desire.
For me, half the fun is developing my own negs.

 

[schmoozit]

I'm guessing that Velvia doesn't push 6 or more stops quite as well as Tri-x... Anyone want to try that for me? I love shooting Velvia and converting, but it certainly has it's limitations.

 

[peter_n]

I have tried C-41 and it is certainly convenient but I prefer the look of the "real" B&W films. So I am going in the opposite direction: have started bulk-loading B&W film so that I can use more per $, am buying a developing tank and accessories to develop at home, and in about a year I'm looking to build a full wet darkroom. And I fully expect regular B&W film to be around for a very long time.

 

[tedwhite]

Actually you can shoot TriX, PlusX, TMax, HP5, etc., without a wet darkroom. Simply buy D76 developer, stop bath, fixer, a stainless steel Nikkor developing tank, a changing bag, and last, but by no means least, a 35mm film scanner. Process your negs properly, scan properly, and you should be able to produce prints on an inkjet printer that look quite as if they were done in a wet room. VueScan is a program that helps your scanner do the job. So is SilverFast, but VueScan seems to work better - at least for me.

Ted

 

[FrankS]

What Ted said.

 

[pesphoto]

Dark room is dead, so the B/W will be soon follow the trend, I have seen some pros use color film coverted to B/W, print on inkjet paper. They look very good. I have given up processing my own film due to chemical harzad problem, C41 film is cheap and still easy to process and you can burn on cd in the same time. Do we still need B/W film?

Oh, youre serious? Maybe your darkroom is dead.

 

[GeneW]

I shoot mostly B&W film and love it, but there's a solid case to be made for shooting C-41 col film and converting the frames that make good B&W. It allows you to shoot a single film for B&W and col. For some folks this convenience is just the ticket.

Gene

 

[peter_n]

Yes but I want to wet print. I used to have a wet darkroom when I lived on the other side of the pond and I'm going to get another one, durn it!

 

[FrankS]

If faked B/W is OK do we still need real B/W?

Photography is my passion. It's what I pour my heart and soul into. I may never reach it, but my goal is to achieve something greater than "okay".

I'm hoping a lot of photographers find that digital is "okay" and go over to it for it's convenience and superiority over film. 😉

 

[GeneW]

I'm hoping a lot of photographers find that digital is "okay" and go over to it for it's convenience and superiority over film. 😉

Frank, unless I'm misreading it, the question is about C-41 film converted to B&W, not digital cameras. I've seen some pretty nice B&W images come out of C-41 col stock, and they don't look like digital converted to B&W, to my eyes at least.

Gene

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Sure you can copy certain characteristics of BW film with digital, but it's just that, a copy. To me it's the journey, the act of getting there that I enjoy so film is still a necesity for me.


Todd

 

[FrankS]

Frank, unless I'm misreading it, the question is about C-41 film converted to B&W, not digital cameras. I've seen some pretty nice B&W images come out of C-41 col stock, and they don't look like digital converted to B&W, to my eyes at least.

Gene

And they would be printed.......how? 🙂

 

[GeneW]

And they would be printed.......how? 🙂

Why on Panalure paper of course 😀

Wait a minute ... they don't make that any more ...

Gene

 

[FrankS]

Digital is the wave of the future. More convenient and "superior" to film and traditional photographic processes in many ways. I'm not denying that. It's just not my way.

I concede however, that scanning a print and sharing it over the internet is also a very satisfying process. I am not anti-digital. I just like using film and printing wet even though it is not the most convenient process to do photography.

 

[GeneW]

And I'm not anti-darkroom. We each gotta do what we gotta do. I suppose scanning C-41 film is semi digital, but I don't equate it with my DSLR somehow.

Gene

 

[bmattock]

DuPont Defender Velvet. Oops.

Anyway, what Ted said goes for me too. I have no darkroom, no enlarger, I process and scan, all I need is a closet - I don't care for changing bags. I find now that I'm shooting a DSLR for money, I do more B&W than ever - I have TIME to do it now, for my own enjoyment and enrichment and yes...for the sake of art.

Sometimes I like grainy images too. C41 doesn't do grain. Yes, you can fake that too, but it looks like what it is - fake.

Besides, I love the smell of fixer in the morning...etc, etc.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Trius]

And Panalure looked just as good as Medalist, Ilfobrom, Ilfomar, Portriga, Oriental, Brilliant, Kentmere .... 🙄 Oh yeah, "OK" is what we want. You know what Adams and Weston did with their "OK" prints? Yeah, that's right.

Earl