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

[Goodyear]

The only way to make true black and white photographs is to start from true black and white film etc. If it comes from a colour image which was then desaturated, whether on a computer or using a darkroom, then it is an imitaion of the original black and white film (or glass plate, tin type etc.) medium.

Which is an imitation of the subject, anyway.

I don't see you're point.

The term 'black and white' is a description of te result, not the process.

Arguably, the process is of little relevance.

I love that process, but the process is not what gives the result its value. If it is, then it can hardly be worth looking at as anything other than a curiosity.

 

[Will]

I shot fake B&W until now, but if I shot let's say Ilford Pan 50, have them develop in a lab, but printed in a retail mini lab (found a mini lap in HK doing this, and the shop have a desent reputation), is it still fake B&W?

 

[Andy K]

I shot fake B&W until now, but if I shot let's say Ilford Pan 50, have them develop in a lab, but printed in a retail mini lab (found a mini lap in HK doing this, and the shop have a desent reputation), is it still fake B&W?

No. Because the resulting images were not created by desaturating colour images. But then why pay a lab to develop your bw film when it is so easy and cheap to do in your own kitchen?

 

[Socke]

I shot fake B&W until now, but if I shot let's say Ilford Pan 50, have them develop in a lab, but printed in a retail mini lab (found a mini lap in HK doing this, and the shop have a desent reputation), is it still fake B&W?

Thats a very good lab! One of the reasons to shoot silver based B/W instead of C-41 B/W for me are the labs, from Ilford XP2 I get something with green shadows and purple higlights with some more or less grey tones in between and from Kodak BW400CN I get something which is between sepia and warm tone.

 

[Will]

Thats a very good lab! One of the reasons to shoot silver based B/W instead of C-41 B/W for me are the labs, from Ilford XP2 I get something with green shadows and purple higlights with some more or less grey tones in between and from Kodak BW400CN I get something which is between sepia and warm tone.

I shot with BW400CN, yes, they do have that sepia problem.

Ever try to go to a Lab using Fuji Frontier paper? From my experience they comeout alright, maybe I am lucky, but if you haven't try that, let's give it a try!

C41 are nice, but I don't have the choice of all the different real B&W film! From ISO50~3200...

 

[back alley]

amazingly this thread has gone on for 5 pages, very passionate and some intellectual arguing going on.

anyone change his mind because of anything written here?

joe

 

[pesphoto]

Not here. I use the computer and Photoshop when I HAVE TO for work.
I use my wet darkroom because I simply enjoy it.

 

[Trius]

Change my mind? Not here, but I was reminded that the economics and of film marketing and sales is not a simple matter. I think the original question was both imprecise and perhaps poorly worded. The word need is a loaded one, especially in the context of a group of artists/craftsmen.

For me, YES, I absolutely need b&w film. I cannot do my photography with digital or C41. Why? Because part of my vision is based on the characteristics of monochrome film and optical, fibre prints. Someone else may feel they can achieve the same look or result using other methods, and that's their prerogative. I choose not to argue with them for a variety of reasons ... usually. 😉

Earl

 

[pesphoto]

Well said! It isnt an argument that either side can win really.

 

[ywenz]

Would you want a real Ferrari or a cheap replica of a Ferrari? It looks like a Ferrari, but when you look close it is nowhere near as good as a Ferrari.

If the imitation ferrari offers 90% of the performance of the real ferrari for fractions of the cost, then yes. I would take the imiation one. Corvette Z06(not imitating anybody by any means) gets Ferrari-like performance for around $70K... Get my point!?

 

[Andy K]

If the imitation ferrari offers 90% of the performance of the real ferrari for fractions of the cost, then yes. I would take the imiation one. Corvette Z06(not imitating anybody by any means) gets Ferrari-like performance for around $70K... Get my point!?

So what? It still is NOT a Ferrari.

 

[JMP]

amazingly this thread has gone on for 5 pages, very passionate and some intellectual arguing going on.

anyone change his mind because of anything written here?

joe

I don't think it's changed my mind so much as clarified some of my own feelings and thoughts.

Emotionally, I agree with some of the posts in support of wet darkroom practices and silver B&W film; I prefer the look of traditional processes as well as the connection I feel to the process itself. For me, as a visual artist (drawing, painting, printmaking), digital is a quick way to obtain reference material for a piece I'm working on. Whereas B&W and wet darkroom feel more like the processes I use when printmaking (which has its own equipment of a technical sort requiring pretty specific calibration/tolerances like photo equipment- woodblocks, metal plates, presses ). I like the physicality and the "stuff" used in photography and printmaking.

Intellectually, however, I must agree with Nikon Bob's points. Just because I feel a connection to an analog working style doesn't mean that others can't feel the same connection to a digital working style, even if this is hard for me to experience, and therefore difficult for me to give the same credence to.

 

[DougK]

I'm not going to waste a lot of time worrying about the question, to be honest. If I happened to have color film in the camera when I shot a picture and I find that it looks better converted to B&W, I'll convert it and not give a second thought to whether it's "real B&W" or not.

 

[peter_n]

amazingly this thread has gone on for 5 pages, very passionate and some intellectual arguing going on.

anyone change his mind because of anything written here?

joe

Nah. Only 3 pages for me BTW so maybe that is the reason... 😉

I still want my wet darkroom. 🙂

 

[aad]

Bill Mattock-You know, it's likely I would agree with almost anything you may post, on most issues. But I think you're wrong on the end of film.

Not to get too far into it, but the movie industr still uses film and despite the push to digitize, it will be a while before they abandon it. On the chemical side, I would not be surprised to find an alternative method of film manufacture using new chemistry-too much demand, too many people looking for a demand to satisfy.

 

[Mister_Hat]

amazingly this thread has gone on for 5 pages, very passionate and some intellectual arguing going on.

anyone change his mind because of anything written here?

joe

An excellent discussion, which I interpret as being a presentation of two different views of photography. Both views aim to produce an image and I believe each photographer follows the process that results in what is, to them, the best embodiment of their original vision. If a person feels the best way to realize that vision is through tradiitional wet darkroom methods, go for it... it is, after all, your vision. If digital b&w, destaurated color, or C41 and Photshop gets you where you want to be, again, it's your vision. In the end, it's about the image as realized by the photographer.

 

[Nikon Bob]

amazingly this thread has gone on for 5 pages, very passionate and some intellectual arguing going on.

anyone change his mind because of anything written here?

joe

Nope, I am not prejudiced either way. I use what I want. These types of discussions seldom change anyones views.

Bob

 

[Dan Chang]

wah, for these who mess with wet dark room chemicals, I bet if you have a basement, you never check the Radon level, you have no idea about MSDS means. you do not have family or you just do not care about their healthy.
Can you dump your monitor in a regular dumper? your trash man will not pick up. but you can dump your chemical to your home sink. The color converted BW quality to some people is good enough, if few purist nuts disagree, that's fine. We do not want a uniform voice. Only idiot Call other people idiot.

 

[FrankS]

Dan, pleaase just let it go. Live and let live, okay?

Purist nut.

 

[Andy K]

wah, for these who mess with wet dark room chemicals, I bet if you have a basement, you never check the Radon level, you have no idea about MSDS means. you do not have family or you just do not care about their healthy.
Can you dump your monitor in a regular dumper? your trash man will not pick up. but you can dump your chemical to your home sink. The color converted BW quality to some people is good enough, if few purist nuts disagree, that's fine. We do not want a uniform voice. Only idiot Call other people idiot.

Then what would you call someone who uses insults such as: 'purist nuts'.

The rest of your points: I care very much about my family and resent your implication that film users do not care.
My darkroom is also my kitchen, I use it at night. There is no danger from the chemicals I use because I use them carefully and responsibly.
When expired the chemicals are bottled and I take them to a chemical disposal facility.

Judging from your very immature response I'm guessing you are still in high school and are too young to have ever known anything other than digital methods. When you are older you may change your opinion.
Having read more of you, I am now coming to the conclusion your original post is just a troll to start another film vs digital argument.