If the Fuji Frontier can print in grayscale, is there any reason to use C41 B&W film?

[Dean]

If the Fuji Frontier can print in grayscale, is there any reason to use C41 B&W film?

This has been discussed on Photo.net:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007G6S

My results with Kodak B/W chromogenics was been very erratic and I would like the input of forum members on this alternative.

Thanks

 

[Nikon Bob]

Dean

I have been tossing a similar question around for a while. Basically why use any B&W film at all when colour film can be converted in Photo shop? It would really simplify things. For me personally I can see very little difference but then I am not a fine art producer or B&W connoisseur. Could the B&W conversion of this Fuji 200 colour print film photo be better if it was done orginally in B&W and not converted? Maybe I am missing something here.

Bob

 

[Russ]

Yes, we can convert C-41 negs to B/W on the Fuji Frontier. I recently did that. However, the quality suffered. It's much better when converted on a decent neg scanner. I've seen high quality scans from color negs into B/W versions, and they can look very good, but upon perusal, they just can't get that look,, bite, whatever you want to call it that you get from a traditional B/W film. Not to mention the archival issue. I am shooting a wedding soon, and the bride wants some color and a lot of B/W, and for quality purposes, I will have to shoot both NPH and Neopan, to get the quality that I want. I agree, it would be awesome if C-41 color negs could be converted indiscernibly into B-W images. Life would be so much easier....

Russ

 

[GeneW]

There are two separate threads being discussed.

1. Is there any discernable difference between a C-41 B&W film and C-41 Col film converted to B&W?

2. Is there a difference between traditional B&W film and C-41 Col film converted to B&W?

On the first, I dunno. I don't use enough XP2 to have a good feel for it though I'm told that exposed at 200 it does wonders on skin tones. Can C-41 col converted match it? I'd be interested to hear.

On the second I agree with Russ. They're not in the same ballpark. I've converted a lot of C-41 col to B&W and shot a lot of traditional B&W and they look very different. You can get acceptable results from C-41 to B&W and if everything falls into place in terms of lighting and contrast, even exceptional results at times. But trad wins hands down in most comparisons, IMO.

Gene

 

[Nikon Bob]

Mango

Maybe I have my monitor calibrated wrongly but the red and blue portions of the sign appear to be two distinctly different shades in the greyscale on my screen. I do not shoot a lot of B&W and do not want to play with chemicals at home so real B&W is out for me. I should apologized to Dean as I did not want to high jack his thread. But the replies all seem to indicate to me that grey scale conversion of colour neg film to B&W is frowned upon and considered inferior, with the use of C41 B&W film not far behind that. That at least may answer the original question asked by Dean.

Bob

 

[tedwhite]

C-41 B@W has an evil tone to it. I dislike it intensely. (I guess that's obvious).

I wish I decide which 35mm film scanner is the best one, and how well it will render Tr-X negs.

 

[Russ]

Keep in mind that C-41 color & B/W films use dye clouds and not silver crystals, that give the traditional B/W films their grain, look, etc. I am not at all opposed to converting color C-41 color negs to B/W, it's just that over the decades, I've grown to love the distinctive look of the trad B/W films. The chromogenic (C-41) films aren't quite as sharp as the traditional B/W films, but when shoot do a portrait on Neopan 400CN or XP-2, rated at 200 or 250 through a yellow filter, you can get some amazingly beautiful flesh tones.

Russ

 

[Socke]

I started using traditional B&W film and developing it myself when the last lab with reasonable prices and usable quality was converted into a kebab diner.

And in my experience, if you want realy black blacks, use B&W film!

 

[dmr]

I have been tossing a similar question around for a while. Basically why use any B&W film at all when colour film can be converted in Photo shop?

I've wondered the exact same thing, and a friend of mine who's a B&W purist (I call him a B&W snob) swears that the modern color film, when you print from them in B&W, will lack the dynamic range, specifically in the shadow detail.

I really haven't worried too much about it as I haven't really shot any B&W in years.

It would really simplify things. For me personally I can see very little difference but then I am not a fine art producer or B&W connoisseur.

A year ago in January I took a few shots of a Sunday morning snowstorm on a stretch of highway out where I work. I realized it didn't have much color in it at all, so I just converted it to grayscale in Photoshop. A friend of mine liked the B&W print so much that she has a mounted copy in her office.

I'm going to try attatching the original and the B&W versions here as you did. If they don't work, I'll put them on the web server and post the link.

This was taken with Fuji 200 or 400, I don't remember for sure, and developed up at Wally World, scanned by whatever they used for Photos On Line back when you could still download the whole roll in hi-rez.

(This was not done with a rangefinder, it was an Olympus Stylus point and shoot 35mm.)

It came out with somewhat of what I would call weak gamma. Lots of room to expand both on the shadow and the highlight side. The negative looks normal to maybe a bit overexposed but not too much. I think they must scan them that way to be sure not to wash out the highlights or muddy the shadows. I corrected this with the levels.

I can see plenty of detail in the lowlights in the trees, and even in the highlights in the snow. I asked Jim (my friend the B&W snob) to tell me if I did it on color or B&W film and he guessed correctly, but added that I knew I hadn't touched real B&W for years.

Ok, I don't see any obvious way of adding images here. Hey, I'm still new.
Here are the links and I hope they are clickable:

http://www.letis.com/dmr/pics/mck/mck1bw1.jpg (B&W) and
http://www.letis.com/dmr/pics/mck/mck1co1.jpg (color)

You can see there really isn't much color except for the yellow line and some brownish tones over in the woods.

Oh, the blotches in the foreground are not a dirty lens or me shooting thru the car windshield. They are snowflakes.

 

[Socke]

@DMR
actualy I like the color version, too

Here is a recent shot on FP4 developed in AM74 1+8 3 minutes.

Scanned on a Canon FS2710 with vuescan on generic and resized and converted to jpg in ACDSee 6.

Ah! Attaching pictures is done in the "Additional Options", when you edit an answer scroll a bit down and you'll see a button labled "Manage Attachments"

 

[dmr]

actualy I like the color version, too

Thanks {blush}

Here is a recent shot on FP4 developed in AM74 1+8 3 minutes.

Ok, I've got both your shot and my B&W snow shot up, flipping back and forth and trying to see any significant difference in shadow detail. I'm on the old cruddy monitor here at home. I'll try the laptop later, since it has a cleaner display and also the good monitor at work since I am curious about what the nuances are here.

Ah! Attaching pictures is done in the "Additional Options", when you edit an answer scroll a bit down and you'll see a button labled "Manage Attachments"

Thanks, I guess I should have looked harder. I'll try it now and see if I can attach one of them. Time to climb the learning curve some more.

Hey, it looks like it worked {jumping up and down} thanks again.