If you are shooting B&W ONLY and can only choose one, which one?

[Bill Clark]

Besides, what else would I do with my Leicas and Nikons?

Doorstops? Ha!

Yes, my old film cameras still work for me.

Besides when my wife & I had finished a lower level bedroom and bathroom she insisted the bathroom be large enough and designed into a darkroom as well. My first darkroom! In the past, I usually I set up most anywhere using, as an example, a card table for the enlarger. Not any more! Still have a large waste basket in the darkroom and its used quite a lot, especially when making test prints.

Lots of smiles & fun.

 

[htimsdj]

I chose B&W film because that's all I do now.

 

[Georgiy Romanov]

I would like to live in the last century, so that I had no choice in photography 🙂 Today, well, it can be monochrom...

 

[John Bragg]

Black and white, Tri-X flavour, all the way for me. Why change just for the sake of it ? Happiness is Tri-X developed in HC-110 Dilution H.

 

[Vics]

I chose film because I couldn't afford a good digital camera, and I like the cameras I've always used. (see below.)

 

[Canyongazer]

After thirty years in the darkroom...

After thirty years in the darkroom...

both B&W and color
I have enveloped digital in an iron embrace.
More productive time spent shooting and making decisions in LR that impact the image. Less (none, actually) doing routine darkroom chores that could be handled by a monkey.

In a more pedestrian vein, I also find shooting RAW eliminates the "Doh!, I wish I'd shot this frame in color!"

Must say, tho, I agree that anyone wishing to shoot film shouldn't let lack of a camera get in the way. Nikon F100 and many other good models are cheap these days.

In any case, it's nice for everyone to have choices.

 

[Godfrey]

I can't choose just one. I have too many cameras for that. ;-)

G

 

[Timmyjoe]

B&W film, because it is familiar, been shooting it since 1976, no big surprises.

 

[__jc]

Less (none, actually) doing routine darkroom chores that could be handled by a monkey.

This has me intrigued - what are the darkroom chores that could be handled by a monkey? I can't think of any. Well, not by your average monkey anyway.

 

[wogg]

Monochrom, or film and hi-res scan but only if it's 4x5.

 

[van_d]

B&W film for the look. It's one of the main reasons I shoot film period. Digital, especially for B&W just rarely meets the quality and tonality of HP5 or Tri-X or Acros or whatever cassette floats your boat.

 

[danielsterno]

B&W film… can not say it better than Helen has already said " Simply for its Imperfection"

 

[kosta_g]

b&w film, because I love to be able to make a darkroom print of a great image.

 

[seakayaker1]

..... Monochrome.

 

[jschrader]

Amazing. Are there really more MM users out there than people who do the simple trick of converting digital shots into b&w? Hard to believe.

I find this interesting because I do not like converting to b&w and I do not really know why. I develop film now and scan just to avoid this (and for the benefit of being able to use a Leica)

My explanation (for my somewhat irrational step) is that when I pick up a camera that has a b&w film loaded, I somehow internally know I am doing b&w and that influences the mood, and the pictures I see. If if I firmly decided to convert all digital shot into b&w later, I think the thing would feel different.

But maybe I am wrong and it is only the Leica .... but then I might afford an M9, they are not that expensive any more.

I really do not know.

 

[Gareth Rees]

Black and white film for me.

 

[tsiklonaut]

Film, because it's real. At least all of my personal work and my family. I do darkroom printing with my own developed recipes and techniques, for me nothing even compares to it from the digital domain in terms of artistic value, involvement creating hand-made art - there's something fundamentally pure about this approach.

However I do use Digital as well in parallel for B&W convert, but for cheap (= high reward) work for others since for average non-photo-person it does allright with very low expectations in terms of artistry and work behind it. Digital not only means cheap (from personal time investment/involvement perspective) but also means cheating for me, and in a very fundamental ways (in camera software manipulations, interpolations and endless row of mathematical signal processing in digital domain that has very little to do with reality), but if it makes a money, why not. There's always been a fools gold, good thing it still today. 😀

 

[Canyongazer]

Johnny, I am thinking of processing, agitation and washing film and paper, squeegee-ing, drying prints.
If we can put a man on the moon then surely we can put a monkey in the darkroom!

 

[__jc]

Yes, well maybe. I actually think of that whole process, including the steps you mention, as a kind of zen. It's perhaps a bit like cooking a meal - there are repetitive, non-creative steps involved in peeling vegetables, measuring quantities and beating eggs, yet they are as critical to the success of the dish as are the more chefy things.

You could perhaps equally argue that a monkey could be successfully trained to tap things on a keyboard or slide sliders in Photoshop, especially where you set up an action.

It really boils down to whether you'd rather do it in the dark with that damp humid smelliness or in front of a screen.

And as for putting a man on the moon - the Russians were well advanced before the Americans got their act together - maybe not with a monkey but they did put a dog in space - one named Laika, IIRC, which sounds a bit like a certain brand of rangefinder camera.

 

[ABrosig]

B&W Film - admittedly, color and convert is tempting, in case I ever needed a color image. But, at the bottom line, conversion never quite looks right for me, no matter how well it's done. Gotta be the film, all the way.