Is it or isn't it B&W

N

Nikon Bob

Guest
I have been trying to reduce the different types of film I have to take with me as in simplify my life. Since there are dedicated B&W users here I'll ask this question of them. Is shooting in colour and converting to greyscale close to real B&W in the results, in other words a reasonable alternative, in your opinion? Signed the Heretic.
 
:) There are good threads about this subject on photo.net, just do a search on b&w color conversion or similar. Of course, they are spiced with plenty of flames, but there are actually good advices/oppinions there. Also, I know some people here (already!), who work almost always on colour and converting to greyscale or duotone.

I personally find that (since i really enjoy paper prints of my photos) it's easier/more convenient/better/faster/whatever to do it on black and white film. I also do colour stuff, but if i want to convert it for other than web displaying purposes, it's problematic for me.
 
Recapping one of many arguments over this issue - I personally find that when I have B&W film in my camera, I *think* in B&W, and thus my photographs are taken with different objectives and from a different mental POV.

I have taken some shots where the finished product looked better in B&W than the original color - but that's accidental and not generally intended.

If I had color print film in my camera and I saw a shot that I just knew would be better in B&W, I'll go ahead and take the shot and convert it later.

But overall, I find that if I intend to take B&W photos, I do better work if I have B&W film in the camera.

Perhaps a mental crutch, but there it is.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
i also think one needs to decide before hand what the end goal is.
for me, i'm looking for b&w from start to finish. if it's prints i'm interested in then i have total control from start to finish in my darkroom.
i realize that using colour film is tempting in that you can get b&w from it also with a bit of computer magic but i agree with bill, i think differently when i have colour film in my camera, i look for different things and notice different things in a scene.
just because the technology is there doesn't mean we have to take advantage of it.
if you're a black & white shooter or wannabe then i think it's b&w film that needs to be in your camera.
 
Thanks guys for the respnce so far. They have been what I expected especially the seeing part. Sort of confirms my suspicions on the subject. Up until now I have not developed my own B&W but it might be something to think about.
 
Of course, it's more than a simple color=>grayscale conversion. You still have to adjust tones and such. But it's possible, and it works quite well in many cases.

Shooting b/w gives you some distinct advantages, especially regarding the personalities of each type of b/w film.

And as one person said, it helps if you can visualize the world in grayscale when shooting b/w.

Here's one example of a shot I took roughly 25 years ago.

http://host.fptoday.com/melek/photos/Monte-marte.htm
 
Last edited:
I tried some color -> B&W conversions using a channel mixer layer in PS, I liked how you could imitate the effect of color filters on B&W.

However, I'm pretty much with Bill and Joe here, I've found that I don't shoot in the same way if I have color or B&W film loaded. I also want to do my own processing but meanwhile I've found a pretty nice intermediate compromise with Ilford's XP2 C-41 film, easily developed and scanned in a 1-hour lab (there are also C-41 films by Kodak and Fuji but somehow I can find XP2 almost anywhere here).

My .02€ :)
 
Mike, that's a fine example of when a b&w version works much better in s scenic shot. I'd guess it's one of the many beautiful stairs on the montmartre.
 
I always shoot colour, scan the negs, and transform them into monochrome (see for some of my work here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=205060). I find that I think in colour but often have already an inclination that a certain shot would look good in monochrome as well. Actually, when I have a roll of B&W in my camera I feel too limited and restricted in the scenes I can shoot. But I really like my monochrome work, and I'm often more pleased with it than with the colour work. My shots from India are more to my liking than most of my colour work shot in Holland. Perhaps that's because Holland is quite grey and the colours aren't very saturated to begin with.

I recently started to subscribe to Ag magazine (http://www.picture-box.com/). I got some back issues (nr. 30-33) in which there is a 4-part guide to creating fine art prints from scanned B&W negs.
This magazine is now my favorite photography magazine. It's a quality magazine, aimed at technique instead of at gear. To me that's like a breath of fresh air.

Anyway, you'll get many opinions on this issue, and it's you who'll have to decide. I find it very convenient not to have to worry about what kind of film I have in the camera, and not feel limited in what I can shoot. And that's why I load iso400 colour film 99% of the time.
 
My thoughts regarding my own photo (now, how egotistical is that?):

With the color version, you get a sense that it's morning and a bit cool. Also, the lens flare, which I don't find objectionable lends a certain feeling to the shot, which I've never been able to describe.

The b/w version is more moody, and feels as if it could have been taken at any time during the day. It also feels a bit more timeless.
 
ZeissFan said:
Of course, it's more than a simple color=>grayscale conversion. You still have to adjust tones and such. But it's possible, and it works quite well in many cases.

Shooting b/w gives you some distinct advantages, especially regarding the personalities of each type of b/w film.

And as one person said, it helps if you can visualize the world in grayscale when shooting b/w.

Here's one example of a shot I took roughly 25 years ago.

http://host.fptoday.com/melek/photos/Monte-marte.htm
Click to expand...

Phenomenal shot! Thanks for sharing!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Is it or isn't it B&W

A great discussion. I personally haven't shot any B&W in years, but have lately done a lot of conversions. In displaying the results, sharing my photos on slide shows, etc. I have found that most of my casual viewers are really surprised to see good (self pat on the back) B&W photos. The typical remark is "I didn't think anyone took B&W pictures anymore" , or "How can I get my digital camera to do that?" It's good to read here that the medium is thriving.
 
I tend to use 400 asa colour film when I travel especially when taking a tripod is difficult. I have tried C41 film and sort of like the scanned results. The C41 has been mostly Kodak as XP2 can be hard to find locally. To my untrained eyes I have a hard time seeing a huge difference between the three ways.
 
I shoot digital, b&w and colour neg (in that order of frequency), and I do each differently. My last roll of Superia 400 is still sitting in the camera after a month :).

I definitely think differently with b&w, and I like being in control by dev'ing my own b&w. Besides, it just feels weird to have colour film in my pre-war Leica IIIa, Zorki, Kiev etc.

I find mostly, that if I want colour, it's the DReb. I might go back to colour neg as the weather gets worse in winter or places where I don't want to risk it.
 
I agree with Bill and Joe on the mental shift to/from seeing B&W pics vs color pics. There's really quite a lot of difference in what works best. B&W is more abstract, with more emphasis on light/dark values and textures. Certainly there are instances where a picture shot in color also turns out to be an excellent B&W shot.

Well, what about this "keep it simple" idea to just stock color film and deliberately go out looking for B&W subjects? That does meet the first concern above to keep the seeing separate. But it raises confusions in handling, storage, and notation. "Was this a roll I intended for B&W conversions or not?"

I keep B&W neg pages in a different binder from color. I suppose one could use one certain kind or speed of color film for B&W conversions only, then upon looking at the stored PrintFile neg pages later you could note that this was Kodak film, so therefore intended as B&W, whereas all the Fuji film is for color imaging. Or some such division... But then what happened to "keep it simple"?

I think it's just easier and ultimately more satisfactory to use B&W film for B&W pics. Then we can address which is better; chromogenic or traditional silver B&W film... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom