sevo
Fokutorendaburando
There is no filter choice in post processing beyond adjusting the mixture of the three wide-band filters built into the film.
Sevo
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Perhaps not, but if you like the results from converting from colour, where's the problem? As I noted:
I went on to say that I find some film converts better than others etc. etc. If you don't care for the look of converted colour, well, so be it and more power to your elbow. I would only ask "converted" from which colour film?", since I believe that matters: I care for the results from some more than others, and some I don't care for at all.
Just for the purposes of comparison and despite the vagaries of differences in lighting, scanning, post-processing of various sorts and so on, here are three from a similar location shot on colour converted to B&W (Kodak Gold 100), C-41 B&W (Ilford XP2) and "real" B&W (Ilford Delta 400), though not in that order:
(Note that all were shot on different days in different light, and any post-processing was done quite separately using different techniques and at widely separated times.)
Conclusions? I guess everyone will form their own.
...Mike
P.S. Regarding:
I think I get better black and white shots from film, even conversions from colour than I've been able to get from digital. My technique may be bad, of course, but it has all seemed too much trouble when I can just shoot film and get results I like. Messing about with converting from digital has taken a lot of work to get worse results. Why waste the effort?
gdi
Veteran
I think that applies to B&W vs. Color film as well - why waste the effort of choosing conversion technique, custom curves, adding grain, creating digital negatives, and so on, to try to get a B&W film look? You can just shoot B&W and forget that trouble.
But, then, if you want the resulting look then go for it.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Acutally, it's quite often a matter of practicality - sometimes as simple as what film I happen to have in the camera. Others: when not in a position to develop my own (which has applied over the last 9 or so months while I've been away)
it also includes not being able to get good processing/scanning for C-41 B&W, and also wanting slower film. The C-41 B&W I can get is all ISO400 and, in a bright Australian summer, a couple of extra stops of film speed can be a problem rather than a help. I don't have ND filters to fit all my lenses, and the additional piece of glass from the filter can cause problems of its own.
And sometimes I just find that putting something like Gold 200 in the camera is a good compromise if I don't know what I'll be shooting: colour or B&W, indoors or outdoors.
...Mike
mfogiel
Veteran
mfunnell
I agree, that there are no "musts" in photography. For that matter there are people having fun cross processing film. However, the question here is, what gives best results ? I believe, in principle, best results are coming from B&W film - even XP2 is better than a conversion. Out of your examples, I beiieve the one on top is the colour conversion - there is no "life" in these tones, they look muddy and flat. The one in the middle looks like an XP2 shot, so the highlights and midtones are ok, only the dark tones have sunk into black. The third one - although obviously has some blown highlights from overexposure of the human figures, still has most appeal tonally, if you look at the wet asphalt - this kind of subtle yet sparkling reflection takes some good film to emulate, so the problem of that shot is the incorrect exposure, not the film.
I agree, that there are no "musts" in photography. For that matter there are people having fun cross processing film. However, the question here is, what gives best results ? I believe, in principle, best results are coming from B&W film - even XP2 is better than a conversion. Out of your examples, I beiieve the one on top is the colour conversion - there is no "life" in these tones, they look muddy and flat. The one in the middle looks like an XP2 shot, so the highlights and midtones are ok, only the dark tones have sunk into black. The third one - although obviously has some blown highlights from overexposure of the human figures, still has most appeal tonally, if you look at the wet asphalt - this kind of subtle yet sparkling reflection takes some good film to emulate, so the problem of that shot is the incorrect exposure, not the film.
robertdfeinman
Robert Feinman
It seems that many who have complaints are having trouble with the scanning.
Here's my discussion on this:
http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip11.html
I will add that most of the software that comes with scanners does a poor job, mostly being designed for easy scanning of old snapshots. The two products that can do everything needed are SilverFast and Vuescan.
SilverFast is more expensive, you need a different version for each model of scanner you own, but is designed for doing the maximum amount of adjustment (including automated and batch) during the scan itself. This is good for users who need to convert a large number of images, especially if they are taken under similar conditions - a wedding, for example. Many scanners come with a stripped down version, but this doesn't offer all the features.
Vuescan is much cheaper, works with hundreds of scanners, offers free upgrades (sometimes too often), but takes a different philosophy. While it does allow for some adjustments to color balance and tonal range, it is really better to leave this to the editing process.
The big sin of poor scanning software is that it clips the tonal range during scanning in order to make the image look punchy. This is the same defect one frequently gets with commercial prints from the one hour shops, blocked up shadows and too much overall contrast.
The advantage to scanning and then printing digitally is that you are not limited by the response curve of the color print paper. I make much lower contrast images now that I use this path than I was able to get when I did conventional color in the darkroom. This is out of fashion as increased saturation is all the rage these days.
I used to shoot LF and carried, B&W, color positive and IR in separate film holders. I could then chose in the field, but was limited to how many shots of each I could manage. When I switched to using a 6x7 back on the 4x5 I carried two roll holders loaded with B&W and transparency. I also still carried 4x5 IR until Kodak stopped selling it.
Now I shoot MF or RF with color negative (the cheapest 200 speed I can find - usually Fuji). Saves my back and I still get the flexibility. I do miss the IR, but I can fudge the perspective correction in photoshop.
Here's my discussion on this:
http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip11.html
I will add that most of the software that comes with scanners does a poor job, mostly being designed for easy scanning of old snapshots. The two products that can do everything needed are SilverFast and Vuescan.
SilverFast is more expensive, you need a different version for each model of scanner you own, but is designed for doing the maximum amount of adjustment (including automated and batch) during the scan itself. This is good for users who need to convert a large number of images, especially if they are taken under similar conditions - a wedding, for example. Many scanners come with a stripped down version, but this doesn't offer all the features.
Vuescan is much cheaper, works with hundreds of scanners, offers free upgrades (sometimes too often), but takes a different philosophy. While it does allow for some adjustments to color balance and tonal range, it is really better to leave this to the editing process.
The big sin of poor scanning software is that it clips the tonal range during scanning in order to make the image look punchy. This is the same defect one frequently gets with commercial prints from the one hour shops, blocked up shadows and too much overall contrast.
The advantage to scanning and then printing digitally is that you are not limited by the response curve of the color print paper. I make much lower contrast images now that I use this path than I was able to get when I did conventional color in the darkroom. This is out of fashion as increased saturation is all the rage these days.
I used to shoot LF and carried, B&W, color positive and IR in separate film holders. I could then chose in the field, but was limited to how many shots of each I could manage. When I switched to using a 6x7 back on the 4x5 I carried two roll holders loaded with B&W and transparency. I also still carried 4x5 IR until Kodak stopped selling it.
Now I shoot MF or RF with color negative (the cheapest 200 speed I can find - usually Fuji). Saves my back and I still get the flexibility. I do miss the IR, but I can fudge the perspective correction in photoshop.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
The basis of the argument for using color film emulsion and converting to B/W in post is predicated on an output of digital printing, or the image being viewed online.
However, if you're printing B/W onto silver gelatin paper in the darkroom it behooves you to use silver gelatin B/W film, since such papers are not sensitive to the colors of light produced when projection enlarging color negative film.
When using silver-based B/W film, you must understand your materials and process sufficiently to use the appropriate color filters over the lens at the time the exposure is made. Some old boy photographer, with a long, scraggly beard, termed this "previsualization." There's also nothing wrong with making multiple exposures of the scene, each using a different filter, and choose which you prefer afterward.
There's also nothing quite like the look of true B/W silver emulsion grain; which, BTW, can be altered in appearance by the appropriate choice of developer, concentration and agitation technique during the developing process.
~Joe
However, if you're printing B/W onto silver gelatin paper in the darkroom it behooves you to use silver gelatin B/W film, since such papers are not sensitive to the colors of light produced when projection enlarging color negative film.
When using silver-based B/W film, you must understand your materials and process sufficiently to use the appropriate color filters over the lens at the time the exposure is made. Some old boy photographer, with a long, scraggly beard, termed this "previsualization." There's also nothing wrong with making multiple exposures of the scene, each using a different filter, and choose which you prefer afterward.
There's also nothing quite like the look of true B/W silver emulsion grain; which, BTW, can be altered in appearance by the appropriate choice of developer, concentration and agitation technique during the developing process.
~Joe
clayne
shoot film or die
Sorry to be flippant and quick here - but anyone who has spent any amount of time shooting and developing silver-based b&w film will know that there is definite difference between C-41 process *anything* and traditional b&w.
If you want the convenience factor - you might as well get out of film and shoot digital.
If you want the convenience factor - you might as well get out of film and shoot digital.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I got some black and white conversions from colour neg as well as digital, and do silver black and white for preference. I quite like converting Ektar - I think the high saturationa nd contrast gives a punchy look, but if I am planning on black and white tend to just take black and white film with me.
Mike
Mike
peterm1
Veteran
Mfogiel - you say:
"I am amazed about the answers. It does not take more than a quick glance to see the difference between a colour conversion and true B&W. "
With respect, and I am not trying to be provocative but I have to say that I think the example of color conversion to black and white that you have provided is not typical - it is in fact a fairly poor example. The tonality is way off. So it is not a good basis for comparison and I have seen many better ones. So of course the one shot in BW will look superior.
The point I make earlier is that by shooting in color, and then by scanning as color you keep your options open and cna make a variety of creative choices late in the value chain.
"I am amazed about the answers. It does not take more than a quick glance to see the difference between a colour conversion and true B&W. "
With respect, and I am not trying to be provocative but I have to say that I think the example of color conversion to black and white that you have provided is not typical - it is in fact a fairly poor example. The tonality is way off. So it is not a good basis for comparison and I have seen many better ones. So of course the one shot in BW will look superior.
The point I make earlier is that by shooting in color, and then by scanning as color you keep your options open and cna make a variety of creative choices late in the value chain.
clayne
shoot film or die
Do you shoot silver-based b&w film?
I'm amazed that you can't see why working within a limited framework is more often a positive than a negative.
In my opinion, photography is not about preserving options or a utilitarian approach to "image-making." It's a commitment.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I'm sorry and must apologise. I have photographed in ways that aren't the way you have photographed. Therefore what I have is done is Wrong and Bad.
I am so f***ing sorry. It will never happen again.
...Mike
P.S. Where's that albatross?
clayne
shoot film or die
Which is exactly why I said In my opinion.
It's based off a very simple adage: do we really need more crap in the global pool of images?
Sparrow
Veteran
cs_foto
Member
there is no better or worst, just different.
as much as all types and brands of black and white film are different, same if you convert colour into black and white. you will get a different result, there is no better or worst, just different.
velvia into b+w in photoshop will be different than kodak epp into b+w and different from tri-x, also depends on what scaner you use, etc.
these internet 'laws' about self-proclaimed 'better' and absolute ways to do things is just nonsense, the kind of nonsense that is used in consumer photo magazines in order to sell commodities.
as much as all types and brands of black and white film are different, same if you convert colour into black and white. you will get a different result, there is no better or worst, just different.
velvia into b+w in photoshop will be different than kodak epp into b+w and different from tri-x, also depends on what scaner you use, etc.
these internet 'laws' about self-proclaimed 'better' and absolute ways to do things is just nonsense, the kind of nonsense that is used in consumer photo magazines in order to sell commodities.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I would have to go along with what you said about absolute better ways being nonsense. If there are a number of ways to an end such as a B&W image then you simply try the different ways to see which is best for your purposes. If you are doing it to please yourself then you are the ultimate judge not somebody else. OTH if you are selling your work to feed yourself then the ultimate judges are your clientele.
Bob
hap
Well-known
Is it true?
Is it true?
When I originally posted this thread, I had no idea what kind of responses it would elicit. Although I suspected there would be some controversy because imiplicit in the question are all sorts of issues related to cherished opinions on digital, film, BW, Color...and the whole megillah. compared to many of you I have almost no experience with digital or digital processing. However, there is no reall way around it if you want to get away from dark rooms and silver based printing. Then, the issue becomes very subjective. However, for simiplicity and convenience sake, especially if a person wishes to shoot analog and process digitial, it makes sense to eliminate the superfluous . The less the merrier, so to speak. So I was really looking for some "advice" as I am entering the digital processing age and it is a major undertaking. If I could generate BW images from color film....and they could be made pleasing and achieve certain effect with digital means, that would simplify matters as I really do not want to shoot a number of different films. Seems like suggesting in any way that eliminating or replacing BW films....is good.....agitates the purists. I feel their pain.
Hap
Is it true?
When I originally posted this thread, I had no idea what kind of responses it would elicit. Although I suspected there would be some controversy because imiplicit in the question are all sorts of issues related to cherished opinions on digital, film, BW, Color...and the whole megillah. compared to many of you I have almost no experience with digital or digital processing. However, there is no reall way around it if you want to get away from dark rooms and silver based printing. Then, the issue becomes very subjective. However, for simiplicity and convenience sake, especially if a person wishes to shoot analog and process digitial, it makes sense to eliminate the superfluous . The less the merrier, so to speak. So I was really looking for some "advice" as I am entering the digital processing age and it is a major undertaking. If I could generate BW images from color film....and they could be made pleasing and achieve certain effect with digital means, that would simplify matters as I really do not want to shoot a number of different films. Seems like suggesting in any way that eliminating or replacing BW films....is good.....agitates the purists. I feel their pain.
Hap
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Hap
In your first post you made a fatal mistake but saying that KR says it is better to shot colour and convert to B&W. That immediately agitates the purists. If you want to try it out and have colour 35 digital files handy you can download Picasa, it is free. It may not be the best, there is that word again, program available but it will give you an idea if this could be right for you before you drop big money on a pro program.
Bob
In your first post you made a fatal mistake but saying that KR says it is better to shot colour and convert to B&W. That immediately agitates the purists. If you want to try it out and have colour 35 digital files handy you can download Picasa, it is free. It may not be the best, there is that word again, program available but it will give you an idea if this could be right for you before you drop big money on a pro program.
Bob
clayne
shoot film or die
bwcolor
Veteran
I have been fully digital since 2002, but as with many older folks, I've got a number of unused camera systems. I decided to buy some film and start shooting 6x7 and it seemed to me that B&W film has a different look than digital. Anyway, found this thread via a search and so my questions come from a sincere interest and not trying to pre-judge anyone's approach.
1. When you shoot in color and then post-process, can your end product be duplicated in digital? If so, why do you use film?
2. Same question with regards to C-41 processed B&W...
3. When you shoot in silver based film, what workflow approach has allowed you to easily scan without dust, grain distortion etc. problems?
I've sent color, C-41 B&W and Silver based to Walmart, but have yet to get it back. I need to decide if I will go forward, because if I do, I'll need to process and scan and that involves time and money. I no longer have my chemicals, nor a medium format scanner.
Thanks for your response..
Gary
1. When you shoot in color and then post-process, can your end product be duplicated in digital? If so, why do you use film?
2. Same question with regards to C-41 processed B&W...
3. When you shoot in silver based film, what workflow approach has allowed you to easily scan without dust, grain distortion etc. problems?
I've sent color, C-41 B&W and Silver based to Walmart, but have yet to get it back. I need to decide if I will go forward, because if I do, I'll need to process and scan and that involves time and money. I no longer have my chemicals, nor a medium format scanner.
Thanks for your response..
Gary