Is it True....shoot color film over B/W for B/W digital negs?

[mfogiel]

Gary,
1)The answer is: almost YES (almost, as the tonality of colour film shot on larger formats is still difficult to touch for digital, maybe except for the latest MFD 16 bit backs), but the converse is also true...
2) The peculiarity of C41 film, is the resiliency to blow highlights, and a certain inability to record detail in the shadows. I would say, the peculiarity of digital is to blow the highlights AND have a certain inability to record detail in the shadows, so the answer is NO
3) The best workflow is to develop yourself, dry the film in a dust free environment, and scan yourself in a good quality ("diffuse" light type) film scanner (I suggest Nikon CS 9000 or Imacon), this is not only the best, but in reality the cheapest quality solution. I had a mail yesterday from someone who paid 20 eur per single 6x6 scan, only to find out that the files were 12MB 8 bit jpegs with a blue cast...

 

[Matus]

I did some color-to-BW conversions too (from film scans) and often found myself in a situation when using a stronger "BW" filter like orange or red and then with some more subsequent processing (curves etc.) that I got banding in the sky - even with 16 bit scans. The problem is - the sky has nearly only blue color in it. If you filter with a red-like filter in PS you throw away nearly all the information and the rest is stretched over a large contrast range.

So - I see also disadvantages of this approach apart from the look and tones of the "real thing". Still - it is a very usable technique, but one should not use it as an excuse for laziness. It indeed adds possibilities out of reach of the BW films, especially if one likes the "dirty PS games" 😉 .

 

[bwcolor]

So, it seems that converted color has minimal use when compared to digital. I say this because the workflow is so much more involved, with minimal advantage.

C41 B&W has sufficiently different characteristics that should I like the results, I might find advantage vs. digital.

Traditional B&W certainly has the potential to have a unique look when compared to digital, but is there a fine grained film that allows for use of ICE? I say this because what limited scanning experience that I have, 35mm/Coolscan 2000.. dust was a rather able adversary.

 

[Chris101]

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

Forget it - just shoot digital.

I am afraid that I 've got to agree here. B&W film is a special artistic medium. You can make a monochrome image easier and while preserving more options to just do a digital capture to begin with!

 

[x-ray]

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. Sometimes they come close, and this is when the subject is very poor tonally - typically night shots, or film very hard pushed. If one cares about B&W, which is all about tonality, then shooting the best B&W film which suits your taste and developing it appropriately is THE THING. Otherwise, it might be pretty obvious to go with the best DSLR, and be done with all the hassle.

A B&W conversion from Chrome:

A true B&W film:

I think you're on the money here. At best a chrome will have 8 stops dynamic range and often less if you're shooting contrasty film like Velvia. Color neg can go up to roughly 12 stops with careful selection of film, exposure, processing and scanned on a drum or premium scanner like a Eversmart Supreme or Finescan. B&W film can go about 12 under the same conditions as color neg. B&W to reach that range needs special processing like in Pyro dev. The problems with transparency film is the narrow dynamic range and exposure latitude. Color neg generally scans with more apparent grain (premium scan on a drum) and has little under exposure latitude.

One of my recent thoughts is whether I'm putting myself to more headaches than I should. I still love B&W wet printing and haven't seen a digital print that can compare in depth to a finely crafted wet print. (This is my personal opinion so don't flame me over it.) For color I love the look of properly processed and printed digital prints. It takes care and knowledge to get the results from raw files but it's no more difficult than wet printing color. (Again it's my personal opinion.) In recent months I've given more thought to going with a high end digital back on MF for most of my work. I shoot 1DsII Canon equipment for my commercial work but am considering selling a bunch of film gear to buy a Hasselblad back. The high end backs have more dynamic range than most films and plenty of resolution. Some of the backs have 14 stops of range and up to 60mp. Cost is high but look at the cost of what some of us have in film gear. I have 3 MP bodies, and a full set of Leica glass with much of it current, a set of Zeiss and a ZM body plus Ebony, Canham and Deardorff cameras and safe full of lenses. A nice new Hasselblad H3DII with 4 -5 lenses would be with reach if selling the film gear. I can make digital negs for silver printing and alternative printing and bypass the darkroom although I love printing in the darkroom. IMO the beauty of film is in the wet print and not in scans and digital prints.

I'm also wondering the future of film given the current economic climate. Film shooting for most is a luxury and will or has been one of the first things to go when money runs short. I know from my large format work that the folks shooting ultra large format and ordering custom sizes of film have dropped enormously. Once a year special runs of silver gelatin paper and custom film orders are dropping. Minimum orders are falling short. I would expect film sales to start or to all ready have dropped. I could be wrong but this economic downturn could impact the future of film. (Not trying to start a film vs digital war.)

I feel digital has come of age and have to face the decision of whether to sell most of the expensive film gear and go for a 50MP Hasselblad system or one of the new 39mp Hasselblad backs compatible with my current system or sit tight and shoot film. I have considered the lens speed of the MF vs 35 but have that covered with my canon system with a set of the high speed L lenses (24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 2 and 200 1.8) What more could you want in high speed glass? I also have an EOS film body if I want to shoot film. The addition of the MF digital would take me into the range of MF/LF film without the darkroom and expense. What to do?????

 

[mackigator]

What about the idea the true B&W film has a greater tonal range than color film? Is this a myth? If it's true, it's at least a reason to shoot real B&W film.

True B&W, processed at home, is also the cheapest way to keep film running through your film cameras and it will probably exist for a long long time into the future, even once color labs die off.

 

[x-ray]

What about the idea the true B&W film has a greater tonal range than color film? Is this a myth? If it's true, it's at least a reason to shoot real B&W film.

True B&W, processed at home, is also the cheapest way to keep film running through your film cameras and it will probably exist for a long long time into the future, even once color labs die off.

Some color neg films have much broader contrast range then B&W. It takes pyro or other special development for B&W to approach the contrast range of color neg.

I'm not certain when you factor in all the costs of equipment, chemicals and etc. whether running film at home is cheaper than running color neg at a lab. I haven't had many rolls of color neg run for a while but I imagine you can get 36 exposures run without prints or scans for around $2.50-3.00. I can't run B&W for that.

 

[vidgamer]

For digital, I found that unless I set the camera to B&W, I rarely went back to convert a color photo. It takes time, but more importantly, it's hard to visualize. For a film camera, where you can't preview the B&W results, I suppose the visualization aspect doesn't apply, but I just bought some C-41 process B&W film to try. Sounds like fun, anyway.

 

[clayne]

One of my recent thoughts is whether I'm putting myself to more headaches than I should. I still love B&W wet printing and haven't seen a digital print that can compare in depth to a finely crafted wet print. (This is my personal opinion so don't flame me over it.) For color I love the look of properly processed and printed digital prints. It takes care and knowledge to get the results from raw files but it's no more difficult than wet printing color. (Again it's my personal opinion.) In recent months I've given more thought to going with a high end digital back on MF for most of my work. I shoot 1DsII Canon equipment for my commercial work but am considering selling a bunch of film gear to buy a Hasselblad back. The high end backs have more dynamic range than most films and plenty of resolution. Some of the backs have 14 stops of range and up to 60mp. Cost is high but look at the cost of what some of us have in film gear. I have 3 MP bodies, and a full set of Leica glass with much of it current, a set of Zeiss and a ZM body plus Ebony, Canham and Deardorff cameras and safe full of lenses. A nice new Hasselblad H3DII with 4 -5 lenses would be with reach if selling the film gear. I can make digital negs for silver printing and alternative printing and bypass the darkroom although I love printing in the darkroom. IMO the beauty of film is in the wet print and not in scans and digital prints.

One serious point of contention I'm going to have to bring up here has to do with the nature of response curves. While we can argue dynamic range differences all day - digital does NOT have a non-linear response curve like all films do. This is one of the huge reasons that film has it's own look. It naturally compresses and saturates light in a way that digital sensors are not capable of.

This is a biggie when it comes to the aesthetic of film and it's repeatedly overlooked by people considering digital.

Latitude and natural saturation are both helpful and aesthetic tools that can impart a signature look and feel on an image the same way our eyes saw the scene (or maybe didn't) in the first place. It's a big part of the "soul" factor, in addition to grain, tonal response, etc.

Digital does not handle these with the same grace. It does what it's told, lifelessly and without significant character. It also punishes when met with input it can't handle.

In short: film.

 

[danwilly]

I shoot black and white if I intend to work entirely in the darkroom. But there is no doubt shooting color and converting to grayscale gives you more options with photoshop. Especially with the color channels and darkening a blue sky. This debate seems to be more about personal preference than technology.