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

[hap]

I have very little experience with digital image processing although I have shot much black and white and color transparency film, mostly in LF. I am to the point where I would want my 35mm negatives scanned (from now on) and plan to still do most of my images in black and white. I read, I think on Ken Rockwell, that it is better to shoot in color ..and then convert in PS or LR to BW rather than to shoot primarily in BW. I do not remember the rationale given but it seemed plausible at the time. Is this correct....? It would simplify my life to just use the color......

Hap

 

[Prosaic]

Color processing is much cheaper (at least where I live and if you dont develop yourself).

With a final image in grayscale, no one will be able to tell if it comes from color slide, b/w negative or even from a good digital camera.

 

[kuzano]

More options in post processing

More options in post processing

I have very little experience with digital image processing although I have shot much black and white and color transparency film, mostly in LF. I am to the point where I would want my 35mm negatives scanned (from now on) and plan to still do most of my images in black and white. I read, I think on Ken Rockwell, that it is better to shoot in color ..and then convert in PS or LR to BW rather than to shoot primarily in BW. I do not remember the rationale given but it seemed plausible at the time. Is this correct....? It would simplify my life to just use the color......

Hap

The short explanation I was given. Bring the whole scene home from the field (ie. always shoot color, whether film or digital). The possibilities for conversion to mono in post processing is far greater than a B/W negative. I think this may go against the grain for many shooters who have trained the eye to see in black and white, but once you see the possibilities with regard to filter choices and many other features of post processing, it sounds logical. There are many books available on converting color to mono and it seems it may be limiting your possibilities to not have a color image, particularly when traveling to distant places for your shots.

 

[csxcnj]

I shoot plenty of B & W film and then get it scanned. It's fine. What you're referirng to is B & W on a digital camera. It is/was (Nikon) better to shoot in color and then convert digital images to B & W. You had more latitude with tones and shades that way.

I have a D700 and find that shots done in-camera in B &W look pretty damn good, still doesn't match film, but getting close. Way better than previous cameras in their line up. I find that setting the ISO to 800 or better on the D700 adds a nice grain like effect too. It's files already have a more film like look in color than previous models and the added ISO in an in-camera B & W shot adds to that.

 

[momus1]

If you are scanning your film, then you will still want to shoot w/ B&W film, as it's tonal graduations are completely different from color film, but you would want to scan it in using RGB (red, green, blue) color space. No amount of manipulation will make color film look like Tri-X. I think what Ken is referring to is that if you are shooting a digital camera you should shoot in color? Not sure what he means actually, but yes, you would want to NOT select B&W in your digital camera's menu as it will leave you handicapped in post processing. For film, the old rules apply whether you are enlarging in a darkroom or scanning your negs. Shoot B&W for B&W prints and shoot color for color prints.

 

[robertdfeinman]

I have a discussion on using color film to make b&w prints on my web site. Here's the link:
http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip12.html

One of the advantages is that you can apply "filters" after the fact as I show. As for "tonal gradations" being completely different, with modern editors using curve adjustments you can emulate any other response curve. I even show some "impossible" curves that you can create.

There may be some grain effects that can't be emulated exactly since b&w film has actual clumps of silver while color has more diffuse "clouds" of dye. Depending on how important this is to you, you can add noise effects or use one of the proprietary emulation programs.

Personally I try to eliminate grain from my prints. But tastes vary.

 

[hap]

Is it true?

Is it true?

Seems to me that the consensus is building towards using one film.....probably color transparency and converting to BW. I haven't inserted the link from Rockwell....but I think he used many of the same arguments above. I also looked at Silver eFex and you can add "grain" with one of the new tools to almost any desired degree. DXO film modules will produce effects that are almost indistinguishable from the "real" thing. However, obviously some RFF'ers prefer the real thing and there is some merit to that., if nothng other than preserving traditional craft. The emotional impact of picture making will probably not be affected by keeping to traditional black and white methods vs processing a digital color image. I feel way behind the times....I don't want to learn the minutia of messing with LR or Photoshop...... But I guess I am being dragged there kicking and screaming.

 

[peterm1]

Shooting in color and then making the conversion in software gives much greater flexibility - whether shooting film or digital, incidentally. For example if you shoot black and white film (say for the sake of the argument using an orange filter ) this predetermines what effect you will get - What if you decide after the event you should have shot using a red filter instead - or a blue or a green ? This kind of dilemma does not arise if you shoot color film and scan it. You can make every kind of creative choice later and implement it using Photoshop or whatever you software of choice happens to be. Same for grain, same for infra red etc etc. I like the idea of being able to shoot black and white in camera on my digital - there is a kind of romance about it but I seldom do it for the above reason.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think along the lines of the above posters and have gone with colour, either digital or film, and convert later. It keeps things simple, especially when traveling, and you don't have to say darn it I should have shot that in B&W or used a different filter. If you do traditional B&W it should be easy to compare the same scene done both ways. If you are satisfied with the colour conversion image then it is ok for you. Keep your options open and expand what you can do creatively.

Bob

 

[retnull]

I don't shoot LF, but here is a different opinion. Having more options later is NOT always beneficial: sometimes it's just better to commit definitively, then be done with it. I personally do not enjoy exploring 10,000,00 options in post-production. For this reason, I shoot B+W film, and it is what it is. Becoming familiar with the tonal response of one film stock influences future decisions while shooting.

Also, I do not agree that color film converted to B+W can give the same results as B+W. The tonality looks different. Sometimes I spot the difference in images seen online.

 

[Armoured]

Thanks for asking this; good question. I'm leaning to using colour film and converting, but still experimenting with which I prefer. So far, my hunch is that the main parts of what I identify as the "feel" of film is retained with shooting with colour film and then converting. I agree with the comments above mostly, and without tossing out the arguments about the special qualities of the various formulations of B&W chemistry, I identify the following as major advantages to shooting colour and post-converting: 1) the added flexibility of how each colour gets converted, 2) the occasional shot that turns out to be very impressive in colour even if I had intended B&W, 3) reduced need to carry extra bodies/backs if you want to shoot colour and B&W.

The final kicker is that (even if the number of film processing places is falling) getting colour film developed and scanned is much easier in most places and usually cheaper than B&W. (I probably wouldn't mind developing by hand in B&W, mostly out of nostalgia, but the extra scanning time/expense means I won't).

Any comments by anyone on the "cast"/colour of the film backing and scanning quality? Certainly most consumer scanners don't handle b&w negatives as well, usually at minimum digital ice and equivalent don't work. Any comments on chromogenic/C-41 process B&W?

I will probably end up sticking with colour - cheaper, easier, less stuff to carry, occasional pleasant surprises - most of the time, and the various kodak B&Ws every once in a while.

But I am really noticing that since I have started to spend more time with film (after a lengthy hiatus) I am converting much more to black and white. I just like the look; I don't like it so much with digital B&W. For that reason, I can completely understand anyone who wanted to stick with regular B&W for the long term.

 

[mfunnell]

I find it really depends on the effect you're after or that you like. I shoot a lot of Kodak Gold 100 and Gold 200 with the intention of converting to black and white, which I think it does rather well. I'm less enamoured of the "look" I get converting, say, Fuji Reala 100 to black and white, though I like it a lot for colour. Sticking with C-41 film, I quite like both Ilford XP-2 and Kodak BW400CN, which to my eye produce a "look" different from each other and different from converting colour film. I've found, though, that a lot of minilabs do a poor job of printing or scanning from C-41 BW film. For traditional film, I like Ilford Delta 400 which looks, to me, different from all of the above.

Now that I'm able to develop and scan my own again (I'm back home after many months away) I'll probably use more Delta 400, but for quite some time now I've been mostly shooting Kodak Gold when intending to shoot for BW and Reala or Portra when intending to shoot colour, then relying on lab scans (having spent some time figuring out which labs could be trusted to deliver more-or-less acceptable results).

...Mike

 

[MIkhail]

If you are scanning your film, then you will still want to shoot w/ B&W film, as it's tonal graduations are completely different from color film, but you would want to scan it in using RGB (red, green, blue) color space. No amount of manipulation will make color film look like Tri-X. I think what Ken is referring to is that if you are shooting a digital camera you should shoot in color? Not sure what he means actually, but yes, you would want to NOT select B&W in your digital camera's menu as it will leave you handicapped in post processing. For film, the old rules apply whether you are enlarging in a darkroom or scanning your negs. Shoot B&W for B&W prints and shoot color for color prints.

I second that. The very essence of color film is different from black and white film. Beautiful unique grain of fine film like Tri-X cannot be matched with small "scales" of color in 3 or 4 layers... There is no way you cannot see the difference between the real thing and fake one. And why? Why fake the color film, might as well go digital. That's where you want to shoot color no matter what and then convert.
You can do whatever you want, but just don't kid yourself thinking it's the same thing, because it's not...

 

[Al Kaplan]

I suspect that a lot of us shoot very differently when shooting in color than when shooting in B&W. A composition of the same subject/scene might work in color but the tones are all wrong for B&W and vice versa, with the color composition a disturbing clash of colors. The same goes for lenses. I prefer my 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor for B&W and the 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit for color. Changing the "signature" of a lens, its bokeh, etc. that works well in B&W to one that works well in color? I don't think so.

 

[sleepyhead]

I think this approach is fine to try if you can see and think in B&W dispite having colour film in your camera.

I can't - too old school I guess - if I have colour film in the camera, then I think and see in colour, and that consciousness hampers my ability to see and shoot well in b&W.

I know, because I tried this approach last year.

 

[mfunnell]

I suspect that a lot of us shoot very differently when shooting in color than when shooting in B&W.

Well, when I'm shooting colour with the intention of converting to B&W I have to make myself "think in B&W" otherwise things don't work out so well. When I succeed at that, I can even find myself seeing a shot and thinking "that would make a good shot in colour, it's a pity I'm not....hang on, I am". Of course, by that time the colour shot has probably gone away (and I've probably knocked myself out of the mindset).

Still, if I'm using film that converts well to B&W, and I "think in B&W" then I end up with what I think are decent-enough B&W shots. Sometimes I have to force myself to think that way, but I can usually manage it.

...Mike

 

[masamunexs]

Most scanners are not as effective in dust recognition with B/W film as they are with C41 negatives or positives.

In my own personal experience I have found the prior to be true, but that scanning B/W negatives requires a lot more tweaking to get a good capture. I did not have this problem scanning either C41 color, C41 B/W, nor positives.

 

[mfogiel]

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:

 

[dfoo]

Color film converted to black and white does not look to me the same as black & white shot from real black & white silver film. More importantly you also cannot traditionally print color film on black & white paper.

BTW, those two shots above are killer!

 

[Chris101]

... You can make every kind of creative choice later and implement it using Photoshop or whatever you software of choice happens to be. Same for grain, same for infra red etc etc. ...

There is room for controversy where grain, tonality and other qualities of film are concerned. However IR is different, in that you are capturing a part of the spectrum that non-IR film is just not sensitive to (or is sensitive, but many times less so than to visible light.)

Take white foliage for example. You can select to turn green white with software, but in real IR you could have a paint that is exactly grass green, yet is not reflective of IR, and so would render as black to IR film. Yet the software would consider it the same as the grass, and turn it white.