Shoot color or BW C41?

[robertdfeinman]

Shutterbug this month has an article about the virtues of shooting either of the C41 monochrome films.

I was thinking of doing this myself a few weeks ago, but decided against it. First, of all I have lots of color C41 on hand so I avoided spending extra money (always a factor for me - being a cheapskate).

Second, if I shoot color and then decide to make a BW print I can do so, but I can't do the reverse. In addition a color negative allows for applying a "filter" after shooting. Here's a tip that I wrote on this technique.

http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip12.html

Lately there have been a number of new products claiming to make the conversion from color to BW "better". Even the new Photoshop goes from three channels of color mixer to six. Theoretically, as long as the sensitivity of the color film extends as far into the blue and red as does the BW film one can make a BW reduction which exactly matches the color spectral sensitivity. The easiest way to do this would be to create a color overlay which matches the color response of BW film, then convert the combo to BW.

An additional advantage to a color original is that one can apply masking and convert different regions to BW selectively. So, for example, if one had a red auto in a scene and wanted to make it lighter compared to the rest of the image, one could copy that to a new layer and convert that using mostly the red channel, while the rest of the scene could be done normally.

Since I haven't tried the latest generation of BW C41 films I'm wondering if anyone can give some reasons, based upon experience, why this would be a useful choice. Is the film less grainy? Is this noticeable? Is it sharper?

I've argued in the tip above that conventional BW film is "obsolete" and got a lot of heat for it. Obviously that was a bit of hyperbole, since there are many BW films of differing speeds and graininess, but for the chromogenics there are really only two and they are both 400 speed so a comparison to similar speed color seems more fair.

Experiences anyone?

 

[rxmd]

An additional advantage to a color original is that one can apply masking and convert different regions to BW selectively. So, for example, if one had a red auto in a scene and wanted to make it lighter compared to the rest of the image, one could copy that to a new layer and convert that using mostly the red channel, while the rest of the scene could be done normally.

I don't see the advantage vs. just putting the car on a new layer and adjusting locally. You can do that with any image, B&W, colour or otherwise.

I've argued in the tip above that conventional BW film is "obsolete"

Well, technically if you want to be consequent about this kind of argument then film is obsolete in general. Even your workflow assumes that you have to scan the colour negative, and then you can skip that step and go digital right from the start. I just don't see why you're using film at all. Yes, colour images can be converted to black & white; but what role is the fact that you're using film playing in your equation?

Since I haven't tried the latest generation of BW C41 films I'm wondering if anyone can give some reasons, based upon experience, why this would be a useful choice. Is the film less grainy? Is this noticeable? Is it sharper?

- I can make B&W prints in the darkroom from XP2, which I can make from no colour film unless I use very weird papers and lighting and/or relinquish most possibilities of gradation control.

- Chromogenic B&W film has the widest contrast range of any film I know. Unless something is seriously going wrong, it's difficult to produce overexposed images. Underexposure happens more easily, but then underexposed colour prints are just plain ugly, too. You can use XP2 at anything between 50 ASA and about 800. Try that with colour film.

Philipp

 

[charjohncarter]

To me the grain, sharpness, and scan ability is the same for both B&W and Color. I tried the B&W C-41 and I really didn't like it, except for photographing skin. With skin it is great, but as a general B&W film it didn't work for me. At one point, I had 12 different methods of converting Color to B&W, all in my view were mediocre (if that). But I guess for some people C-41 B&W is fine, and C-41 Color, I think, will produce the same result. Whether, I like it or not, some will. Here is one that I tried to do from Kodak Gold 200:

 

[dmr]

Second, if I shoot color and then decide to make a BW print I can do so, but I can't do the reverse.

That's the way I look at it.

I like color. I shoot color almost exclusively.

If I want a B&W print (like in my Weegee-style experiments) I can do it in Photoshop using any of several techniques.

Also, and I know I'm probably the odd one out here, but I don't like the coarse grain in B&W. Back when I shot a lot of Tri-X I kind of put up with it as what I had to in order to get the speed at the time. Most of today's color film gives you a nice sharp image when you convert to B&W.

In addition a color negative allows for applying a "filter" after shooting.

Yes, and I think a lot of people miss this point. Using that channel mixer you can get many different B&W looks from the same negative. Simulate filters, simulate ortho film, even simulate "ordinary" film I guess. 🙂

 

[JNewell]

Second, if I shoot color and then decide to make a BW print I can do so, but I can't do the reverse.

Same view here. I shot B&W C41 for a bit, but even without getting into exotic editing it is so easy to get good "B&W" results that I don't see much point any more.

 

[Tuolumne]

I see the scene differently when I shoot B&W. That's why I still shoot B&W. And I do like C-41 B&W. The beauty of B&W with the commercial ease of C-41.

/T

 

[BillP]

If I *know* I have colour loaded, then, put simply, I see in colour. I will compose and shoot differently than I do when I *know* I have loaded black and white. When I shoot b&w I enter a different mindset. I look for different subjects and motifs. I cannot fool myself by saying "today I am going to shoot black and white" - subconsciously, I know if there is a colour emulsion behind the lens and I behave accordingly.

Regards,

Bill

 

[shadowfox]

Yes, I can convert color into B/W, but then I'll spend time on the software to get the this kind of look and tonality ...

🙂 Why? might as well use B/W film.

C-41 is a must for me because I have yet to develop myself. When I get to that point, I'll use my all time favorite film, Fortepan (or its equivalents).

I also agree with those who said that you shoot differently with B/W film. I decided beforehand to take pictures of an event or place whether it'll be in color or B/W. It's fun and never once I regretted loading the film with B/W.

 

[Leighgion]

C41 B&W is all about convenience to those of us who don't mix our own chemicals at home. Can't beat being able to drop the film to any processor if you don't do alchemy.

I'm still relatively new to shooting film in general, but I started out my recent stint with Kodak BW400CN and I've used it to produce some of my favorite images on film. I tried out a roll of Ilford XP2, but I didn't care for it overall. Have several more rolls of 400CN.

While I am familiar with and frequently enjoy the power and flexibility of doing B&W conversions in Photoshop, I don't see it as really competing with shooting B&W film. Yes, I can do many things to a digital image to change its character in a Photoshop desaturation, but the point of shooting B&W film to me (traditional or C41) is that the film is bringing its unique personality to the table. A side-effect of that is that I find to date I haven't really been interested in doing digital B&W conversion on scanned color film, only on pictures that were shot digital since I don't really want to give up the personality of color films either.

Kodak BW400CN


Ilford XP2


Digitally B&W from color Nikon D40 shot

 

[mfogiel]

Robert,
The B&W C41 film is sharper than colour C41, because it has a single, therefore thinner layer of photo sensitive material, and as far as I am concened, the tonality is better than from a converted colour film.
I have shot XP" for a few months, but then I have switched to silver films, because the B&W photography is really about the tonality and grain, which you will not get from the chromogenics, no matter how hard you try. They can be excellent for smoothing out details, hence they score high for portraiture, and for strong highlight retention, because of resistance to overexposure.

 

[MickH]

I have switched to silver films, because the B&W photography is really about the tonality and grain, which you will not get from the chromogenics, no matter how hard you try. They can be excellent for smoothing out details, hence they score high for portraiture, and for strong highlight retention, because of resistance to overexposure.

Sorry to be a dumbo, but ould you gived an example or two of these silver films pls. Are they significantly more expensive to buy/lab process than their C41 counterparts?

 

[Leighgion]

Sorry to be a dumbo, but ould you gived an example or two of these silver films pls. Are they significantly more expensive to buy/lab process than their C41 counterparts?

Kodak Tri-X, Plus-X... Fuji Neopan... Ilford HP5... all the traditional B&W films are silver based.

While not more expensive to buy (cheaper if done right) than C41 B&W, unfortunately lab processing for true B&W is now rare and correspondingly more expensive. That's what's held me off. The economical way to go is home developing, which I was against as I don't like messing with chemicals, but I'm reconsidering.

 

[MickH]

Ta.

I used to use HP5 ages ago & liked it alot. I never realised it was a "silver film", just knew it as a traditional B&W. I guess it's just terminology that has changed over the last 20 years!

Cheers.

 

[Leighgion]

I used to use HP5 ages ago & liked it alot. I never realised it was a "silver film", just knew it as a traditional B&W. I guess it's just terminology that has changed over the last 20 years!
Cheers.

Well, before C41 B&W (chromogenic) was created, there was no need to differentiate as all B&W film was silver-based. 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

Leighgion, nice shots.

 

[kevin m]

The big reason to shoot C41 B&W is that you get iso 400 speed but iso 100 grain. It's a unique film in its own right with a wonderful tonality and doesn't take a backseat to anything.

OTOH, I think you can shoot Fuji NPZ or 1600 and make a reasonable imitation of Tri-X by converting in PS using channel mixer.

 

[polaski]

Why shoot film at all? Because I like using old cameras.

As far as the rest is concerned, digital post-processing is just another technology available to arrive at a final image.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I see the scene differently when I shoot B&W. That's why I still shoot B&W. And I do like C-41 B&W. The beauty of B&W with the commercial ease of C-41.

Yes, exactly.

I use color almost all the time but C41 mono when i'm in the mood for mono.