shooting more B&W these days?

[djon]

I am. I'm shooting a couple of rolls a week, souping it on SS reels and scanning/printing on really nice equipment...Nikon V and Epson 2200.

How about you? More B&W than in recent years? If so, why?

What's amusing to me about this is that I'd arrived at reliably great color printing (better than labs IMO) and then I turned to B&W...which has been pretty easy until recently, when I decided I needed to do better than I used to do with silver (wasn't super-demanding in the old days).

Been shooting/pushing fast film (Neopan 400/800) just shot some C41 Ilford (ecch?), and am about to process T100 in Rodinal @ 1:100, hopefully to be used in a print exchange.

If I keep this up it'll be 1972 before I know it. 😉

 

[xcapekey]

i shoot about two 100 foot rolls of HP5 a month (around 36-37 rolls of 36 exposure) so yeh, i'm shooting a lot of BW film too...not counting the dozen or so rolls of neopan 1600 (can't bulk roll that unfortunately 🙁...

if u plan on shooting more, i highly suggest bulk rolling...the two long rolls of hp5 cost me around $80 total...big savings! don't have to skimp on taking a shot or two...

 

[Kin Lau]

4 bulk loaders here, HP5+, FP4+, APX100 and Tri-X. Nowhere close to xcapekey's volume, but all the film shooting I do is b&w, with some slides for colour during the beautiful fall season.

B&W too for 120 & 4x5.

 

[sf]

B&W

B&W

I certainly end up with more B&W shots, though I usually shoot in color for the flexibility.

When I shoot large format though, I shoot b&W, and when I finally get my Epson 4990 scanner, will be scanning my 4x5 b&w negatives, playing with them on my beast computer, and having them printed on a Lightjet. BIG files.

I find that I like &w more than color for pretty much every use from portraits to landscapes. But only if it is done right. Getting that tonality is vital. Lots of labs blow it when they process my film. Ivey Imaging in Seattle does a nice job. And Icon in LA is good. But most labs return flat negatives alot of the time.

 

[back alley]

i shoot no colour film at all.

only b&w.

 

[GeneW]

I sold all my remaining col film today -- I simply don't shoot col film any more. When I'm using a film cam, I want iso400 B&W loaded 😀

I shoot col with digital though.


Gene

 

[f/stopblues]

No color film here either. I think I've just trained myself to see in b&w and my color shots I've experimented with leave a lot to be desired. I even bought a pair of sunglasses that I wear regularly that separate tones like a b&w film would, like one of those monochrome viewing filters 😀 Someday I'll dabble in it I'm sure, but for now it's those beautiful shades of grey!

 

[hugivza]

I have gone back to black and white and am enjoying it - I haven't quite got to the stage of using the spot meter again with the sticky piece of paper marked I to IX, but who knows? For me it's a journey of nostalgia which I am enjoying.

 

[Fred]

I do medium format colour but quite rarely these days.

I tend not to use c41 35mm print film at all preferring to use slide film (landscapes) or B&W for everything else. Something about a well exposed projected slide or a well traditionally printed B&W shot that colour prints just don't do.

 

[rover]

I shoot B&W so I can process it myself. That is where I realize my savings.

I don't print anything either. All scanned and enjoyed on my screen.

That is pretty sad, I know. When it is time to buy a new computer I will splurge and buy a dedicated film scanner and very good printer.

 

[Pherdinand]

on my trip to the saxon 'kirchburg' churches, i used 6 rolls of 135 c41, 5 rolls of 120 slide, 5 rolls of 120 c41 and 9 rolls of 120 black and white. although the colour shots are in larger number -esp. considering the 135 rolls are 37 frames per roll-, it seems that there are more 'keepers' between the black and white shots. but it might just be that it fits the subject matter better (medieval ruiny churches, old people).

i just wonder if i will ever be able to scan some of these results. (scanning 120 film is $$$)

 

[Pherdinand]

By the way, it seems i've just bought a rolleiflex planar for 300 euro. My second flex, i have to mention 🙄 - i already use a tessar-equipped pre-war automat.

 

[taffer]

Eh Pherdi ! Congrats man, you're serious on TLRs eh ? 🙂

Using Velvia with a moderate contrast lens such as the Tessar on your old flex is maybe part of why you look so much the results. Recently saw a thread with example shots of Velvia shot with a Summar lens (again the high/low) combo, and really didn't look like we use to expect from Velvia.

And btw, nowadays you can get a refurbished/used Epson 3170 pretty cheap, it does a fairly good job with MF film.

 

[Mackinaw]

B&W only in my film cameras, colour with my old G2 digital (which I haven't used since early June).

JIm Bielecki

 

[Pherdinand]

damn, the seller backed off with the rolleiflex. He says he has sold it to someone else since i've reacted too late. (He wrote me a mail on thursday evening that i can have it for the 300 i've offered - i've seen and answered his mail only today...) Grrr

 

[peter_n]

Too bad Pherdi - also that sounds kind of weird unless he asked for a confirmation in his email. In that case its your bad... 🙁

I shoot color and B&W but I prefer B&W for film. I also have a digital P&S for color.

 

[kiev4a]

I usually shoot b&W with my FSU gear and my 120 cameras -- color in my Nikon F3. My only trouble with B&W is I tend to get a backlog of undeveloped film.

 

[P C Headland]

damn, the seller backed off with the rolleiflex. He says he has sold it to someone else since i've reacted too late. (He wrote me a mail on thursday evening that i can have it for the 300 i've offered - i've seen and answered his mail only today...) Grrr

Oh well, look on the bright side - you can put that money towards an Epson 4990 scanner 🙂

 

[markbrennan]

I shot some color on my August summer vacation (used the occassion to experiment w/ Portra VC, UC, NPH and Reala; found I preferrred the Portra VC), but otherwise it's mostly been B&W, which i'm frankly still learning the nuances of. Mostly TRI-X, but occassionally TMAX 3200 for very low light.

I'm a recovering DSLR user and find film beautiful and liberating. Digital color is pretty weird. I was doing my own RAW post-processing and printing, which was great because of the convenience and the control it gave me, but I just think film is more special. I do think, however, that film and B&W will increasingly become a niche market.

I shoot far too little. And I'm in a severe rut now because i'm transitioning to a rangefinder but don't even own one yet! I think mostly I was averaging only a roll, maybe 2, a week. Of course w/ the DSLR I shot more because it was easier just to snap away, letting the camera w/ automated everything do the work. But my results were much, much poorer than w/ my FM2 and film.

Ultimately i'd like to process my own B&W. In the shorter term I'd like a scanner so i can at least get some pics posted.

Recently i've been going through "Elliott Erwitt Snaps", which is a wonderfully rich and voluminous collection of terrific B&W work that he did from the late 40s through about 2000. Very inspiring work - human, witty and elegant; mostly done w/ an M3 and a 50, I believe. Highly recommended.

This is a good thread; thanks for posting it.
regards,
-Mark

 

[dostacos]

well, I am mostly shooting B & W however.....some shots just BEG to be shot in color.

macaws etc, WWII airplanes and well, any time my camera is loaded with B&W a shot that NEEDS color always seems to show up, and when I have color in the camera B&W would be just fine. Hmmm sounds like more than one body needs to be loaded and ready hehehehe