Who Is Actually Using Digital-For-Color, Film-For-BW ?

R

ruben

Guest
In my particular case, since many many years ago I started to simultaneously use two cameras at least, one with color film, the other with BW.

After a trial to manual print at my darkroom color prints, in which I managed to decently print near a dozen big sized prints, I understood that the rate of several hours for a single print is not for me.

Why did I try to print myself color ? Due to the one hour labs job of course ! Special manual printer folks were always beyond my budget.

Since then I continue to shoot color alongside BW, allocating for color the sunlight situations.

The internet, flickr, scanning opened a new venue for having some kind of display of my color negs, and it seems that the day in which high quality home color printing (and at respectable sizes) is nearing.

By this logic I came to the eventual conclusion, to stop using color film on behalf of digital camera pix On the other hand it seems to me that BW film continues to deliver the best and should continue to be done.

I am not so sure digital color is superior to film, as I am sure BW film is superior as you go for bigger ISO numbers, but going to become home-controlable - this is an advantage I cannot ignore. This makes the whole difference for me.

I repeat that in my country at least no decent color printer is available yed at an affordable price, and even more as the minimum I can compromise for is A3 size. But this is "the new thing" that is comming.

Anyone thinking like me ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi, since getting my Epson R-D1s I shoot way less colour in my film Leicas. But I still shoot as much B&W film as before.

For me, colour is easier to control in digital. But I prefer the look of film for B&W.
 
Actually I'm finding that my colour film usage is creeping up as I find that the reasons I like using mechanical analogue cameras applies to whether I want to shoot colour or black and white. I don't have an M8 or R-D1 and have no plans to get either.

I used to carry a non-analogue camera with me specifically for colour but I find I prefer the results from eg Leica glass on Velvia than the digital image and it's more satisfying obtaining the results.

It's particularly true for my macro attempts using my Mamiya 645 on Provia which I'm very pleased with. I do use E6 rather than C41 as the costs are lower and it's handy for scanning - and you can readily verify the accuracy of the scan.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to post proscessing and adding filters etc for preparing a print digital is a blessing.....
 
I use the M8 for color and the ZI for black and white. Occasionally I still run some special colour films through the ZI ( e.g., colour motion picture stock, Fuji Natura 1600, or Velvia).

I enjoy doing PP on color photos from the M8 (capture one, alien skin exposure). Black and white always looks to me better on film, but Silver Efex isn't so bad, either. Digital color may not be better than film, but the advantage of manipulable white balance and ISO is enormous.

Printing colour at home sounds like a daunting task, Ruben.
 
I usually turn to digital for color, film for B&W these days. But then there's Ektar 100 and Pro800Z, and I have to admit I really enjoy doing the C41 home dev. So I am shooting about half my color on film lately, too.
 
I shoot digi for colour and film for B&W for cost reasons. I've bought my last film camera (until I can get my always dreamed of Leica), the cost of souping makes it silly, and lets be honest most of us scan the negs anyway.

I have some Velvia I'm saving for a special occasion which I'll run through the G1 or 35SP which have glass I adore. But in general I never shoot colour film now.
 
The cost/convenience/end result PRINT will tell about BW at due time, still ahead, and will have to encompass a high quality digital camera lens with a high quality home digital printer vs Trix at iso 400 and vs Neopan at 1600.

I am sure, friends in the US or Europe should have this digital high class devices alongside their analog cameras and wet darkroom and they may have the answers.

But so far it seems to me, and I may be always wrong, that achieving an analog BW high quality print is way ahead cheaper through analogue methods, while the same is not for color prints, since the control of manual color printing is uncommon and should be paid for at high rates.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Depends what format I use. For 35mm equivalent, it is mostly digital for color, but all B&W is film. For MF, 4x5 and 8x10 I still shoot color film, but I scan it with either my Nikon 9000 scanner or an Epson 750 for the large format stuff. I spent too many hours in the darkroom, carefully dialing in filters to get a decent looking color print - it just takes forever. Even with a Jobo color calibrator, it required additional tweaking every time I printed a new image. I love the digital workflow for everything color. B&W is another story alltogether - the wet darkroom gets the thumps-up for that.
 
Digital for color and everyday family stuff, printed on an HP printer. BW film for artsy stuff and just for fun, wet all the way. I sometimes scan a 6x6 contact print for web use.
 
At first I was going to write that I use digital for color and film for BW - at least that was my plan up until I looked over some of my pictures. I am becoming increasingly fond with my Pen FT. The Pen 38/1.8 lens truly has a unique signature, and I do not have a m4/3 camera to adapt it to yet, so I need to use film - color film if I want to get that unique signature in color.

So I mainly use digital for color and BW for film, unless I want that Pen FT "look" in color, in which case I have no choice.

But I do scan all my color film for printing, and do not wet print it.
 
I have been using digital for colour for about a year now mainly because I wasn't able to see much difference than using film. I may still use colour film but I'll scan and print on an inkjet. But for BW film is still king IMO. I have tried producing BW prints from a digital camera and have not been happy with the results. I know that some are able to get excellent results this way but I prefer the grain of BW.
 
I don't own a digital RF or DSLR anymore and have no intention to buy one. So for me its film for both, color and BW all the way. Also started developing C41 myself one year ago and the amount of color film is increasing. I scan my films (135 & 120) with an Epson V700 and get the results that I want in color and BW.

Additionally, I like using my old film cameras. :)
 
Being fortunate enough to live in a major urban American city I have access to a variety of labs who can work with either digital or film negs - either color or B&W. The cost is a diffferent story - some labs/products are expensive; other labs/products are affordable. If I lived in a location without benefit of a variety of labs to choose from I'd probably go 100% digital and invest in a good-quality digital printer. Working with film cameras is comfortable and comforting, but getting images is more important.
 
Slides for color (also medium format), film for B&W.

I did color in the darkroom, too, though I did not like working with that drum a lot. Printing from slides is easier than from negatives, color balance and exposure are less critical, as long as the contrast of the slides is not too high.

When I printed, I used Cibachrome (later Ilfochrome, does it still exist?). Great stuff, no fading even after 20 years.
 
I do all my printing digitally. If I shoot film I scan it.

However I use the Kodak Gallery and Photobox online printing which is very cheap compared to high-end inkjet (consumer) printing.

Photobox uses very expensive Fuji Lightjet printers and print onto silver papers. Kodak also uses Lightjet printers onto their own silver papers.

Results in BW excellent from both. Photobox is better for colour because you can use their ICC profiles.

I shoot film when I want to use my rangefinder (and am forced to choose a film type - so usually BW) but when you use digital you can decide after the fact whether it's a colour or BW shot. Most of mine get converted to BW.

It's heresy around here to say so, but i.t.o. technical quality I think FX format digital left 35mm film far behind a long time ago. But I have a lot more fun shooting with my ZI than with my 5D. So that's why I still mostly shoot film.
 
I shoot B&W almost exclusively, because that's what I can process and print myself. Almost exclusively, because on vacation I shoot a little slide film. Not for scanning or printing, but for slide shows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom