The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Is it worth shooting in B+W?

ReeRay

Member
Having just re-entered the film world a question I'm asking myself is whether shooting B+W (negative) is REALLY better than shooting colour slide and converting.

It seems to me foolish as with the latter option you've at least got both color and B+W in one shot.

BUT, the tonality thing comes to mind.

However, slides are sharper, crisper and less "finnicky" to scan.

What are the real benefits of shooting B+W film?
 

johnastovall

Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
Tonality, grain, different developers no conversion can approach the variety B&W film can give you...
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Having just re-entered the film world a question I'm asking myself is whether shooting B+W (negative) is REALLY better than shooting colour slide and converting.

It seems to me foolish as with the latter option you've at least got both color and B+W in one shot.

BUT, the tonality thing comes to mind.

However, slides are sharper, crisper and less "finnicky" to scan.

What are the real benefits of shooting B+W film?
BW films are sharper, have nicer grain structure, and have much more latitude than slide film. They can be processed many different ways for different rendering possibilities. I find them easier to scan.

Only thing you lose from shooting color is the ability to do filters in software ... but if I want that, I shoot color neg, not color slides.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Oh yes, MUCH better than shooting slides if you intend to use them as black and white. All the reasons people mentioned -- far more flexibility (in film choice, ISO range, developer characteristics etc), much more dynamic range (something like 9 or 10 stops instead of 4), they are easier to scan, they are more archival (last 100s of years rather than 10s of years), they are cheaper to shoot (both film and processing), easier to process, they allow you to print in a real darkroom. Finally, they just look better.
If you want to have color and black and white from one shot, you are better off shooting digital.
 

gsking

New member
Oh yes, MUCH better than shooting slides if you intend to use them as black and white. All the reasons people mentioned -- far more flexibility (in film choice, ISO range, developer characteristics etc), much more dynamic range (something like 9 or 10 stops instead of 4), they are easier to scan, they are more archival (last 100s of years rather than 10s of years), they are cheaper to shoot (both film and processing), easier to process, they allow you to print in a real darkroom. Finally, they just look better.
If you want to have color and black and white from one shot, you are better off shooting digital.
1. Doesn't the higher DR and (at least) the lack of ICE capability make B/W harder to scan? That's my experience.

2. Processing (unless you do it yourself) is actually more expensive, in my experience, than C-41. Maybe the same as E-6.

I see too much grain when I shoot B/W, but maybe that's because I don't appreciate the medium. But I'll keep trying...occasionally. ;)

Greg
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
1. I don't find that the case. You just scan with the histogram black and white points at the edge of recoverable information (that is, scan it very flat), and then take it into photoshop and apply a curves adjustment such that it has the look you desire. It is much easier to throw away information (clipping blacks or whites) than it is to create it from nothing (if your slide is already contrastier than it should be). As for ICE, I don't really miss it as I process myself and my negs are always clean.
2. See above -- I process myself, but it is something that anyone can do. If you can follow a recipe in a kitchen, you will have no problem developing a roll of film.

If you see too much grain, it is probably a combination of your choice of film, combined with the processing of your lab, along with your scanner. Scanners can exacerbate the grain in black and white film if they are not set up right.

If you don't want to hassle with any of this, but still want a very nice black and white film, try Ilford XP2 -- it processes in C41 chemicals, but it is a black and white film with extremely fine grain and excellent tonality.
 

gsking

New member
1. I don't find that the case. You just scan with the histogram black and white points at the edge of recoverable information (that is, scan it very flat), and then take it into photoshop and apply a curves adjustment such that it has the look you desire. It is much easier to throw away information (clipping blacks or whites) than it is to create it from nothing (if your slide is already contrastier than it should be). As for ICE, I don't really miss it as I process myself and my negs are always clean.
.
But I didn't think most scanners could grab all that DR. I presume you need a good scanner?

I'm having trouble with K-14 as it is.

2. See above -- I process myself, but it is something that anyone can do. If you can follow a recipe in a kitchen, you will have no problem developing a roll of film.

If you see too much grain, it is probably a combination of your choice of film, combined with the processing of your lab, along with your scanner. Scanners can exacerbate the grain in black and white film if they are not set up right. .
Wait, I thought you said it was easy. ;) What is this magic setting?


If you don't want to hassle with any of this, but still want a very nice black and white film, try Ilford XP2 -- it processes in C41 chemicals, but it is a black and white film with extremely fine grain and excellent tonality.
But better, in your opinion, than color C-41 turned B/W? I've used Acros with mediocre results, but I recall finding Pan-X appealing. I have an old roll of Pan-atomic ISO32 120 that I'm saving like a bottle of fine wine for a special occasion. :D

I tend to shoot portraits with shallow DOF and flash...which (in my opinion) is a recipe for disaster with B/W. You want contrast and detail, both of which you lose shooting wide open with fill light and underexposed ambient. Neutral gray faces with blurry black backgrounds ain't too exciting. :rolleyes:
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
But I didn't think most scanners could grab all that DR. I presume you need a good scanner?

I'm having trouble with K-14 as it is.
Of course you need a good scanner. K-14 is a pretty contrasty film, makes it harder for scanners.

Because there is inevitable contrast gain in printing from negatives (b+w or color), negative films tend to be less contrasty and easier to scan.

... But better, in your opinion, than color C-41 turned B/W? I've used Acros with mediocre results, but I recall finding Pan-X appealing. ...
The key to getting good results with B&W film are to learn how to expose and process it specific to the scene conditions and the output you need. The best scannable negatives are thin but detailed and have no blocked up highlights ... soft developer, proper exposure is essential when using hard flash.

An APS camera exposure on Fuji F100, rather underexposed overall but a nice scene, rendered to both color and B&W:




Better or worse ... depends on what you have to start with, how you scan it, how you process it. :)
 

Jeremy

New member
But I didn't think most scanners could grab all that DR. I presume you need a good scanner?
Not really. The problem with scanners is being able to scan through the densest area of the negative. Slide film will have a very thick black that is of a higher dmax than a black and white negative. The scanner might choke on a bullet-proof negative (caused by over-exposure and/or over-developing), but you don't need super-thick negatives to have a full tonal range.
 

gsking

New member
Not really. The problem with scanners is being able to scan through the densest area of the negative. Slide film will have a very thick black that is of a higher dmax than a black and white negative. The scanner might choke on a bullet-proof negative (caused by over-exposure and/or over-developing), but you don't need super-thick negatives to have a full tonal range.
That is my problem. I "properly" underexposed the K-14 slides and they look great to the eye, but the scanner can't seem to punch through them. I'll work on it some more.

Ironically, the last time I scanned K-14 was on some 40 year old slides, with a cheap $99 PrimeFilm scanner. I don't recall the same problems I'm getting with my (at least slightly better?) Epson V-500.

But maybe I'm more picky now. ;)

I'm going to grab the slide projector in a couple weeks and try it out. First time it'll have been used in 30 years. Should be fun.

Makes me want to try the $50 camera adapters to take a digital photo of them, but I'm sure that'll be worse than the scanner.

Sorry for the OT talk...

Greg
 

helenhill

Senior Member
REERAY
Just SHOOT that D**n Contax ALREADY....:rolleyes:
I'm waitin to SEE some Pixs
personally I PREFER B&W 98% of the Time
but the Zeiss Glass for the G1/contax is ASTOUNDING
in both Color and B&W



Best to YOU- H :)
 

viablex1

Active member
1. Doesn't the higher DR and (at least) the lack of ICE capability make B/W harder to scan? That's my experience.

2. Processing (unless you do it yourself) is actually more expensive, in my experience, than C-41. Maybe the same as E-6.

I see too much grain when I shoot B/W, but maybe that's because I don't appreciate the medium. But I'll keep trying...occasionally. ;)

Greg
only if you are scanning negatives
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Slides and black and white negatives have very different approaches to their dynamic range. As Godfrey said, the scanner will have a much harder time getting good detail from the darkest areas of a slide, but it will not have the same difficulty with a properly exposed negative. The dynamic range that a black and white negative RECORDS is much greater than a slide, but the dynamic range of a slide ITSELF is higher than a black and white negative. So a scanner can easily get several more stops out of a black and white neg, while it will struggle to get the full dynamic range of a slide, which only records 4 or 5 stops. I hope that makes sense, but it is kind of hard to explain.

If you are getting mediocre results from Acros, there is something wrong with either your lab, your scanner or your technique. Acros has finer grain than any slide film, and has an exceedingly long tonal range.
This would be an example of a properly processed and scanned acros neg:


And an unsharpened crop at 100% at 3200 dpi. It is from a very small area directly over the head of the figure at left:


This scan yields a grainless 30x30 inch print.

As for a magic recipe, I don't really know what to say. I cannot say what is going on with your processing since you have it done by a lab, nor do I know how you scan. All I can say is that when it is done correctly, black and white negatives yield better black and white images than do scanned slides converted to black and white. If you can't get the same results, then you either need to change something, or just go with what works for you.

Finally, I would say that, yes, XP2 is better than most color negative films that I have tried as black and white. It has very very fine grain, particularly for its speed (400), and it has a beautiful tonality. Another film to look at if you are shooting C-41 would be the new Ektar 100, which by all accounts is the finest grained color negative film in history. I am not sure how it compares to XP2, as I have not shot it.
I do not shoot XP2 often, but this is an example:


As is this I believe:
 

ReeRay

Member
REERAY
Just SHOOT that D**n Contax ALREADY....:rolleyes:
I'm waitin to SEE some Pixs
personally I PREFER B&W 98% of the Time
but the Zeiss Glass for the G1/contax is ASTOUNDING
in both Color and B&W



Best to YOU- H :)
We're in our rainy (monsoon really) season. Very frustrating. BUT, the suns out today, the annual 3 day "jazz on the beach" festival starts this afternoon and I'll be there :)
 

Scott G

New member
Stuart, the first and last shots are genius ---- and I think quite clearly prove the point about whether to process in B&W...
 

gsking

New member
only if you are scanning negatives
Aren't all B/W shots negatives? I googled B/W positives and slides, and didn't get much that looked promising.

Slides and black and white negatives have very different approaches to their dynamic range. As Godfrey said, the scanner will have a much harder time getting good detail from the darkest areas of a slide, but it will not have the same difficulty with a properly exposed negative. The dynamic range that a black and white negative RECORDS is much greater than a slide, but the dynamic range of a slide ITSELF is higher than a black and white negative. So a scanner can easily get several more stops out of a black and white neg, while it will struggle to get the full dynamic range of a slide, which only records 4 or 5 stops. I hope that makes sense, but it is kind of hard to explain.

If you are getting mediocre results from Acros, there is something wrong with either your lab, your scanner or your technique. Acros has finer grain than any slide film, and has an exceedingly long tonal range.
That makes sense, and I bet all three were/are screwed up. ;) Nice shots, and I'll give it another try. Once in a while I get something interesting, even if it's flawed. I think this one was Acros

 
Top