DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Black and White Film

I have been shooting colour film for many years, but I recently shot several rolls of B&W film at a client's request. For my own confidence, I also shot a few rolls of my usual colour film, Fuji Astia, during the same job (portraits), knowing I could convert the scanned Astia files into B&W images with the Channel Mixer function of Photoshop. The B&W films were various Agfa, Ilford, and Fuji varieties.

My experience from that job made it an easy decision never to shoot B&W film again. Here are the two main reasons why:

1. The B&W negatives are seriously blemished. It's not just grain, but serious flaws in the emulsion. It took me literally hours to touch up the files to remove all the dust, scratches, and other "blemishes". It usually takes me no more than 30 minutes for scanning, adjusting and printing an Astia frame. But it took sometimes more than an hour just to scan and touch up each frame of B&W film. I was very frustrated by the fact that it took me two days longer than I had planned to finish the job, purely because of this extra time required to achieve a clean image file. This is not a scanner issue. It's a film base and emulsion issue. The Fuji film was not as bad as the Agfa and Ilford emulsions. On the other hand, the scanned Astia film was very clean from the beginning, even without Digital ICE, and was perfectly clean with Digital ICE enabled. Conclusion: colour slide film has a very clean and blemish-free emulsion compared to B&W film.

2. When shooting B&W film, the tones and contrast of the captured image can be manipulated by the use of filters on the lens. Therefore to experiment with the "look" of the image, one has to shoot the same subject several times with different filters. But with colour slide film, one can convert to B&W and simulate the effect of filters in the "Channel Mixer" dialog box. Thus, one can shoot the subject just once without any filter on colour slide film, and then have full creative freedom to manipulate the look of the image by simulating the effect of filters during Photoshop processing.

I wasted so much time on that recent job, just to achieve a "clean" file from scanned B&W film. And the photo shoot itself can take a lot longer if you choose to experiment with different filters. And the filters effectively reduce the speed of the B&W film because of the light loss through the filter.

The bottom line: the B&W prints made from scanned Astia slide film not only took far less time to produce, but were in every way superior to the final images from the scanned B&W films of any brand that I tried.

So unless you are into the wet darkroom experience, I seriously question "why bother?" with B&W film. If you want to scan the film yourself and use Photoshop for image adjustment, don't waste your time with B&W film. I did it once, and concluded that I will never do it again.
 
Craig,

I've been scanning B&W film (Tri-X developed in D-76 1:1) for 8 or so years now, and I just don't have the problems/issues you (and some others) seem to have...and my results are superior to any B&W conversion from color film I've ever done or seen (of course, that's subjective).

There simply should be no need for "fiddly" inside PS to get a perfect image. The critical issues with B&W film scanning are, exposure, development and knowing how to set setpoints and tonal curves IN the scanner driver (therefore, it's done using high bit depth, and aleviates posterization in the output due to making tonal corrections with 8 bit data...this is only significant with grayscale images, not with color). There should be simply no need for any operations in PS, except minor tweaking if you didn't get it "quite" right in the scanner driver, or...optionally...if you want to add some of the effects available in PS...and of course, resizing the image for outputting (which is a discussion all in and of it self).

There are a number of Internet resources dedicated to B&W digital imaging, from film scanning to digital printing. A good newsgroup is a Yahoo group available here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

If you're getting bad results scanning B&W, then either your technique stands to be improved, or your equipment is faulty. There are thousands of people who do this routinely and just have no problems what so ever.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin, I appreciate your encouragement, but I remain unconvinced about using B&W film again. Colour film allows me to shoot without filters and thereby enjoy the full rated speed of the film, while still being able to create the filter effect in post-processing. Colour film also allows use of the scanner's Digital ICE feature.

So I still don't see any answer to my question, which is "Why bother?" with B&W film.

I experimented with B&W film on that recent job and lost two days of valuable time as a result. The client and I see nothing wrong with the B&W prints made from colour film, and in fact, the client is impressed that the option still exists to produce a colour print of any frame.

So what is it about B&W film that makes it superior to colour film? Why should I risk the time to go through a new learning curve? What great benefit or improvement in image quality makes it worthwhile?
 
I agree with Rene about Elements , I only use this now myself - but heres a tip , get a copy of Richard Lynch's book "Hidden Power of PS Elements2". The CD that comes with it allows you to access things like Duotones and also Curves[and a load of other things normally only in the full PS ] .
Steve
 
Multiple responses follow (to try and undo my reputation as a "sp@mmer" ;o)...

Bob, I hate to say this in case money really is too tight to allow it, but surely that LS-20 must be due for an upgrade? The main thing is the lack of bit depth. Failing that, then you might be able to smooth things out a bit using one of the noise reduction apps such as Neat Image. Also, using VueScan in multi-pass mode should offer some benefit.

Scott, I haven't tried Imacon scans of B&W yet, but I strongly suspect they will suffer the same problems as the Minolta scan. AIUI, all the Imacons use very hard light source, which is great for the resolution when scanning chromes but not always what you want for B&W. The Focus On Imaging exhibition is taking place here in the UK next month, and I'm hoping to have the chance to try some test scans on an Imacon unit, including some B&W. I'll post any results here in due course.

Craig, the one very major advantage of shooting real B&W film is that you can accommodate double the dynamic range (in terms of stops or zones) that chrome film can handle. By using a compensating developer you can get over 10 stops of latitude, allowing you to capture images in high-contrast situations where chrome film or digital sensor would have severely blocked up and blown out. Also, the resolving power of B&W film is better than colour for a given ISO rating, so (assuming your scanner is up to the job) this is an advantage if you're trying to produce big prints.

-= mike =-
 
This post has become fascinating to me. Thanks to everyone for the very informative post. From what I am reading alot of it comes down to the type and guality of the scanner.

The reason I decided to start shooting more black and white is that the slides and negatives that I was getting back from the local pro shop (Houston area) where always dirty, processed poorly and completly below the standards that you would expect for the money.

My major was photography at the Mass College of Art in the 70's. I dropped photography for many years for various reasons, marriage, buisness, etc. etc. While I was in school I used Contax (first RTS), Lieca and Rollieflex med format. What I have found is that with the G2 and N1, both cameras that I am not willing to give up I have been shooting them to much as a point and shoot with out paying enough time to framing, contents or timing. In the old days you had to pay attention to everything because the camera was tool that you had to tell what to do. I guess the new auto focus cameras are the same but I find myself rushing and relying to much on all the auto this and that.

By going back to black and white for a while I feel like I would be in more control of the entire process from shooting the picture, developing it and printing it and that the original negative quaility would greatly be enhanced verses the poor quality at high prices that I have been getting.

Lets face it, B & W is cheaper to buy, cheaper to process and has a higher tolerence for mistakes then color if for no other reason then then it's wider range.

The bottom line is my efforts to get back to the basics to redevelope the eye that I once had and keep the cost down while doing it.

Keep the post coming.

Thanks,

Warren
 
Warren, your reasons for returning to B & W are identical to my reasons for not wanting to give up B & W. Because of B & W film's wider range, my sense is that there are effects one can achieve that are difficult, if not impossible to match with colour. Then again, I am still an old dark-room person so I could well be wrong on this. It could simply be a matter of my digital expertise not being at an advanced level.
 
Rob,

I must agree with you. I've been working with digital imaging for the last ten years and recently I've been going back to the darkroom.
Digital and b&w cannot be compared.
It's like comparing photoshop with oil and canvas.

There is just too much fun to be had by doing it by hand. Just recently I developed some Tri-X shot at 1600 in a 1:50 Rodinal solutions for 20 minutes. This gave a golfball-sized grain while retaining a crystalsharp contrast. I just loved the effect, no way photoshop will do this for you.
 
Craig,

I convert chromes to B&W, often with great results. However, there is an entirely different process to exposing for color chromes and B&W negs. Both films are designed for optimum performance for their purpose. I still am in awe of great B&W images properly shot and processed from negs. If I look at the best images from B&W and scanned & converted chromes there is still something special about those from B&W negs.

You have answered your own question though, Craig. You ask why you should take the risk and the time to learn the curve of shooting B&W. How can you know the advantages and the potential of shooting B&W if you haven't mastered it first? If your competency can't match the potential of the film how can you be a good judge of what results you will get. In fact, you're getting the limited results of the film equal to your limited expertice and knowledge. Be happy where you are or try the risk. If you do try it will only make you a better photographer in the end. And what's the risk in that?

Guy
 
Warren,

Where in Houston are you developing? I've been taken my chromes and film to HPI (sheperd@westheimer) and been pretty happy with them. I do develop only, and the film is clean and scratch free. You might want to try them if its not the place your referring to. Not to discourage darkroom work, I wish I had the room for it myself.
www.houstonphotoimaging.com
 
Back
Top