Color or B&W film for scanning with end result B&W

[darrenw]

I was just wondering if there is any opinion on which is a better way to go.

If I want the end result to be black & white w/ color film scanned and converted I have more control PP, correct? (Ektar 100)

If I use B&W film (Delta 100) would I not have to be more careful with choosing filters, red blue etc, to get the same results that could be had with color in PP? (As I won't be able to saturate the sky or other things?)

If scanning color do you lose resolution via RGB and then conversion to B&W?

[martinsmith99]

Interesting questions. I'd like to know the answer also.

If it's quality that you're after then choosing the larger format would probably be the better option. The medium format scan I've seen look amazing.

[std]

If you want B/W shoot in B/W negative. The Ilford is very nice film.

If you are interested in filters and films i can recommend a very nice book by Ansel Adams - 'The negative'. This is a must read if you want to know more about the film photography.

The book you may find online as pdf but also you can get it for cheap from ebay.

BR,
Stefan

[Scheimpflug]

They really are two totally different styles.

* With color film and post processing, you pretty much take the best shot you can, but commit to needing the post processing to get the result you want. It is faster in the field, requires less physical equipment, and gives more flexibility in the end... even the ability to keep it as color!

* With filtered B&W, you must plan your shots (and your intended result) in advance, which takes more time up front... but then you are essentially done once you release the shutter. There is still room for some post processing (contrast, etc), but not as much as with a color image.


In general, if you enjoy the PP work, or if you just want to experiment to see the different effects from changing the color contributions in a monochrome image, I would recommend shooting color film.

Personally, I prefer filtered B&W... I just find the process more engaging, and I like to minimize my post processing (at least the computer portion) whenever possible.


I should also add that, from a technical perspective, I believe filtered B&W is a better way to make the most out of your initial exposure. Since you have already achieved the final color balance with the filters, you can make an accurate meter reading in the camera, and know that you are getting a good exposure. With a color exposure, you are forced to make the best overall exposure, which doesn't take into account the re-balancing which will happen in PP, and isn't optimal for the end result.

For example, say you have a landscape scene with a shaded grassy hill and a bright sunny blue sky. In a color exposure, you would have to overexpose the sky, underexpose the hill, or both... and then your PP would end up pulling up the shadows or pulling down the sky - both of which have small or even clipped tonal ranges. However, with filtered B&W, say with a deep yellow (orange) filter, you have already brought down the brightness of the sky. This allows you to make a more balanced exposure (in this case, a longer exposure), without blowing out the sky, and giving more detail in your shadows. In the end, you have achieved a result that isn't possible from the single color exposure.

[Orio]

It depends on the type of result that you have in mind.

Technically speaking, colour negative is easier to scan than B&W negative, because colour negative is more forgiving of unperfect exposure, at both ends of the spectrum, but especially in the shadows, where B&W negative is quite exacting.

If you choose a low contrast colour negative film, you will have a lot of room to play with in Photoshop.

However, if it's true B&W print result what you are after, then you need B&W film, because colour negative scanned and postworked may look good on its own, and with some skill and/or plugin may get close to the look of true B&W, but it will never be true B&W, especially printed.
On the web and PC you may be able to fool viewers into thinking it's true B&W, but the prints will not lie.

[Sevo]

In postprocessing colour film, you cannot replicate the effect of more dramatic black and white filters, as colour film is already three band filtered with fairly softly sloping filters. All that is possible is the effect of applying strong colour correcting (CC/CB) filters to black and white film (which is rather bland and rarely done outside industrial/technical applications), but real black and white filters are out of range.

[darrenw]

Wow, there is sooo much knowledge here. Simply love it. Thank you all for your input.

This question came about mostly due to my lack of knowledge (duh) of film and that I am more and more drawn to B&W. I read this little article at http://www.maxmax.com/b&w_conversion.htm and it got me wondering as it seems that many of the digital pics I have taken look more dramatic (and appealing to me) in B&W, but I also noticed that as was mentioned there is clipping and other losses.

It would seem I really need to become a photographer and not a point and shooter and figure it out later. I too do not really want to spend hours in front of the computer and hence the reason I tend to use plugins and such.

As to printing, at this point, I haven't printed anything larger than 8x10 so I have gotten away with alot of mistakes and crappy (technically) shots. The other day I had taken the dogs out for a walk in the fog along one of the local waterfronts and got what I thought were really good images (others commented the same) but they were with my little Canon S90 and well, it ain't no (d)SLR.( ...that is part of the reason I posted in the RF forum as I would like to get a nice kit that is more carry friendly than my big DSLR). So I am thinking I need to learn what real (film) B&W photography is and make it work.

Just one note, what was the answer to resolution in scanning? Does the scanning in colour lose resolution because of RGB and B&W scans are full res and only variations of greyscale?

Thank you once again everyone.
Darren

[Orio]

[darrenw]

Thanks Orio. The Canon scanner I have is 4800 dpi optical. I recently bought Vuescan but have yet to be able to calibrate the software for some reason with the target I purchased.

Stupid question (with obvious answer?) but once digitized I assume that all printing from there is inkjet, the only way to print photographically is with a dark room and all the equipment, correct? They do not project a digital image onto photographic paper do they? If I actually get a great image and want to do a right proper job of it with a professional printing company would they need the negative or can the digital file be printed photographically? Sorry if these are really dumb questions. I guess once I become somewhat of a competent photographer it will matter more and by then I may actually have some knowledge

Take care

[Orio]