Disclosure: I'm totally new to shooting film. I just bought my first film camera 3 weeks ago (Rolleiflex 2.8), developed my first 5 rolls of film this week (trying different brands/speeds etc.), and scanned some into the computer with my new Epson v800 just last night. First off; loving the whole process and the Rollei. Even the painful lessons, like putting a fresh roll of 100speed film in the camera because you're outside at a party, then a performance starts in the only shaded area around, and you have to shoot it at 1/40sec (see attached image).
Now for my question: Since I will always be scanning the negatives and printing as needed from home, is there a reason I shouldn't just find a color film that I prefer to shoot with, and just edit to B&W in post when I want to? Is there an advantage to still shooting B&W film over color that I haven't discovered yet?
Thanks in advance for any tips!
Sean
Good question! A few advantages: black and white is a lot cheaper to develop, printing in the darkroom is easier with black and white (as far as setup goes), the tonality of each film is different, so you have more latitude to decide what look you want and adjusting your developer/technique/times accordingly. Color is far more rigid in developing.
I'd say its all depends on your reasons for shooting film! If it's more about getting a clean scan and manipulating in photoshop, buy color and be done with it. If you really want to learn the craft of working with film, black and white has more to offer. Hope that helps!
That's the same question as 'why shoot film?'... the answer is personal preference. Yes you could scan a color image and desaturate it but it won't look the same as if you shot it in BnW film to begin with... first every film had a unique character to it... look at how many 400 speed films Ilford offers... I typically use Delta 400... it's super sensitive to red/blue/violets and has a medium-high contrast and a hard grain pattern... i just like love it's look.
If I wanted something with a softer grain I might try Tri-X... which is much less sensitive to reds and has a more subtle contrast....
To be honest if you like a film look Nik Software has Silver FX Pro and Color FX Pro which both emulate classic films so well hardly anyone can tell the difference. So for the price of buying and developing your 5 rolls you could be off shooting your free digital files and giving them an authentic analogue appearance. (See below and tell me which you think authentic and which isn't)
I just prefer film for somethings and use it when I can... it's more of a relaxing experience and practice.
Also, developing BnW at home offers a lot more creativity... color processes can't really be altered too much... with BnW the sky is the limit... you can develop with freaking coffee or red wine if you want (for funky exposures and color tints)...
Every film, regardless of format, has its own characteristics. In conjunction with your selected processing, it can yield such a range of results or give you options in post just by virtue of who or when it was manufactured.
Selecting a film is generally a personal journey. Back in the 80's, I lived and died by T-MAX but now I'm loving Ilford HP5 400. That being said, if you look in my bag right now one could not determine WHAT is my favorite. :)
Thanks for the input everyone. Sounds like when I'm ready to start developing at home, b&w will be the first step. For now I'll continue to use different films as I find it enjoyable not knowing exactly what I'm going to get each time, but hoping to eventually settle on a color one as an everyday film. So far I've shot a roll of HP5, Acros100 (which may be my favorite so far), HP4, and Ektar 100. I just started a roll of Portra 400, which I have high hopes for based on the color/saturation I like seeing in other peoples photos. I just started a separate instagram account to track my progress through the wonderful/crazy/frustrating world of film photography, and am always open to hearing some feedback. sensor_free_photography
Hi Sean.
There is a very important reason why you shoot B+W on B+W film rather than on colour film. (or even digital)
Black and White film is specially made and uses Silver Halide particles that oxidise when exposed to light.
The stronger the light, the greater the oxidisation (black), and conversely, the dimmer the light the less the oxidisation (white). (so you get your "negative")
So it actually records the true VALUE of the light.
Colour film has 3 layers (4 if you use Fuji...) and these layers are sensitive to the respective COLOUR LIGHT WAVELENGTHS.
There is nothing on the film (or a digital sensor) to actually record the VALUE (strength) of the light.
If you get a chance, in the dark room, this will be best demonstrated if you make a B+W print using a COLOUR negative....
It will come out looking VERY grey, and no amount of increased "magenta" will bring back the contrast.
You may also be able to tell from looking at a digital photo whether or not it is a colour conversion or a true B+W...
Sean it all depends on what you are doing it for...If you are wanting to learn it as a fine art "craft" then B&W film, dev, contact, print in darkroom, archival process, record your print process, cut. archival mat and frame....or do you want to scan and lose the color..play in photoshop...either way...I prefer film though I use digital sometimes...for scanning.... color neg has an incredible exposure latitude as long as it is not underexposed.....and can record much better shadow and highlight detail without multiple exposures and stacking....than any digital camera except high end medium format digital backs......B&W does as well but since it records true EV exposure better....a little less latitude than color neg. but it is more accurate for me in light values for tonality.......both can scan....apples or oranges....If you want the full experience though....nothing is more magical than watching your first B&W print develop under a safe light!
I shoot C41 exclusively and do BW conversion in Lightroom. There are advantages:
1. ICE works to remove dust; it doesn't with BW film (or Kodachrome)
2. I don't have to choose to use a yellow /red/ green / amber filter ahead of time to darken skies or whatever - I have way more control over how the various colors represent as grey scale.
3. A lab will develop for five bucks or so. You don't have to worry about water spots, dust while its hanging up to dry, etc, etc
The disadvantages:
1. It doesn't look the same: the grain structure is different.
2. I loose the option to make BW silver prints in a conventional wet darkroom. If you're interested in fine art print sales this could be a biggie.
3. You can't use the Zone System. Push or pull processing to compensate for over/under exposure or to manipulate contrast is, at the least, a lot harder.
4. It feels like cheating. I don't care but obviously a lot of people do.
I'm 98% a color photographer so for me the "pro" side wins, and have done a mostly digital workflow with film since the mid 90s when it first became practical.
YMMV, for sure.
BTW, starting with 120 is IMO the best way to start with film, especially if you're using a flatbed scanner. Enjoy!
I'm including a BW conversion I shot on 35mm Fujicolor 400 a few weeks ago.
As for point 1 (advantages), I experimented a little with scanning B&W negatives as color and save them as B&W. VueScan has options for that.
This way ICE works and I still end up with B&W files.
Next step is to scan a same negative directly as B&W and using this method to check for differences.
Hmm, what kind of BW film you're scanning with ICE? AFAIK it works only with C-41 BW films (XP2), because "ICE relies on the fact that all layers of dyes used in C41/E6 films are transparent to infrared, but dust is not, i.e. any place on the scane that is not transparent ot infrared must be dust. Silver is not transparent to infrared."
I am very leery about sending film out to a lab every since dig. raised its ugly head. The labs don't get as much work now and it seems they don't maintain things as they should, so you get bad color back. Having that back-up talent of doing your own B&W is nice. And if processed properly your b&w negs will last 200 years. I don't know you, but I have Elvis, the Beatles, Groucho Marx and others in my b&w neg files. I want those files to outlast me.
Sean,
I know I am really late in coming to this conversation but here is my .02 worth.
First thing to remember is that when you develop b&w, most of the time every roll is going to require a different length of time depending on manufacturer, speed, etc... So for the best results you need to separated them out.
Here is the neat thing about black and white. If you really get into it; you are going to find that there are a ton of different developers out there, a ton of different films. each one of those developers are going to give you an entirely different look depending on what film you use. You can follow the manufacturer's directions or with research you can find ways that will require you to let the film sit for up to 30 minutes with only agitating it once for about 30 seconds, and it will give you an entirely different result. Sometimes a much deeper contrast, other times less grain. Depending on how you shoot, it is up to you on how you want those images to turn out in your developing.
So in shooting black and white; in your developing you literally get to determine how your negative is going to turn out. At the same time; shooting black and white isn't about pointing your camera and shooting. When you get into black and white you get to decide at the time you make that exposure how you want that image to start out. Black and white film allows you to have a latitude that is unbelievable. The people who are fanatics about black and white know when they take the image exactly what they are going to develop in, how they are going to develop, etc... That is why Ansel Adams is so important to black and white. He pretty much developed the whole system.
It works a lot better with large format film as you can develop one negative at a time. So with roll film you have to commit the entire roll to the same shoot and then commit the entire roll to one type of development.
It can become incredibly addictive if you want it to. I wish you the best of luck. Stick with it and you will find how wonderful black and white can really be. Not just a matter of shoot, develop and scan. It is so much more.
I'm a bit biased since I have shot nearly 200,000 images on film over 50 years. Every tool you have is just that, a tool. I don't shoot 35mm film any longer, but when I need a gritty portrait, or and industrial shot, I pull out my Mamiya RZ67. It's lenses are incredibly sharp and it has a persona unduplicated in digital.
I think you can compare it to using incandescent light or strobes to light a portrait. Strobes give you a clean, well defined, almost clinical light, while my 3200K outfit seems to wrap itself around the subject, infusing a personality into the personality of the person.
I love digital, and shoot plenty of it, but my film work has a soul I cannot duplicate in digital.
One caveat though, there is no photo paper available today that can rival what we had up until the mid 90's. When I shoot film today, I scan it and print with my Canon Pro-1000.
I shoot only Ilford film these days for one important reason -- even though the film base thickness is exactly the same, Kodak films tend to be hygroscopic, and can dry with a curl that defies flattening, even in a double glass carrier in a scanner.
The Delta films do not do that for me.