Digital BW, The Print

I've made some photographs that capture a subject brightness range (SBR) 
of 11 stops. The scene was a magnolia blossom in direct sunlight. The 
range from dark green leaves to white flower highlights was 11 stops 
according to my zone VI modified Pentax spotmeter. I used 4x5 Tri-X 
which captured this SBR effortlessly.

I've done similar work with a passion flower in my backyard, again in 
full sun, this time with 4x5 160PortraVC and "only" 10 stops, but the 
color negative film stayed with it. I expected color shifting in the 
denser regions, but didn't get any. I also exposed a sheet of Tri-X for 
this scene. I scanned them both on my drum scanner. Photoshop's default 
method to change mode to grayscale was a better match for the Tri-X than 
I would have imagined. But abstracting out the color didn't work for 
this scene, so I didn't take the idea any farther.

But what this little experiment said to me was that it was possible to 
do what you want. The real question is, is it desirable? I would say no. 
I can think of three reasons off the top of my head why:

1) Color film response curves are not the same as B&W negative film 
curves. You can overcome that in Photoshop if you want.
2) You loose control if you aren't processing it yourself, and 
processing C-41 on your own is a pain unless you have the volume. That 
brings us to:
3) the extra cost of the film, and the processing.

I'm sure there are other reasons to use B&W film when you want a B&W 
result, but that's all I've got off the top of my head right this minute ;-)
--
Bruce Watson


Scott Graham wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> Does anyone out there regularly (mainly) use color film to produce 
> gallery quality fine art
> B&W prints?
>
> If so, two questions:
>
> 1.  what kind of film and why?
>
> 2.  what disadvantages do you find?
>
> as a standard of comparison, I am currently using Plus X.  For samples 
> of my work see
> www.sgraham.com.
>
> I am also familar with many reasons for using color film for B&W (in 
> the digital age), but
> not potential disadvantages.
>
> Thanks
> Scott
>