Digital BW, The Print

Scott,

If you *know* you only want B&W output and are skilled with filters
and other specific techinques for it, there is no reason to shoot
color negs. BUT, if you mix color and B&W in your print output, it
makes a lot of sense to shoot color negs only.

I use Portra 160 in 220 MF size for scanning because of the 10+ stops
of contrast range (under controlled conditions, a friend measured as
much as 12 before all detail was lost). The cost of developing without
prints is not significantly more expenseive than do-it-yourself B&W
($7 a roll), especially if you count the cost of your time; there is
no need for on-camera filtration most of the time and many images have
significant improvements and flexibility when a careful channel mixer
conversion method for B&W is used.

Judging by the images on your webpage, I doubt, however, that those
advantages will amount to much for your nudes, unless you decided to
combine different colored lights and mixed image channels for some
kind of effect.

Frank


> 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
> >