Digital BW, The Print

Is it smart to still shoot B&W film for scanning and printing B&W 
prints, or can we just use color film and turn monochrome in 
Photoshop? In other words, is there as advantage for using the B&W 
film for B&W digital prints over using color film?  Thanks

mltphoto wrote:

>Is it smart to still shoot B&W film for scanning and printing B&W 
>prints,
>
Yes

> or can we just use color film and turn monochrome in 
>Photoshop? 
>
You can, but it's not as good.

>In other words, is there as advantage for using the B&W 
>film for B&W digital prints over using color film?  Thanks
>
>  
>
Yes.
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

>Is it smart to still shoot B&W film for scanning and printing B&W
>prints, or can we just use color film and turn monochrome in
>Photoshop? In other words, is there as advantage for using the B&W
>film for B&W digital prints over using color film?  Thanks


If you process your own black and white negatives, and/or photograph/process
using the zone system, there are advantages to using black and white fillm
(better control over the negative, lower cost). If a lab processes your
black and white film there's probably no reason to use it, the lab can
process color as well (or as poorly) as black and white and color can be
easily converted b&w in Photoshop, plus you have the color option.   I've
never used a lab but I assume the processing cost is about the same for
either (though from what I read there aren't aren't that many labs around
that process black and white these days).  I assume one of the reasons why
black and white film has been enountering difficulties (see Ilford, Agfa,
Kodak's disontinued b&w films) is because of the ease with which color can
be converted to b&w for digital printing.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mltphoto" <mturlington@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Color vrs BW film for printing BW




Is it smart to still shoot B&W film for scanning and printing B&W
prints, or can we just use color film and turn monochrome in
Photoshop? In other words, is there as advantage for using the B&W
film for B&W digital prints over using color film?  Thanks

On 11 Oct 2004 at 3:13, mltphoto wrote:

> 
> 
> Is it smart to still shoot B&W film for scanning and printing B&W 
> prints, or can we just use color film and turn monochrome in 
> Photoshop? In other words, is there as advantage for using the B&W 
> film for B&W digital prints over using color film?  Thanks
> 

It depends on what kind of B&W film, and how your scanning it.  For example if you 
shoot old technology (Tri-X, HP-4 etc) or new technology B&W (T-MAX or Ilford's 
Delta series) then scanning will not be able to use Digital-ICE as the silver grains 
confuse the IR beam and it thinks the grain is dirt.  Chromogenics (BW400CN and 
XP-2 ) do work with Digital-ICE but they have the same life-span issues as colour 
films.

B&W negatives (old technology at least) that are properly processed have a life 
span of well over 100 years, there are films from 1904 that are still in perfect 
condition.  New technology is more recent, but uses the same process they should 
have the same life-span.  Colour dye based and Chromogenic films, use dyes that 
can fade easily if not stored properly, they need to be trreated like voters, keep 
them cool and in the dark at all times.

Colour film, other then the fading issue, can be used for B&W images, but you need 
to think B&W at the time of shooting, and ignore the colour in the scene.  This is 
easier to do when B&W film is loaded in the camera.  You also need to find a 
traditional B&W film you like, get the technical specifications for it and for the colour 
film your using, , and before you drop the colour, try and match the response curve 
for each colour to theB&W film.  This will give you the best results.  

W

There is one huge advantage to shooting color and then converting to B&W,
which is that you can choose from a wide palette of different effects when
you do the conversion, with tools like Channel Mixer. You can do the same
with filters in front of the lens, but filters slow down your shooting, and
make you commit to one particular effect for each shot. I'm sure some
purists will insist that they can achieve specific results with filters and
B&W film that cannot be obtained with software conversion, but personally
that's outweighed by the ability to experiment with the conversion at my
leisure after the fact.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

>You can do the same
>with filters in front of the lens, but filters slow down your shooting, and
>make you commit to one particular effect for each shot.

Obviously you shoot everything with a hi-speed Canon and hope that you will get something, if anything! "slow down your shooting", please . . . most competent photographers I know have an idea of what they are looking for, including the contrast effect (frequently part of their style). The "one" particular effect that you speak of is more often than not the one the photographer was looking for, as opposed to an "artiste" hacking away at something with every function photoshop has to offer, hoping to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Long live digital/electronic blather! No matter how sophisticated it becomes, it will never make up for previsualization . . . and that also applies to charcoal pencil drawings, oil painting, watercolour, writing, . . . any creative pursuit.

Paul Aparycki

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> From: bhhc [mailto:tawow@...]
>
> Obviously you shoot everything with a hi-speed Canon and hope
> that you will get something, if anything! "slow down your
> shooting", please . . . most competent photographers I know have
> an idea of what they are looking for, including the contrast
> effect (frequently part of their style). The "one" particular
> effect that you speak of is more often than not the one the
> photographer was looking for, as opposed to an "artiste" hacking
> away at something with every function photoshop has to offer,
> hoping to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
>
> Long live digital/electronic blather! No matter how sophisticated
> it becomes, it will never make up for previsualization . . . and
> that also applies to charcoal pencil drawings, oil painting,
> watercolour, writing, . . . any creative pursuit.

Well, you've just mildly insulted something like half the photographers in
the world.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Clearly naïve. Creativity doesn't end at the click of the shutter.  There is
nothing wrong with retaining the flexibility for additional creative thought
at a later date.  Have you never cropped an image, burned an image or dodged
in the darkroom or digital domain?  Hacking has nothing to do with it.
Taking advantage of the additional creative flexibility provided by a new
medium does.... I implore all photographers to experiment both before and
after the shutter is released.  Some old fuddy duddies seem to still be
stuck within the restrictive bounds of the film, shutter (slow or fast),
lens and a few old filters...

> From: bhhc <tawow@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:53:23 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Color vs BW film for printing BW
> 
> 
>> You can do the same
>> with filters in front of the lens, but filters slow down your shooting, and
>> make you commit to one particular effect for each shot.
> 
> Obviously you shoot everything with a hi-speed Canon and hope that you will
> get something, if anything! "slow down your shooting", please . . . most
> competent photographers I know have an idea of what they are looking for,
> including the contrast effect (frequently part of their style). The "one"
> particular effect that you speak of is more often than not the one the
> photographer was looking for, as opposed to an "artiste" hacking away at
> something with every function photoshop has to offer, hoping to make a silk
> purse out of a sow's ear.
> 
> Long live digital/electronic blather! No matter how sophisticated it becomes,
> it will never make up for previsualization . . . and that also applies to
> charcoal pencil drawings, oil painting, watercolour, writing, . . . any
> creative pursuit.
> 
> Paul Aparycki
>

Don't think so. When I see something that piques my interest, and have been having my interest piqued for over thirty-five years (with a camera), I usually have an idea of where I am going with it, as do most other (still practising) photographers that I know of. Shooting something and then "I'll find some solution in photoshop" has very little creative input or forethought . . . about the same actually as buying a lottery ticket. I don't deny or reject the use of photoshop, but for someone who knows what they are doing, that intent would be present (with some insight as to what toys in photoshop they will use), prior to doing their photography. Obviously it cannot be the case all the time . . . your argument though, seems to presume it is the opposite. Pot luck is not a creative principle, it is simply pot luck. I don't know of a single photographer today who isn't glued to their screen half their life trying to outphotoshop their last photoshopping (myself included) . . . the better ones though, think before they shoot so the downtime is minimised (myself included . . . many, many years of experience taught me NOT to worship my tools).

Paul Aparycki
  Well, you've just mildly insulted something like half the photographers in
  the world.

  --

  Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
  Paul                mailto:pderocco@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I know it's almost Halloween, but ... .
--
Sam 8(


At 6:53 PM -0400 10/11/04, bhhc wrote:

>  >You can do the same
>>with filters in front of the lens, but filters slow down your shooting, and
>>make you commit to one particular effect for each shot.
>
>Obviously you shoot everything with a hi-speed Canon and hope that 
>you will get something, if anything! "slow down your shooting", 
>please . . . most competent photographers I know have an idea of 
>what they are looking for, including the contrast effect (frequently 
>part of their style). The "one" particular effect that you speak of 
>is more often than not the one the photographer was looking for, as 
>opposed to an "artiste" hacking away at something with every 
>function photoshop has to offer, hoping to make a silk purse out of 
>a sow's ear.
>
>Long live digital/electronic blather! No matter how sophisticated it 
>becomes, it will never make up for previsualization . . . and that 
>also applies to charcoal pencil drawings, oil painting, watercolour, 
>writing, . . . any creative pursuit.
>
>Paul Aparycki

I am simply stating that it IS NOT the be all and end all . . . as seems to be presumed by some here. Naive? That is a stupid comment if ever there was one. I merely pointed out an attribute of a thinking creative process that is used by most photographers. That of having a previsualisation of what it is they want from the image. If I am naive, I am sorry but you will have to include Adams, Penn, Strand, Weston, Newton, Bourdin, and thousands of others in the commercial and "art" world who actually knew what they were looking for before they pushed the button. No doubt any one of them would be a formidible mind behind some photoshopping . . . but it would have been part of the original process, that of having and idea and knowing the technique to fulfill that idea . . . something hacks are unable to contemplate.

Paul Aparycki

p.s. as to fuddieduddies, take a look at the work of someone (like the aging old fart he is) of Rysard Horowitz. There isn't a single "new school" idiot who could even begin to approach his understanding of photoshop and the photographic image . . . those come with experience . . . something you might attain some day . . . if you have the intelligence

  Clearly naïve. Creativity doesn't end at the click of the shutter.  There is
  nothing wrong with retaining the flexibility for additional creative thought
  at a later date.  Have you never cropped an image, burned an image or dodged
  in the darkroom or digital domain?  Hacking has nothing to do with it.
  Taking advantage of the additional creative flexibility provided by a new
  medium does.... I implore all photographers to experiment both before and
  after the shutter is released.  Some old fuddy duddies seem to still be
  stuck within the restrictive bounds of the film, shutter (slow or fast),
  lens and a few old filters...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No you simply carte blanche accused all wishing to shoot with colour film
and convert to B&W for additional post-shutter flexibility of lacking
pre-visualisation.  A very naïve generalisation.

> From: bhhc <tawow@sympatico.ca>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:16:31 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Color vs BW film for printing BW
> 
> 
> I am simply stating that it IS NOT the be all and end all . . . as seems to be
> presumed by some here. Naive? That is a stupid comment if ever there was one.
> I merely pointed out an attribute of a thinking creative process that is used
> by most photographers. That of having a previsualisation of what it is they
> want from the image. If I am naive, I am sorry but you will have to include
> Adams, Penn, Strand, Weston, Newton, Bourdin, and thousands of others in the
> commercial and "art" world who actually knew what they were looking for before
> they pushed the button. No doubt any one of them would be a formidible mind
> behind some photoshopping . . . but it would have been part of the original
> process, that of having and idea and knowing the technique to fulfill that
> idea . . . something hacks are unable to contemplate.
> 
> Paul Aparycki
> 
> p.s. as to fuddieduddies, take a look at the work of someone (like the aging
> old fart he is) of Rysard Horowitz. There isn't a single "new school" idiot
> who could even begin to approach his understanding of photoshop and the
> photographic image . . . those come with experience . . . something you might
> attain some day . . . if you have the intelligence
> 
>   Clearly naïve. Creativity doesn't end at the click of the shutter.  There is
>   nothing wrong with retaining the flexibility for additional creative thought
>   at a later date.  Have you never cropped an image, burned an image or dodged
>   in the darkroom or digital domain?  Hacking has nothing to do with it.
>   Taking advantage of the additional creative flexibility provided by a new
>   medium does.... I implore all photographers to experiment both before and
>   after the shutter is released.  Some old fuddy duddies seem to still be
>   stuck within the restrictive bounds of the film, shutter (slow or fast),
>   lens and a few old filters...
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

>Obviously you shoot everything with a hi-speed Canon and hope that you will
get something, if anything! >"slow down your shooting", please . . . most
competent photographers I know have an idea of what >they>are looking for,
including the contrast effect (frequently part of their style). The "one"
particular >effect that you speak of is more often than not the one the
photographer was looking for, as opposed to >an "artiste" hacking away at
something with every function photoshop has to offer, hoping to make a silk
>purse out of a sow's ear.

While I agree with your criticism of the idea that filters are bad because
they "slow down your shooting"  I think the above comment is a little
unfair. The effect of filters on exposure and contrast is not completely
predicaable. Filter factors are only a rough guide to the necessary exposure
adjustments. And metering through a filter instead of relying on filter
factors doesn't always work well because the meter and the film aren't
equally sensitive to the same colors. The effect of the standard filters
used in black and white photography also varies depending on the quantity
and hue of particular colors in a scene and isn't very predicatable in many
situations. So while speeding up photography isn't a good reason IMHO to
ignore filters, the ability to make adjustments later when converting color
film to monochrome images is still very useful.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bhhc" <tawow@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Color vs BW film for printing BW



>You can do the same
>with filters in front of the lens, but filters slow down your shooting, and
>make you commit to one particular effect for each shot.

Obviously you shoot everything with a hi-speed Canon and hope that you will
get something, if anything! "slow down your shooting", please . . . most
competent photographers I know have an idea of what they are looking for,
including the contrast effect (frequently part of their style). The "one"
particular effect that you speak of is more often than not the one the
photographer was looking for, as opposed to an "artiste" hacking away at
something with every function photoshop has to offer, hoping to make a silk
purse out of a sow's ear.

Long live digital/electronic blather! No matter how sophisticated it
becomes, it will never make up for previsualization . . . and that also
applies to charcoal pencil drawings, oil painting, watercolour, writing, . .
. any creative pursuit.

Paul Aparycki

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links