Justification to buy films

[coreduo]

+1 :thumbsup: although, what he's talking about isn't a "convert to monochrome" button but rather playing with the sliders in order to approximate the results on putting different colored filters in front of the lens when doing B&W film (i.e. how a red filter vastly increases contrast) - to be clear though, I still think nothing beats good old B&W film, especially either FP4/HP5 or my favorite, Agfapan APX-400.

And who the hell is Steinhoff?

Sascha Steinhoff is the author of the book entitled SCANNING NEGATIVES AND SLIDES. He is an accomplished photography journalist in Germany. A scanning software is offered free together with his book. He programmed his own scanning software.

 

[flea77]

And who the hell is Steinhoff?

No kidding! You start talking about photography "experts" and I think Ansel Adams and Minor White :hail:, and I don't believe they would ever say something as absurd as shoot color film for B&W prints.

I still think nothing beats good old B&W film, especially either FP4/HP5 or my favorite, Agfapan APX-400.

+1 except my fav is FP4 by a hair, HP5 next, then maybe Delta 100.

Allan

 

[blash]

Have you tried APX-400?

Agfa | APX-400 135-36 Agfapan Professional Black & | B9FLY

At $3.50 for a roll of 36 that's pretty damn good compared to FP4's $5.09/36 exposure roll unless maybe if you buy FP4 in bulk, and not on pre-packaged rolls either.

 

[blash]

Sascha Steinhoff is the author of the book entitled SCANNING NEGATIVES AND SLIDES.

Yeah OK, he's the guy on the cover. Doesn't mean anything.

He is an accomplished photography journalist in Germany.

I got an A- in Introduction to Photography at the University - does that make me an accomplished photographer? I've gotten good impressions from people who have seen my work in real life - does that make me an accomplished photographer? If I were to be published (as the book that I have just penned makes me) - does that make me accomplished? "Accomplished" is a debatable term and thus meaningless.

A scanning software is offered free together with his book. He programmed his own scanning software.

Wait wait wait - so he's a writer, AND a journalist, AND a photographer, AND a programmer? Sounds a bit like a jack of all trades, master of none to me. Also, why would I use the scanning software included with the book? Wouldn't I just use the software that comes with my scanner? If it's just image manipulation software then why would I use it over Photoshop, the industry standard? If it's image manipulation software and I can't afford Photoshop and my morals prevent me from using pirated software, then why would I choose some homegrown crap over mature, open, free software like GIMP?

Why is this even under discussion?

 

[coreduo]

Ok. I either rest my case or I give in to your arguments.

+1 and -! means lowering the shutter speed or f-stop one step higher or lower.

example, f-2 will be raised to f-3, etc. Or if you know it, sorry. Just clarifying.

 

[coreduo]

Ya, I used Canon scanner software instead of his.

What I mean is it is better developing it in color film, then scan, then edit and convert to black and white than develop black and white film and scan to edit. Those were his words. But anyway, I do it and looks better than developing black and white film, and scan to edit. Or it is better to scan color film, convert to black and white rather than using or shooting black and white film before scanning. Got to do with his wording which says, "Most experts agree....(something to that effect)

To end the matter, I either rest my case or be swayed by your arguments. Better still email Sascha Steinhoff.

I think it has got to do with the engineering features either of the scanner or the emulsion created picture.

 

[epatsellis]

Per Adams' methodologiy, as espoused in "the Negative", were you to accurately establish an EI (based on a density of .1 above Fb+fog), and establish a development time based on the desired contrast index your process needs, as well as N- and N+ times; followed by accurate exposure; previsualisation and the use of spot meter. You'd be damn surprised at how good (and accurate to your pre visualised concept) a b&w negative can be.

Adams' methods are not complex, and the testing required takes very little time, it's a worthwhile investment to maximize the benefits of using b&w film. Color film really has no ability to do N- or N+, the 3:15 development time is fixed. Longer development also brings funky color crossover issues, and under developement just looks bad. If your subject can fit within the dynamic range of color film, I guess it's ok, but I'd love to swap prints with you and see just how they really look in person and compare them to "real" b&w prints printed optically or contact printed.

The response of color films is frequently (almost always) tweaked significantly to tailor the colors to the deisred end result. It's about the farthest from linear as you can get, as far as accurate tonality is concerned. Maybe not as much of an issue shooting 35mm or MF, but when I'm shooting 8x10 (or larger...), I'm doing so for better tonal reproduction, not just to reduce grain.

Not to mention the relative costs involved, 160NC is around $9 a sheet, compared to around 3 or 4 for b&w film. Not an insignificant difference, especially when one looks at the processing costs involved. My internal billing rate for C41 8x10 is $8.50 a sheet, for b&w it's $3.50, reflecting actual costs + markup (my processing business bills the processing to the studio which I am a partner in). All chemistry other than C41 bleach is used 1 shot and consistent sheet to sheet, day to day. For a typical day out shooting for personal enjoyment, I may use 8 to 10 rolls of 120 filim, and at least 10 sheets of 8x10 film. The cost difference alone would be in the neighborhood of $50-100.

The downsides are no control over negative contrast, no ability to tailor CI to either optical printing or scanning, far less tonality in the image, as well as not having the abillity to archivally process the negatives for long term storage (C41 films are dye coupler based, and fade).

The positives? well I guess I dont' have to think about the image beforehand, and can filter to my hearts content after the fact.

So, realistically, and based on the above facts, which choice would you make in my postion coreduo ?

 

[coreduo]

All the prints concerned have no signed photo model release forms. To be specific, the prints concerned picture two Chinese male teenagers and one Russian lady. Scanned them in Canon scanner and edited them.

With regards to your question as to what option will you take, I don't know. Your explanation is too complicated but I came across some of your topics in the Negative by Ansel Adams especially the '+1' or 'N+, N-1'.

Your point of view has argumentative content. Maybe color film is not too much of a better option. I don't know. Maybe you can direct your questions to the two persons concerned in this thread too.

 

[blash]

What I mean is it is better developing it in color film, then scan, then edit and convert to black and white than develop black and white film and scan to edit.

Again, what he's trying to say is that you have more flexibility in terms of the final image with color film converted because you can play around with it in Photoshop. Here's the point: B&W film isn't as sensitive to green light as other colors (which is why grass often turns out not so well in B&W unless a green filter is used). However, with Photoshop you can tell Photoshop to make the B&W image super-sensitive to green, which can lead to interesting results (i.e. your green car will now turn very bright white instead of the darker gray or black it was before).

I do still think though that nothing beats optical printing, and with optical printing you can do a lot of stuff with burning/dodging and with contrast control, so you don't miss out on much and the final, physical result is nicer.

 

[coreduo]

Again, what he's trying to say is that you have more flexibility in terms of the final image with color film converted because you can play around with it in Photoshop. Here's the point: B&W film isn't as sensitive to green light as other colors (which is why grass often turns out not so well in B&W unless a green filter is used). However, with Photoshop you can tell Photoshop to make the B&W image super-sensitive to green, which can lead to interesting results (i.e. your green car will now turn very bright white instead of the darker gray or black it was before).

I do still think though that nothing beats optical printing, and with optical printing you can do a lot of stuff with burning/dodging and with contrast control, so you don't miss out on much and the final, physical result is nicer.

The premises are we are using a scanner and we are comparing color film with B&W film to be scanned. Optical printing is another issue.

 

[flea77]

The premises are we are using a scanner and we are comparing color film with B&W film to be scanned. Optical printing is another issue.

A scanned B&W has different characteristics than a scanned color, you would have to do a LOT of playing in photoshop to get something that accurately depicted real B&W film. Of course, if you are trying to get an image ready for a web page that will have the snot compressed out of it anyway into a tiny JPG file, who cares. If on the other hand you are going for a 16x20 print for the wall (or to sell, or display in a gallery, etc) then I would say film gives you a better place to start from (or if you do it right to start with, no photoshopping required, click and print).

Allan

 

[coreduo]

A scanned B&W has different characteristics than a scanned color, you would have to do a LOT of playing in photoshop to get something that accurately depicted real B&W film. Of course, if you are trying to get an image ready for a web page that will have the snot compressed out of it anyway into a tiny JPG file, who cares. If on the other hand you are going for a 16x20 print for the wall (or to sell, or display in a gallery, etc) then I would say film gives you a better place to start from (or if you do it right to start with, no photoshopping required, click and print).

Allan

That is one correct point of view. But the other one is that if it is color film, the colors are authentic. Hence, if you scan and convert them to black and white, you get the correct hues of blacks, whites. and greys than a scanned and edited black and white film.

 

[blash]

That is one correct point of view. But the other one is that if it is color film, the colors are authentic. Hence, if you scan and convert them to black and white, you get the correct hues of blacks, whites. and greys than a scanned and edited black and white film.

Again, our point is that athough you may have better control over what parts of the image are gray, black, and white - which may matter slightly if you're getting a JPG ready for the Internet where it's going to have the "snot compressed out of it" where accurate colors aren't that big of a deal. However, if your intent is to print it out, then it is much, much better to optically print B&W film than it is to inkjet print a B&W image. This is more of a debate over the merits of the final product - i.e., the merit of the use of this method only depends on the method's result - than it is over the merits of film vs. digital (since if, in theory, you could take a color image and then contact-print it to a large piece of sheet film with a colored filter in between to simulate the effects of playing with the sliders in photoshop, then... sure, why not).

 

[flea77]

That is one correct point of view. But the other one is that if it is color film, the colors are authentic. Hence, if you scan and convert them to black and white, you get the correct hues of blacks, whites. and greys than a scanned and edited black and white film.

Actually one could argue that color film never really accurately depicts the exact original colors, so in conversion to B&W, you are converting something that is already off. While capturing B&W directly to film, the actual exact colors are giving off their true and unmanipulated reflective values to present more of a "true" B&W image. Less conversion = more accuracy.

All of that aside, my eye prefers the look of actual B&W film to 90% of conversions from color to B&W. So no "experts", logic, arguments, or discussions are going to change what my eyes like and what they do not.

Remember that color conversion to B&W has been around a LOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGG time, you put the color neg in the enlarger, shoot it on to B&W paper, presto! So if converting color to B&W really was a better idea there would be no B&W film. Ansel Adams, Minor White, etc would have all used color film and printed it on to B&W paper. Yet for some inexplicable reason I can still buy new B&W film in 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc etc. Strange eh?

Tell you what, you keep reading Sascha Steinhoff, shooting color film, converting it to B&W and be happy. I will keep reading Ansel Adams and Minor White, shooting B&W film with no conversions, and I will be happy. Deal? :mrgreen:

Allan

 

[flea77]

"snot compressed out of it"

I should charge you a licensing fee for that! :lmao:

Allan