want b&w and colour. two cameras or use photo editing?

surfingfireman · Feb 11, 2004

A little advice please.

I am heading to California in a 10 days and am hoping to get some great shots I can blow up and display. My friends own a bar/gallery that displays artists work and said they would be happy to show some of my stuff (providing it is decent). I intend to make Joshua Tree National Park the place I take the bulk of my pictures.

I would like some colour and some b&w prints. I would rather not be rewinding film mid-roll in order to change back and forth. So should I take all shots in colour and later convert to b&w using Photoshop (which I don't have yet) or should I invest in a second camera, even just a compatible body so that I can alternate between styles.

I have a Minolta 303si right now (until I can upgrade to my dreamy Maxxum 7) and considered getting a cheaper X-700, X-370 or similar manual camera to be the secondary body. Are lenses between the 303si and X-series cameras even compatible?

Well thanks in advance to any advice.

Mike

Mitica100 · Feb 12, 2004

I work with two bodies, both Pentax. I use one of them for color/slides and the other for B/W. It's been working very well for me. That would be the cheaper way, Photoshop will put a dent in your wallet. However, I was able to do with PS and its filters what I couldn't do easily by exposing, developing and printing a regular B/W film. I have a filter which will easily transform any B/W into either a Chrome print or a Silver print (I believe it's a freebie, downloaded it sometime from somewhere).

So, to summarize, if your wallet is well stocked with $$ I would go with Photoshop. Otherwise, I'd buy another SLR body. Too bad they don't make interchangeable backs for 35mm cameras anymore, like the Kodak Ektra of 1940!

terri · Feb 12, 2004

I do the exact same thing, and happen to own Pentax as well - my old ME takes infrared or B&W and the MZ-S for color slides.

Or if you were thinking about getting PS anyway, something like this may help you justify the expense. You can shoot B&W and add color in PS, rather than converting your color images to B&W.

You can also shoot B&W and hand color your prints, but that's a different art form. However, it exists and you can get a lot of photo oils for less than the cost of PS!!

doxx · Feb 12, 2004

the look of of images converted to b/w in Photoshop is way different - the pictures just don't get the magic black and white film 'kick' IMO

surfingfireman · Feb 13, 2004

Well, thank you so much for your help and you answered the way I was hoping you would. I think I always wanted to rather have a second body then rely on PSing in order to change from B&W to colour. This way I also have a back up body for emergencies. I will probaby invest in PS at some point though anyways.

Once again, thanks all.

Mike

Big Mike · Feb 17, 2004

Most photo finishers are using digital machines (ie: Frontier etc.) and will give you b&w prints from color film if you ask for it. The result may vary. They will most likely print them on paper that is meant for color prints so that may cause color casts but the result may be good enough.

Of course true b&w film is much better. As is printing on true b&w paper.

You could shoot all your pics in color and get them printed. Scan the ones you want and convert them to b&w. Or get them printed in b&w to see how they will look. Then if you have some really good ones, you could take them to a good lab and have them do the conversion and printing.