[StiffLegged]

I won’t hurt you, just wonder at the question. It’s a craft. A skill set. An absorbing way to spend time and (spare) money. I thoroughly enjoyed my darkroom years and the prints made then still surprise me with their range of tones and how well they’ve lasted the decades - they still bring pleasure.

That was always the point - to make something I enjoyed looking at.

[Astro-Baby]

For me its about the light and dark. Color tends to obscure the tonalities. I like the more obvious extremes of light and shade that show better in monochrome than they often do in color.

As stated above we see naturally in black and white with a color post process applied by our brains based on some references as from luminance in the scene.

Its also a lot tougher to get an interesting pic from b&w and the challenge is appealing to me.

---------- Post added 04-23-20 at 11:47 PM ----------

LOL! We're going to give you 10 lashes with a camera strap, dip you in stop bath, and then leave you wallowing in fixer.

Dont forget hanging from drying rack

[disconnekt]

As far as price goes, it's the similiar to digital photography:
It's as cheap or expensive as you (want to) make it

[MJKoski]

B&W is important to emphasize the form of the subject when the light is right. That is how I see it and use it.

[leekil]

My photography teacher thought color was a cheap stunt for turning a crap photo into something passable (much like the fad of over-saturation).

Interestingly, I think that sometimes people seems to use b&w to turn a crap photo into something "more serious".

I don't do a lot of b&w film these days, but I like it for the tonality and the texture of the grain. When I was doing more b&w darkroom, I would mostly use either TMax 100, for low/no grain, or TMax 3200, for the texture of that grain.

On the other hand, I know someone whose b&w work is all shot in Ektar, and then converted to b&w digitally. I think he prefers the tonality and grain (or lack therefore) that he gets from the Ektar as opposed to b&w film.

[MJKoski]

Just pop in Rollei ATO2.1 and most of the grain one gets are impurities in the developer. It has only few stops of exposure latitude though.

This is 100% crop of over 100 MegaPixel 4x5" Rollei ATO scan:



Whole image

[35mmfilmfan]

Broad viewpoint : it produces results not obtainable in any other way.

[Jonathan Mac]

Why would I use colour film when what I want are black and white images?

[E-man]

I haven't shot black and white film since I left the newspaper almost 30 years ago. Black and white is an entirely different exercise in contrast. Shadowy photos can look great in black and white but similar images shot in color can look like crap. It's a visual idiom that just doesn't translate. All these years later, I still miss the darkroom experience and, as someone else mentioned, the smell of the chemicals. Noodling with an image on the computer just doesn't compare in terms of a creative process. For me, the darkroom bordered on alchemy.

When I worked for the paper, we would occasionally receive commercially processed black and white prints, submitted from outside sources. They always seemed kind of murky looking with no sharp blacks, nor any pure whites. They also often seemed to have a slightly purplish tint to them. I finally figured out that the commercial processor had simply made color prints from the black and white negatives. I put the pieces together after we switched from Kodak Tri-X to T-Max film and noticed the T-Max negatives had a similar purplish tint. That tint didn't show up at all on prints made with black and white paper but I'm sure it would have been quite noticeable on color paper. Bottom line: They're two different mediums and never the twain should meet.

[Bassat]

Thanks for all the answers. So far, i haven't shot b&w for about 40 years. I have noticed in my color to monochrome work that some photos work WAY better in mono than others. I shall revisit those that work, try to see what makes them work, then conjure up the cajones to buy a roll of tri-x.

[CarlJF]

The main interest of shooting B&W film is because it's relatively easy to develop and print your pictures at home with a classic chemial darkroom. Building a darkroom for color film photography is much more difficult. But if you don't plan on doing everything the old way, you might as well just shoot digital and develop in LR, or whatwever software, as a B&W picture. I don't see much point in shooting B&W film to have it developed by someone else and scanned to be digitally process. Today, shooting B&W film is much more about the experience of doing it the old way than the end result. If you're only interested in the result (getting a B&W picture), there's nothing you can achieve with film that cannot be achieved as well or better, but more efficiently, by using a digital camera and processing.

[MJKoski]

Some colorful scenes work nicely in B&W when one uses proper B&W filter. Like reds vs blues. Pop something in white while others remain blackish.

[Bob 256]

Another issue (which may or may not apply to digital media) is the archival properties of B&W film (not the chromogenic variety). I have negatives my grandparents shot which are almost 100 years old, and they are in good condition. Color film will not last! Dyes in the film will fade and memories will be lost over time. That may not be your lifetime, but if you want to pass on photos to generations down the line, B&W is capable of that task whereas color film will only be a shadow of what it once was (if that).

Arguments can be made for digital media and its keepability, but it all depends on being able to recover data written to files on who knows what (and digital media deteriorates too). Just like some of the moonshot videos which were recorded on quadraplex video recorders, some digital files might not be accessible in the future due to the lack of a means to recover recorded files (some old quadraplex machines were salvaged to convert those NASA videos to other formats). Other digital storage is just as fleeting as color film.

In any case, having a simple B&W negative guarantees that photo can be recovered even 500 years from now if the negative is intact and we are here to recover it. Just one other plus for B&W.

[LaHo]

Please don't hurt me. I just don't get it. 50 years ago, I shot B&W film because it was cheaper than color. Today, the opposite is true, mostly.


Backstory: I'm primarily shooting film these days. I have absolutely no desire to step into a darkroom, ever again. I pay TheDarkRoom.com to develop my film. They do my scanning, too. I keep toying with the idea of shooting some B&W film, but can't get over how much latitude I have in LR when starting with color scans. I don't see giving up the flexibility of color originals just to spend more money on less flexible B&W film. Can the gurus of monochrome please attempt to enlighten me?

1) B/W negative film is able to handle strong light very well. Shooting directly into the sun and still get a decent image is quite possible with B/W negative film, whereas especially slide colour film has less latitude and burns out in the highlights much like digital. The highlights might be dense, but the info is there.

2) Development of colour negative film is basically done in one type of chemistry: C-41. Likewise, colour slide film is developed in E-6 chemistry. The times are more or less fixed. For those who like to experiment, there is of course cross-processing: using the wrong type of C-41 in stead of E-6 (or vice versa), but that is basically it.

With B/W negative film you have a very wide range of films to choose from and a similar wide range of developers. The films can be shot at box speed, half box speed, double or triple box speed. The developers can be used in different solutions: stock, 1:1, 1:4 and some 1:25, 1:50, 1:100. Agitation is another parameter, and stand development with no agitation for 60 minutes is also an option. You can make your own developer from household items, e.g. caffenol. The possible combinations are almost endless and the results can differ a lot. This makes experimentation very interesting.

3) If you have access to a darkroom, you can make true silver gelatine enlargments from your best B/W negatives. Colour negatives or slides are quite another matter.

Another question: Why shoot digital, apply filters, convert to monochrome, run the image through Silver Efex and use up tons of time in front of the computer in order to create an image that might look like something shot on Kodak Tri-X 400, as some do, when you can shoot that film directly?

[stevebrot]

As far as price goes, it's the similiar to digital photography:
It's as cheap or expensive as you (want to) make it

Isn't that the truth. For what I have into my 4x5 kit, I could have bought a K-1 and lenses to match.


Steve