[stevebrot]

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.

With the exception of efficiency, I beg to differ. I have done some gorgeous monochrome conversions from digital captures, but know that my film negatives have a ton more to work with, even scanned.* Unfortunately, demonstrating such would require having you at my workstation and light table and with requirements of social distancing, that ain't gonna happen.


Steve

* I hesitated putting that last at about scanned film, but decided to leave it in. I can scan to 32-bit monochrome TIFF and the tonal reproduction is pretty incredible with little artifact generated in PP. Scans from color negatives, on the other hand, are often fairly "brittle" in PP.

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 04-24-2020 at 11:47 AM.

[CarlJF]

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?

Because I definitely don't want to go back to chemical processing! As far as speed goes, although it's possible to take hours to process a digital picture, it's more like a few minutes... With film, it was like two evenings of 3-4 hours to get one decent print, assuming a relatively straightforward picture (correctly exposed without complex dodging and burning). There's nothinig wrong with working on film, but I definitely don't feel the nostalgia to go back to it.

[stevebrot]

Because I definitely don't want to go back to chemical processing! As far as speed goes, although it's possible to take hours to process a digital picture, it's more like a few minutes... With film, it was like two evenings of 3-4 hours to get one decent print, assuming a relatively straightforward picture (correctly exposed without complex dodging and burning). There's nothinig wrong with working on film, but I definitely don't feel the nostalgia to go back to it.

You realize that you are commenting on a thread in a dedicated film subforum, right? The hoes and pitchforks are generally kept in reserve, but most folk here are true believers.


Steve

[CarlJF]

You realize that you are commenting on a thread in a dedicated film subforum, right?

Shame on me! No, I didn't noticed it. I just clicked directly from the PF homepage... I now realize I completely misunderstood the OP question...

[niels hansen]

Although the film process is slower I dont understand how is it possible to use many hours to make a decent print from a well exposed negative without burning and dodging. So many skilled contributors have stated that there is a significant difference between bw film and digital, that it must be considered as a fact.

---------- Post added 04-24-20 at 12:59 PM ----------

Working with bw film is not nostalgia, its a question of getting other - and better - possibilities.

[MJKoski]

B&W film is also an enabler of sorts. Digital 8x10" exists but only few people around the globe can afford it. Most photogs on the other hand can afford 8x10" Intrepid, a normal lens and some Fomapan 200 boxes.

[StiffLegged]

... I dont understand how is it possible to use many hours to make a decent print from a well exposed negative without burning and dodging....

I don't understand that either – dodging and burning were always a part of printing in the darkroom.

[Bassat]

For what it's worth, I moved back to film because I just got tired of having 400 shots of nothing interesting at any particular event. Digital almost killed photography for me. If you've read my other posts, that is theme lately. Shooting B&W will take me all the way home, again. I started this obsession with a BHF and B&W 620 film over 50 years ago. Perhaps I just need to go buy that roll now.

[clickclick]

I feel it's somewhat of a different medium that also just happens to involve a lens and light box.

[HippyHippo]

Interesting debate which I’ve enjoyed following.

I have a strong film background but inevitably became more and more digital as time went on. I’m also part way through a photography art degree which stretches my creativity. I noticed in recent months that my motivation was waning and one of the many diverse things I did to reignite it was to shoot a b&w film again and develop it over the kitchen sink.

What I found was that this reestablished an emotional link in my work which had suffered with the onset of digital. It’s hard to explain in a logical sense, but it’s definitely there. Perhaps the analogue link through to the original subject, perhaps mere nostalgia, perhaps the ‘look’ or the heritage behind the process. Who knows.

I can see that colour raw files can produce beautiful monochrome images. So I’m sure colour negs and transparencies can do the same from the comments above. Fascinating to read. But photography is a creative language and I’m learning - for the 2nd time - that film has a unique but hard to define way of allowing us to express ourselves.

When we look back, colour was scoffed at until 40 years ago as not being ‘serious’. Then William Eggleston, Stephen Shore & co gave us a new way of seeing. Nowadays monochrome connotes age, authenticity, reportage, tonality, drama in a way that colour often cannot. They say quite different things. So what do we actually want to say?

[Jonathan Mac]

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.

Changing between colour and B&W requires a similar mental shift to changing focal length - for each you need to focus on what will work best for what you're shooting. That's why shooting in colour for changing later to B&W so often doesn't work well.

[stevebrot]

That's why shooting in colour for changing later to B&W so often doesn't work well.

Good point. The color digital images that I convert to monochrome are usually shot with that option in mind.


Steve

[Bassat]

Not to derail my own thread, but I just looked at Adorama for B&W film. Well over 100 choices. Should I just buy cheap to start with? I plan to start with 35mm, 120 is a bit expensive per frame to experiment.

[photoptimist]

Not to derail my own thread, but I just looked at Adorama for B&W film. Well over 100 choices. Should I just buy cheap to start with? I plan to start with 35mm, 120 is a bit expensive per frame to experiment.

Two thoughts:

1) For picking things where I have no real clue on the quality (e.g., a restaurant's wine list in a foreign country), I pick something from the middle of the price range. The cheapest stuff is often not very good and the most expensive stuff would probably be lost on me. In the case of B&W film, it would be unfortunate if the first rolls you bought were cheap, the results disappointing, and you gave up on the medium because of it.

2) You might take a stroll through Post your B&W Film shots - PentaxForums.com to see if the "looks" of any of the films catch your eye.

Have fun!

[Wheatfield]

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?

I think if you are scanning, you are probably better off shooting colour.
My old first Guru once said that a good picture can stand on it's colour, but a great picture stands without needing it.
He used pretty sunset pictures as an example of the former, and almost anything B&W from the Group f/64 as the latter.
He thought, and I tend to agree, that to shoot well in B&W, you need to depend more on good compositional habits, and this will improve your photography equally well when shooting colour.