Shoot colour or shoot B&W?

[David Mitchell]

Due to now seriously starting to get into 35mm film I need to get peoples opinions on the matter of what film I should shoot, black and white or colour? I only ask due to the conflicting differences between them, I enjoy black and white more than colour but ive come across an issue.

Basically here is how I see it:

Shooting B&W:

Film costs more
Film costs more to develop commercially
Film usually has to be sent away to be developed
Film costs less to develop if developed at home
Easy to scan in and invert (hybrid method)

Shooting colour:

Film costs less
Film can only be developed commercially
Film can usually be developed locally
Harder to post process

Then it gets to 120 film....lol yeah thats being sent away to be developed, nowhere locally even really knows what it is lol

Basically I am thinking about shooting colour, but then converting it to black and white, as its cheaper to buy and easier to get developed but will I have issues with the image quality if I convert colour to black and white?

I have a small stack of 35mm colour film (from Poundland!) which are in date by a loooong way which cost £1 each, next to them I have some Kentmere 400 black and white, they cost about £4 a roll. If I had a development tank I could develop the black and white film cheaper (using the 100:1 stand process), however I can shoot either 144 or 288 shots of colour for the same price as I can shoot 36 or 72 shots of black and white film.

Using the photo imaging north wales prices (highly recomended company) I get the following cost breakdowns:

Black and white

Film £4
Processing £11
Processed total = £15 per 36 shots
41p per shot

Film £4
Develop only £4
Develop total = £8 per 36 shots
22p a shot

Colour

Film £1
Processing £7.45
Processed total = £8.45 per 36 shots
23p per shot

Film £1
Develop only £3.45
Develop total = £4.45 per 36 shot
12p per shot

So basically I can shoot colour film fully processed for the same sort of price I can get B&W film developed only, and I wouldn't need to get full on photo scanner as I could just scan the processed photos in on a normal scanner.

To put it in perspective, B&W 120 roll film develop only costs £1.25 per shot/£1.62 each processed - the reason why im only going to shoot MF on certain occasions and the reason why im going to shoot 35mm/half frame.

Im not sure which route to go down, I am thinking that if I develop my own B&W film myself then I might be able to reduce the cost down quite a bit but would then still need to get a photo scanner to scan the negatives. Break even on B&W film processed is about 400 shots or about 720 shots of colour.

What does everyone thing I should do? Photography is actually a pretty cheap hobby of mine - I sold a 1000bhp turbo and a race engine a few months ago when I stopped drag racing etc and emptied the garage of parts, now im filling a single shelf with cameras and im getting the same enjoyment out of it

I guess I am just looking for the best value shooting there is with film, I do have a DSLR which I guess I could take out, but I don't actually enjoy shooting with it as much as I do with something mechanical. Although saying that for the same price of that camera I could have got a Nikon FM2n as well as shot a processed 700 shots lol

With DSLRs its all up front costs ie you buy the lower res camera for a pile of cash but then the more you shoot the cheaper it is per shot - mines working out at 40p per shot at the moment. Or you could buy a cheap high res film camera but then the more you shoot the more expensive it is lol

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Is cost your only concern? What about aesthetics? Art? All that kind of stuff

 

[David Mitchell]

I guess I just want to get the most amount of 'lens time' so to speak, I guess im initially on a budget for this hobby, once I get the bits of kit I want to get then I will have more disposable income to spend on film/development equipment, im currently saving up for the Epson V500 which might have to take a back seat till after Christmas now and ive got 16 frames of 120 film on the side to scan in lol

I can see why DSLRs are now really popular as you can just take loads of photos and not worry about it, but I like to shoot film as it just feels nice to shoot and I guess I want to make sure I can shoot it as much as I can. In the grand scheme of things it isn't that expensive, but it would probably mount up after a while. I have set myself the target of shooting 1000 exposures of film before I can start experimenting with lenses etc which would be about £400 if I shot it and processed it all in 35mm B&W or £1250 if I shot it all in MF.

 

[Larry Bolch]

Forget the economics. The answer is simple. Very easy to get B&W from colour, but terrifyingly difficult to get colour when shooting B&W. I learned a stern lesson a couple of decades back.


I got a call from the public relations rep for a top country music star. He had replaced some of the musicians in his band, and needed fresh shots to send out to fans—B&W. So I shot the band on Tri-X, and noticed I had a few frames on the roll so did some shots of the star. One in particular, he loved—he said it was the best performance shot of him, ever. His wife agreed, as did his manager, dog and horse. So did his record company and I got an offer on it for his next album cover, enough to pay the rent for several months. All was going perfectly until the creative director added "...in colour." OOoooooops.


I bought the finest air-brush in Dallas, printed up a large stack of prints and proceeded to ruin them very rapidly. Two days without sleep and I finally was able to call the courier to take it to Los Angeles just under the deadline. The album shipped double-platinum! It was nominated and won the award as the best country album of the year, on a TV awards show beamed around the earth. Hundreds of millions of viewers saw my picture. It was blown up to a 4×4 foot poster on the walls of every record shop I passed for months. It was well noticed in Nashville, and the phone began to ring a whole lot more often. I came just >< that short of blowing it because I did what the client requested. My stock of B&W film went out with the trash.


I found that I could make superb quality prints off colour negatives using Panapure panchromatic paper. If I was printing an architectural shot that needed some contrast in the sky, I could use a standard red filter on the enlarger after the fact. A side benefit showed itself very quickly. I would often hand the requested B&W prints to a client only to hear in anguish, "If only I had ordered these in colour!" I would answer "I can do that. I shot in colour." I will spare you the details of client/photographer bonding that inevitably followed.


To get the best quality when processing B&W, careful, consistent technique is required—just as with colour film. I used exactly the same equipment, working by time and temperature. Developer temperatures must be exact, so a good thermometer is required. I used a rotater base and a processing drum. The same base would work with either film or prints, but the drums were slightly different—the drum for film was insulated so the temperature would not vary. Once the drums were loaded, one could work in full light. This is the film drum.

Whether film or digital, I NEVER want to have to colour a shot done in monochrome again. It is so easy to take the colour out, but so difficult to put it in.

 

[Larry Bolch]

I can see why DSLRs are now really popular as you can just take loads of photos and not worry about it.

If you are indeed serious about your hobby, you will not "take loads of photos and not worry about it." You will do as I do, and make each image count. A badly exposed digital shot is every bit as bad as a badly exposed shot on film. Digital photography in fact is far more skill-intensive than film. If you have full fluency in digital photography, film is a breeze.

Learning photography has never been inexpensive. However, the tools for learning are now extremely powerful. When I learned, it was a matter of doing the test of whatever technique, and keeping it in my head while I processed and printed. If I could not do this immediately after shooting, at least some of the thought-process would evaporate. I bought 35mm film in 100' rolls and spooled it into cassettes manually and shot miles of it. Eventually, through constant repetition, I became fluent with the whole process.

I would have killed for a digital camera. Were I learning now, the mysteries of f-stops would be made clear with immediate feedback through the monitor. Sensitivity, aperture and shutter-speed for perfect exposure used up dozens of feet of film, where with a digital camera, learning would be direct and far more clear.

The same is true for lenses, which were a bafflement. With a simple kit zoom lens, one has a rich selection of focal lengths, and one can compare without even having to change the lens.

Unless you really love squandering money on a disorganized and confusing quest to understand photography, the clarity of learning with a digital camera simply can not be equaled. Digital and film cameras work identically from a photographic point of view. However, with digital, learning is enforced by instant feedback. Get a good book on photography, a fully adjustable digital camera, and work through it. When you are fluent in photography and camera operation, then work with film.

Of course, if you are being false-modest about your budget and I am being dense, then by all means throw your riches at random learning experiences. For anyone serious about learning however, that is both inefficient and extravagant. Never in the history of photography—now approaching two centuries—has there ever been a learning tool as vital and as powerful as a digital camera.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and say digital isn't the perfect learning tool for everyone...
i shot film for 10 years before I had a digital camera... Then after a few years of shooting digital I still didn't feel I knew what I was doing. I ended up filling in the final gaps with a voigtlander vito b.
it was that camera that finally taught me the relationships between aperture and shutter speed ...

Learning is different for everyone ...

I will agree though, digital can make the process of learning the basics faster ...

i think in the world of choice a two pronged attack of using digital to learn the film to practise and enforce skills is probably a good approach ...

Anyway, Rob has a great point ... If you are worrying about the finances your thinking about the wrong things ...

You said to me the other day, after looking at some of my photos "that's awesome, that's the look I'm going for, what lens and camera was that" (or similar) ... That was a digital camera... And the photos were black and white ...

why don't you stick that Pre-ai lens of yours on your d3100 and go and point it at some random stuff and see what happens!

stop thinking about logistics and costs ... And go and take some photos ... Film digital, black and white or colour ... Think about what you want from an end result and go and try to make it happen!

 

[Craig Sperring]

I really think it depends on the subject as some subjects lend themselves better to B&W than colour and visa versa.

I shot with film for over 30 years before i got my first DSLR.
A really good learning ground as unlike today it wasnt a case of shoot shoot shoot and then bin the unwanted shots.
In the "old days" lol i really think there was alot more thought put into each shot, if for nothing else the cost of processing inferior images.
Craig

 

[Paul Lange]

From another angle have a read up on as much as you can find about the Bresson exhibition on at the moment. This covers issues around the BW ./ colour debate. Also have a look at the video on the NIK website for Silver FX.

 

[David Mitchell]

Thanks everyone for your replies - only just got in from work to be able to comment back! I see what you mean about shooting colour and then removing the colour lol although wouldn't the contrast be slightly different? I got my 35mm lens due to it being used as a 50mm prime lens on my D3100, I actually bought the D3100 as kind of a training aid to film, due to my older cameras not having metering and limited settings I wanted to find a way to shoot the same photo but with different settings to get used to what speed/aperture I would need to get the correct exposure and the correct look I wanted, without shooting a roll of film and waiting for it to be developed.

I will be getting into developing my own black and white film at some point - I will also be having a go like many others of developing C41 colour film in B&W chemicals. The process works due to the fact that colour film has a B&W layer in it along with the colour dyes, the C41 process simply removed the black and white layer when its processed leaving only the colour layers.

Here is an example photo of someone using Rodinal on a C41 colour film

PB 00050 Woods | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I think between now and me getting the Nikon FM2n I am going to take out my D3100 and look into some DSLR shooting, if im honest I don't really like shooting digital it doesn't have the same feel as shooting film.

Also when looking into converting colour film to B&W I found an amazing program which works for movies and stills, basically someone has shot loads and loads of different films and then got all of the correct colour, grain and contrast values specific to that film and then compiled it into a program so you can convert any film into any other film - rather useful if using a hybrid method and not really able to spend hours on photoshop.

Here is the program:

FilmConvert - Film Stock Emulation Software

I guess the thing I find is lacking with digitial (apart from the large drop in resolution) is the clinical look of the output due to the way the image sensor processes the light information, it just kinda feels flat and lacks the dynamic range of film.

 

[Pete Askew]

As regards film simulation. Nik SilverFX does this for several of the common B&W emulsions and DxO Film Pack does this for a much wider range of films.

The World's Leading Black and White Software
DxO FilmPack - Photo Editing Software, Plugins for Mac & PC, Film Look, Digital vs Film, Filters

 

[David Mitchell]

I have just taken a few shots with my D3100 and then really basically converted to grayscale and tweeked the contrast slightly, these were actually taken with the kit lens shooting as wide open as I could to get a shallow DOF - lens F minimum is F3.5 at 18mm, due to my D3100 being a crop sensor my 35mm is too long to get close enough to take the same shot.

They look ok, but just seem a bit flat, I will have a look at the Nik SilverFX

 

[David Mitchell]

I've decided the answer is that im going to shoot in both, im going to go with a colour 35mm (as intended) and B&W when I feel its right (still have a few rolls) as an everyday shooting medium, I will use B&W 120 film for my more vintage cameras (as intended) and then look at getting a few filters (such as a warming filter) to get some more 'life' into my DSLR shots.

 

[Hamish Gill]

A warming filter will do nothing to a DSLR as the white balance will counteract it!

- - - Updated - - -

... There is nothing wrong with those images, it's the light on the subject that makes them look flat (assuming you mean the clock part of the photo)

David, I'm tempted to ban any subject matter from you that doesn't involve you going out taking a photo an coming back with it to discuss it with us
your reading to much shite from ill informed people online and coming up with too many ideas based on it!

take more photos with your very good digital camera ... Learn post process techniques (Lightroom 4 is only £99) ... Get something out of digital then when you work out what it is you want to do with the free medium go bak to the expensive one!

 

[David Mitchell]

Hamish talks sense and has more awesome and shiny cameras as well as a lot more skill than me, the D3100's battery is currently on charge

With regards the images I took, I shot it as wide open as I could so that I could get a selective depth of field on the cameras but not on the clock - see im learning lol

I guess im just chatting about cameras at the moment due to now working full time in London I have very little time free so I don't have a free evening to go out taking photos, I only have weekends free to be able to do something lol i'm probably also just getting excited about random shiny mechanical things lol

 

[Hamish Gill]

Good man!

 

[David Mitchell]

*salutes then goes to put the kettle on whilst the battery is filling up with magic witchcraft energy*

 

[Larry Bolch]

Thanks everyone for your replies - only just got in from work to be able to comment back! I see what you mean about shooting colour and then removing the colour lol although wouldn't the contrast be slightly different? I got my 35mm lens due to it being used as a 50mm prime lens on my D3100, I actually bought the D3100 as kind of a training aid to film, due to my older cameras not having metering and limited settings I wanted to find a way to shoot the same photo but with different settings to get used to what speed/aperture I would need to get the correct exposure and the correct look I wanted, without shooting a roll of film and waiting for it to be developed.

Contrast can be entirely different—or the same. For example, making a print on Panalure, if I felt I needed more snap in the sky, I could apply a red filter on the enlarger and get the same effect as if it was on the camera. Or print it straight, or use dodging and burning to open shadows and hold highlight detail. With digital processing, not only do I have a vastly richer set of options, and can hit Undo instead of throwing an expensive sheet of paper in the trash—but the options are interactive. I can actually see what I am doing—while I am doing it.

To quote Ansel Adams—who by the way was set for a career as a pianist before he got hooked on photography. He said—in musical terms—"The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance. " The goal is to capture the best possible content at the highest possible quality, then match it to your vision during the interpretation phase—whether in the digital darkroom or in the traditional fume-room. It is in the interpretation that the exposure is transformed into a photograph.

• • •

To follow up on a previous idea, " you can just take loads of photos and not worry about it" with digital, I shoot far less than with film, but shoot more frequently and with even more care—as does every photographer I know. When shooting for publication where failure is not an option, a lot of film-shots are for insurance— bracketing exposures, trying a bunch of angles and so on. With film, you must take loads of photos and not worry about it—since there is nothing whatever you can do.

With digital, I can achieve and confirm perfect exposure before I start the shoot via the histogram and if necessary, trial exposures. With film, this was really only available to top product shooters in studio, where test exposures were made and processed in-house. An hour or more was wasted every time this was done—very expensive with a client, art director, stylist, photographer and assistant minimum, having to wait for results. This was one of the first tasks to fall when digital became viable. Large format cameras with scanning backs were tethered to computers and monitors, and any changes to the set could be made interactively with the client and art director in attendance and interacting. Thousands were saved on each single shot.

I know the goal of each shot I take, so if it what I see on the camera monitor is not exactly what I have visualized, I have something tangible to react to. The next shot will nail it. When you view my work on my site or on Facebook, there are no excuses. I fully stand behind whatever I post, and I always strive for the best possible shot under the circumstances.

That is the key phrase. One could shoot a football match under the lights with a large format camera, and get the richest of tonalities, extreme detail and no perceptible grain. None the less, the shoot would be a total failure. People would be seen as a satiny blur. Image quality would be incredible, but the images would be hopelessly devoid of any meaning.

When I was a sports shooter, often the light was very poor, I was shooting football on ISO400 film with an f/4.0 200mm lens, underexposing and overdeveloping, producing profoundly grainy prints, that were being published constantly. They were rich in content and the print quality was the best that could possibly be shot under the circumstances—generally horrible. The only difference is that now I would be shooting at ISO6400 and producing prints of superb quality—under precisely the same conditions. We shot as we did with film, because that was all we had back then. We have genuinely come a very long way.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Very well articulated and interesting as usual Larry

the difference is of course that novice hobbiests like David dont have the direction or requirement to produce quality ... It's more about producing somthing that "feels" like its been done properly and has a "look" ... A "look" that they like from being surrounded by the vast array of imagery that surrounds us and inspires us every day. "Lomography" is possibly the easiest to identify "look" of the day

I know so many novice photographers who started out claiming film as the only true path.
Film has history, it comes from a more simple and pure past in many people's eyes ... and its this fallacy that drives these people to stick to it assuming that if they can master it without out all the mod cons (a screen on the back for eg) they will end up being better photographers ... And more importantly, more "pure" photographers ... There is perhaps a modicum of truth in the idea, but its quite a short sighted path in my eyes, and at the risk of offending, quite naive!

of course the truth is, as discussed in the other thread the gear is second to the photographer, and so is the format!
a good photographer is a good photographer regardless of the medium they use!
A good photographer should be able to produce pretty much any "look" from any camera/post equipment they can dream up

choosing the equipment should in the end just come down to making sure it isn't going to limit you and/or provide you with the quickest path to the look you want to achieve.

having experience, knowledge and understanding of what I want to acheive is what drives me to the choices I make when I buy gear ...

An example:
i recently bought a leica summarit lens ...
Belive it or not the path that took me to that lens was Pete Askew posting info on his Kodak aero ektar ... A lens that in many ways is broadly different from a leica summarit ... But in some ways is similar!
i was facinated by the aero ektar, I read stuff about it, saw pictures taken with it and loved them. I liked the swirling pretty bokeh and the character of the lens
what I didn't like was the size or the idea f the kit I would need to use to take photos with one ... I don't want to buy a speed graphic, I have an mpp micro technical on loan I don't use so I know I won't use a speed graphic what ever lens is mounted to it!
i needed somthing small!
So I went on the hunt for a lens for my rangfinder kit that had swirly bokeh and character ... The summarit turned out to be a good choice!
I then wanted to be able to focus more quickly in more situations with the lens wide open ...
Having experienced focus peaking on my rx100 it seemed that might be the solution ... So along came the nex5 a camera with focus peaking that I can mount the summarit to.
My next goal is to be able to focus a little closer that the 1 meter it allows ... I went on te hunt for a extension tube and discovered that you can actually buy lens mounts with helicoids in them ... Perfect!

now I'm not claiming to know everything about photography but there are a lot of choices made there based on what I have learned in te past ... I have chosen the best possible kit in combination that I can think of to achive the look I set out to. Hopefully "characterful", shallow dof images with a stack of aberrations ... And like the photos/concept or not, I have succeeded in my goal.


(P.s Assuming you have read all this David, I hope you don't read between the lines and feel I am having a go at you in some way?
my point is that, as I mentioned else where ... You need to take more photos, that way you will gain more experience. Experience will solidify (and correct) some of the knowledge you are building up. And the knowledge will of course lead to an enhanced experience ... You have the enthusiasm to take you far in your world of photography... Just don't tlet it get you bogged down before you have the basics nailed ... A lot of stuff you read online will only lead to greater confusion and a confused path to your goals ... And the kit you currently have is plenty to achive the look you are after ... Get to know what it does, how it works and eventually you will realise how to best harness the vintage kit you have to achive what you want to!)

 

[David Mitchell]

Ive been reading all of this input which I am very greatful for its why I joined such an awesome forum full of professionals and people who actually know what they are doing lol I have had a go with lightroom 4 and I've found the setting that has most affected the photos that I didn't like about digital - the white balance. It seems that if I change from the 'as shot' WB to the 'auto' WB I get the correct colours rather than a flater almost washed out photo.

I have just post processed some of the images that I liked from what I have already shot and im a bit happier now lol I don't like to mess with images once they are shot - I feel that images should be presented 'as is'. What started to get me into photography was the tintype, where you had 1 chance to get the shot and that was it, you couldn't change it, thats how it came out.

Here are some examples of how the D3100 gave me the image and then post light room

Original

Processed

Original

Processed

Original

Processed

Original

Processed

You can see what I mean by 'flat' with the photo of the bee and also the flower.

 

[Hamish Gill]

There are stacks of settings in Lightroom that can make images less "flat"
White balance can be one of them ...

The main settings to get your head around are Exposure and contrast, then highlights, shadows, whites and blacks...
you will fid you can achive probably 75% of what you need to with those alone ... And with the right adjustments images will look anything but flat!

since your importing photos into Lightroom ... If you want to get better quality still try setting the camera to shoot raw and jpeg ... You will find the raw files edit much better!