-
Loads of people shoot portra then convert to b&w with Lightroom etc which gives you individual controls for the whole colour range.
-
I don't bother with xp2 (a c41 bw film) because it shares enough in characteristics with colour film converted (which is cheaper).
Real bw film works in a different way though. It has clean shadows, it's sharp etc and can be pushed or just exposed less and you can control contrast. It's boss. It can cost you more or less depending how you go about it (for instance you could buy bulk rolls of kentmere and process/scan yourself and it's cheap ... or you could buy ilford/kodak pre-rolled and pay a pro lab and go broke).
-
You can search flickr for examples for true b&w films like Ilford FP4 / HP5, Kodak Tri-X - and for some C41 b&w films like Ilford XP-2 or Kodak BW400CN, and see what you like.
I have seen very nice work using either, both can look very good.
Though I guess with the C41 ones it's not possible to get that rough, grainy look.
C41 is more convenient (and sometimes cheaper and faster) in terms of developing (if you don't do it yourself).
You are reading a single comment by @sswiss and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Well_is_it
miro_o
salad
@sswiss
So here's the thing, and probably been discussed before...
but do I shoot in B&W and process and print/scan, or just shoot C41 film process/scan and then desaturate for B&W.
Pro's and Cons, Experiences, anything?