-
yet when you process the files digitally later it's just so much easier (and cheaper of course), it's ridicoulous, and I do not even consider it "cheating".
If you're shooting film and scanning you're probably better off using colour film and converting to B&W in post, so much more flexibility with access to the colour channels.
Can't quite bring myself to do this though...
Ste_S-
so much more flexibility with access to the colour channels
I read that once on the internet-site of the self-proclaimed artist Ken Rockwell.
Did try it for a dozen rolls or so.
End of story was that, for me, the grain of black and white films looks very different that the colour / dye clouds of colour films, so b&w converted colour negative film always looked mushy and lacked the bite and grit and the overall character of real black and white film. -
If you're shooting film and scanning you're probably better off using colour film and converting to B&W in post, so much more flexibility with access to the colour channels.
@Ste_S hhhhmmm ... you do have access to colour channels with b&w scans. Why is this helpful?
For me reasons to shoot b&w (over colour) include the huge flexibility with exposure and easy home development to (attempt) making the best of the exposure.
Converting c41 can look good and is a different type of flexible altogether ... but you can forget about the benefits up there^
And then there’s XP2 which can gtfo >>>>>>>>>>
;-)
( i actually quite like xp2 )
salad
miro_o
That being said I came to the conclusion that if one is doing the hybrid workflow of shooting on film and then scanning then using colour filters for black and white photography is just such a faff.
I mean, ideally you would carry a whole array of filters with you and use the different hues and strenghts fo the desired effect - yet when you process the files digitally later it's just so much easier (and cheaper of course), it's ridicoulous, and I do not even consider it "cheating".