# Producing B&W digital from color film



## ronlane (Jan 11, 2014)

I am new to film and have a quick question. I saw an old thread on here about processing color film for b&w prints. My question is this, If you don't want the prints, can you have the film processed and then scanned as a B&W? Once you have the digital version, you should be able to put it in LR or PSE or CC and then do the adjustments as you would on files from a dslr?

Am I not figuring something right here or is it too much work? I will be getting some b&w film but at this time, I am antsy and wanting to get started and color film is all I can find.


----------



## terri (Jan 11, 2014)

Don't see why not.   Shoot your color film as color film; have it developed as color film and ask for a disk.   You can then do whatever you want in LR, etc.   You'll want images that have good tonal range and even contrast to get the best conversion.

THEN go get some B&W film for the best results!       But I understand wanting to get out there and play.   (For me it would be too much effort if I was ready to shoot B&W film; I'd just git me some.  YMMV)


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2014)

I think you may have confused 'developing for B&W prints' with 'developing in B&W chemicals'.

You'll probably be better off getting color scans and converting them to B&W yourself in PP, just like any other digital file.


The grain is a little different though - in that regard, color and B&W film have a different 'look'.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 11, 2014)

Thanks Terri. Josh, I believe I understand the difference, you are right that it is kind of a pain to do it this way but when you're impatient, you do the best you can. I'm trying to find b&w film locally.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2014)

ronlane said:


> I'm trying to find b&w film locally.


Freestyle and B&H are "local enough" for me, lol.

Locally, I would pay 3-4 times what Freestyle or B&H charges for a roll - and I'm not exaggerating.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 11, 2014)

B&H is where I'm probably going to order from but that will take close to a week to receive. I can shoot some color in that time. I haven't found any b&w here yet, but I've just started looking.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2014)

ronlane said:


> I believe I understand the difference


You CAN develop color film in B&W chemicals, but they (the B&W chems) will not remove the orange mask, so it may be difficult to get a good print (on an enlarger) from it ... not really sure.  It scans good enough though.

IMO, developing color film in B&W chemicals is a waste of film...  It's one thing if the film is expired and you're just trying to get whatever you can.  If you want color, shoot color.  If you want B&W, shoot B&W.  Gary will be here in a minute with scans of color film he developed in Rodinal, lol.

I love me some Rodinal, but I would rather use it on B&W film.  Color film is typically more expensive anyway - it would be a shame to use it for something you could have gotten better results with, and for less money too.


Shoot the color film, have it developed normally, convert in PP.  THEN, you have your B&W shots, but you still have good color negs.


Buy some real B&W film soon though.


----------



## terri (Jan 11, 2014)

I hope you can find some locally!!   That would be the bomb.   If not, give Freestyle some love, too!      Have fun, and post what you do for us!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2014)

ronlane said:


> B&H is where I'm probably going to order from but that will take close to a week to receive. I can shoot some color in that time. I haven't found any b&w here yet, but I've just started looking.


B&H is usually *slightly* cheaper than Freestyle, but Freestyle often has a better selection.  I like Freestyle because they are "film people", lol.  Plus, they will ship ORM-D chemicals, B&H will not.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 11, 2014)

Thanks Josh, I will look at them. I am not going to process the film myself, I am going to send it out to do that. I don't have the room to do it and have two small kids, so I worry about the extra chemicals.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2014)

It doesn't take as much room as you think.  2 or 3 square feet of storage space is probably enough.  And if you're only developing, you don't need a darkroom, so there's no need to 'convert' a room of your house.

When (not if, lol) you decide that you like developing your own film, we'll hook you up.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 11, 2014)

My kids are 4 and 6.  They know more about film than maybe 80% of the membership here.  

Just make sure they know not to get into it, and store it out of their way and you'll be fine.  One day, you can show them what that stuff does.


----------



## limr (Jan 11, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> You CAN develop color film in B&W chemicals, but they (the B&W chems) will not remove the orange mask, so it may be difficult to get a good print (on an enlarger) from it ... not really sure.  It scans good enough though.



Yup. Color film developed in B&W chemicals will yield some brown negatives with a strange not-quite-B&W images which can be scanned in as B&W, but won't print very well from the negative. I agree that it's not really ideal, though having said that, I'll admit that I just did it myself a couple of days ago! But I only resorted to that to deal with two pieces of torn film that I was just trying to salvage.



> IMO, developing color film in B&W chemicals is a waste of film...  It's one thing if the film is expired and you're just trying to get whatever you can.  If you want color, shoot color.  If you want B&W, shoot B&W.  *Gary will be here in a minute with scans of color film he developed in Rodinal, lol.*



Still chuckling about this 

If you're really impatient and have an Amazon Prime membership, you can order a couple of rolls from Amazon and get them in two days.

I can't blame you about being impatient. And like Josh said, if you ever want to start developing yourself, you don't need a lot of room at all and we'll totally hook you up!

It's nice to see you so enthusiastic about getting started, Ron! It's exciting, isn't it?


----------



## ronlane (Jan 11, 2014)

Thanks Leonore. I am excited about shooting street with film. I feel that it can take my b&w obsession to another level.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 11, 2014)

Hell, I'm glad to see new faces in the film section. Not that I don't like the rest of you guys  but I'm glad to see more people get involved with film. Good luck getting started! Possibly because of the fact there's so much more work involved, film feels far more rewarding. To me at least.

Quick question, are you shooting 35mm, medium format, or something different? Just wondering, maybe someone will pipe in with a great deal on film.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 12, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > I believe I understand the difference
> ...



Would i do that  ok here's one







And another


----------



## ronlane (Jan 12, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Hell, I'm glad to see new faces in the film section. Not that I don't like the rest of you guys  but I'm glad to see more people get involved with film. Good luck getting started! Possibly because of the fact there's so much more work involved, film feels far more rewarding. To me at least.
> 
> Quick question, are you shooting 35mm, medium format, or something different? Just wondering, maybe someone will pipe in with a great deal on film.



I am shooting 35mm.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 12, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Thanks Leonore. I am excited about shooting street with film. I feel that it can take my b&w obsession to another level.



B+W is great its all i shoot now, ive just picked up 100 feet of a German film called Orwo UN54 (iso100) but for street i shoot HP5

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 12, 2014)

gsgary said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Leonore. I am excited about shooting street with film. I feel that it can take my b&w obsession to another level.
> ...


I've been meaning to try that film...  I bulk load pretty much all of my 35mm film.


----------



## KmH (Jan 12, 2014)

As close as you are to Oklahoma City, I'm amazed you can't find a local source (50 mile radius) of B&W film.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 12, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...




This is Orwo developed in Rodinal on a dullish day, M4P + 28mmF2


----------



## ronlane (Jan 14, 2014)

KmH said:


> As close as you are to Oklahoma City, I'm amazed you can't find a local source (50 mile radius) of B&W film.



I haven't been to all the stores yet, just looking online. I have a roll of color just about shot and am going to take it to a local lab and I can ask them.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 14, 2014)

ronlane said:


> I haven't been to all the stores yet, just looking online. I have a roll of color just about shot and am going to take it to a local lab and I can ask them.



Shot with what? Most labs I encounter either stopped carrying or carry 1 or 2 brands.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 14, 2014)

A shop near me (Sheffield) doubled the amount of film they sold last year they even supply bulk rolls but i can get it cheaper direct from Ilford with a discount i arranged for our club

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ronlane (Jan 20, 2014)

UPDATE: Dropped off 2 rolls of color to be processed and scanned, will pick up tomorrow after work. Also, when I talked to the lab, the told me that one of the local camera stores sold b&w film. So I stopped by there today and bought 2 rolls of Iford HP5 ISO 400. Now to get a chance to take a walk with them in the camera.

I'll get photos from the first rolls up this week.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 20, 2014)

Hp5 is great film if you like a bit of contrast shoot it at 800

At 800 developed in Ilford DDX


----------



## dubiousone (Jan 20, 2014)

Those film cameras multiply like rabbits! Hard on the wallet too, but my last thrift shop 'score', a very nice once-the-dust-was-knocked-off Canon AE-1 Program with a 50mm/1.8 lens didn't hurt too bad at under $50. A little TLC to clean it, fix the flywheel squeak and shazzam!! I blew through a roll in no time the other day so we'll see...

There's just something about it; I recently went digital, been out of photography as a hobby for a good long while but I have to say, I have WAY more fun with my film stuff! My last roll, Fuji Superia/200 I shot out of a Mamiya 500DTL I just had repaired. Lenses were Mamiya 50/1.4 and a Tamron 90mm adaptall. I was EXTREMELY happy with the color, sharpness and overall great looks. Yeah, I'm ot giving up film anytime soon! (I have a TLR Diacord and a roll of 120 Ilford, someday I'll actually be brave enough to LOAD it...



minicoop1985 said:


> Hell, I'm glad to see new faces in the film section. Not that I don't like the rest of you guys  but I'm glad to see more people get involved with film. Good luck getting started! Possibly because of the fact there's so much more work involved, film feels far more rewarding. To me at least.
> 
> Quick question, are you shooting 35mm, medium format, or something different? Just wondering, maybe someone will pipe in with a great deal on film.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 20, 2014)

dubiousone said:


> Those film cameras multiply like rabbits!



Holy crap they do. 6 months ago there were probably 4 or 5 around here. Now there's probably more than 30, though that number fluctuates quite a bit.



> Hard on the wallet too, but my last thrift shop 'score', a very nice  once-the-dust-was-knocked-off Canon AE-1 Program with a 50mm/1.8 lens  didn't hurt too bad at under $50. A little TLC to clean it, fix the  flywheel squeak and shazzam!! I blew through a roll in no time the other  day so we'll see...
> 
> There's just something about it; I recently went digital, been out of  photography as a hobby for a good long while but I have to say, I have  WAY more fun with my film stuff! My last roll, Fuji Superia/200 I shot  out of a Mamiya 500DTL I just had repaired. Lenses were Mamiya 50/1.4  and a Tamron 90mm adaptall. I was EXTREMELY happy with the color,  sharpness and overall great looks. Yeah, I'm ot giving up film anytime  soon! (I have a TLR Diacord and a roll of 120 Ilford, someday I'll  actually be brave enough to LOAD it...



Oh bah, if I can load a Rollei without destroying it (I actually just got a roll out of a Rolleicord I restored with some fantastic results-not the pictures, the camera works) you can load a TLR.  Loading modular backs with no experience is a bit unnerving too, and incredibly easy to screw up. I'd say you'll be fine-go for it! Wait level finders are a totally different experience and a lot of fun.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 21, 2014)

So I got the film back and got the disc. My question is, do you just leave them as is or do you do any post in LR?

Here are a few that I did without LR processing and then with some small processing in LR4. [The subjects are more about texture and my family]

1) With some processing in LR4.



2. Without LR


3) without any processing


4) with flash on camera no processing in LR



5) with flash and processing in LR4.


----------



## limr (Jan 21, 2014)

It depends on the photo if I do any digital editing. Sometimes I'll adjust the scanner settings to bring exposure up or down a notch (there's not a lot of leeway there.) For some color shots, I might bump the colors a tiny bit or adjust the white balance. In black and whites, I'd fiddle with contrast or the shadows/midtones/highlights settings. I generally do very little, partly because I don't enjoy the process but partly because there's less you can do with film than with a RAW file. I'm also one of 'those people' who like to get it as right as possible in the camera, so the picture that doesn't require anything is considered a hit for me. It's very rare, of course!  At the very least, I'm cropping or straightening. Oh, and cloning out dust spots, of course. I've gotten very skilled at that clone tool. With lab scans it's not really an issue, but if you ever get to the point of buying your own flatbed film scanner, then you too will become well acquainted with that clone tool 

Of course, it also depends on your preference. Your first shot of the leaves, for example, looks good after the processing. Colors are more vibrant and details are sharper. But I also like the dreamy, low contrast unedited version. For that one, I might have cloned out the satellite dish in the background, but left the colors and contrast where they were. You probably envisioned it more like the edited version and if you were able to get it to that point, then that's what you should do.

Here's the important question: how do you feel about your first results?? I can't remember if you said or not, but had you ever shot film before?


----------



## ronlane (Jan 21, 2014)

limr said:


> It depends on the photo if I do any digital editing. Sometimes I'll adjust the scanner settings to bring exposure up or down a notch (there's not a lot of leeway there.) For some color shots, I might bump the colors a tiny bit or adjust the white balance. In black and whites, I'd fiddle with contrast or the shadows/midtones/highlights settings. I generally do very little, partly because I don't enjoy the process but partly because there's less you can do with film than with a RAW file. I'm also one of 'those people' who like to get it as right as possible in the camera, so the picture that doesn't require anything is considered a hit for me. It's very rare, of course!  At the very least, I'm cropping or straightening. Oh, and cloning out dust spots, of course. I've gotten very skilled at that clone tool. With lab scans it's not really an issue, but if you ever get to the point of buying your own flatbed film scanner, then you too will become well acquainted with that clone tool
> 
> Of course, it also depends on your preference. Your first shot of the leaves, for example, looks good after the processing. Colors are more vibrant and details are sharper. But I also like the dreamy, low contrast unedited version. For that one, I might have cloned out the satellite dish in the background, but left the colors and contrast where they were. You probably envisioned it more like the edited version and if you were able to get it to that point, then that's what you should do.
> 
> Here's the important question: how do you feel about your first results?? I can't remember if you said or not, but had you ever shot film before?



Thank you Leonore. That shed a lot of light on this for me. I like the edited version of the leaves but I see the "film" look has it merits too. I guess that part of me was looking at it going, why am I shooting film if I am taking the film look out of it. Does that make sense?

I have never shot film with a dslr. what little film I did shoot was with a P&S WAY back in the day. lol


----------



## limr (Jan 22, 2014)

ronlane said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on the photo if I do any digital editing. Sometimes I'll adjust the scanner settings to bring exposure up or down a notch (there's not a lot of leeway there.) For some color shots, I might bump the colors a tiny bit or adjust the white balance. In black and whites, I'd fiddle with contrast or the shadows/midtones/highlights settings. I generally do very little, partly because I don't enjoy the process but partly because there's less you can do with film than with a RAW file. I'm also one of 'those people' who like to get it as right as possible in the camera, so the picture that doesn't require anything is considered a hit for me. It's very rare, of course!  At the very least, I'm cropping or straightening. Oh, and cloning out dust spots, of course. I've gotten very skilled at that clone tool. With lab scans it's not really an issue, but if you ever get to the point of buying your own flatbed film scanner, then you too will become well acquainted with that clone tool
> ...



I bet it feels a lot more satisfying with the Fuji than with a p&s!  I still remember when I first bought the K1000 after having only shot 110 or crappy 35mm p&s cameras. It all felt much more real! Recently I discovered a few of those old cameras lying around my mother's house - a Konica and a Kodak. The Konica at least lets you set either 100 or 400 film speed, but the Kodak has no settings whatsoever. You really do just point it at something and press a button. After all these years using manual SLRs or 50-year-old rangefinders and TLRs, it was *weird* to use those cameras. 

Looking forward to your black and whites. HP5 is nice. It's kind of like Ilford's version of TriX.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 22, 2014)

Yeah, it was different than that for sure.

My plan is to take the b&w film with me this weekend and do a photowalk with it and my dslr.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 22, 2014)

Two things that many people miss out on when shooting film are how important a lens hood and filters are.

For color film a circular polarizer is almost like wearing pants, just keep them on whenever you're out of the house.  An ND filter will also make the colors pop.

For B&W I really like a yellow and an orange filter.  Red is a bit too much for my tastes but ymmv.

As always google is your friend when looking up the possibilities.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 22, 2014)

Mike_E said:


> Two things that many people miss out on when shooting film are how important a lens hood and filters are.
> 
> For color film a circular polarizer is almost like wearing pants, just keep them on whenever you're out of the house.  An ND filter will also make the colors pop.
> 
> ...



Thanks Mike, for the information. I did not even think about filters for them.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 22, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > Two things that many people miss out on when shooting film are how important a lens hood and filters are.
> ...


----------

