Shooting B&W With Asher

[Steve Robinson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Robinson View Post
When I first saw the image I just knew you had used a Pentax to shoot it! ;~) I miss using B&W film. The anticipation of seeing what you've captured was as exciting as the shooting. It didn't hurt that most of the film and chemicals were free at the time. I've got 3 vintage Pentax's I could load up with some B&W and I've got a stainless steel developing tank and reels somewhere. Hmmm. Of course by now I might have gotten too used to the instant gratification (or disgust) offered by our current cameras.

Will you really do that? If you do, let me know and 'll dig up my old Pentax Spotmatic too! I have just two lenses, a 50 1.4 and a something to 200mm zoom.

Asher

Okay Asher, I just ordered some Tri-X to try out in one of my 35's (eeny, meeny, miney...). I don't have a suitable place to develop so I'm going to use a commercial lab's mailers and have them scan the negs onto a CD. A little pricey but worth a try.

 

[Michael K. Carberry]

OK if I join in?

 

[Steve Robinson]

Absolutely. The more the merrier.

 

[Wendy Thurman]

I'm in as well. I've got 50 rolls of Tri-X headed this way along with chemistry and a scanner. It will take a couple of weeks to make any images so bear with me...

Wendy

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well the timing is right! I was about to shoot some panos today but the 24mm TSE II wouldn't make contact. On returning home neither would any other lens. So I check my 5D and saw that the first gold pin was stuck in the depressed position. So the 5DII will have to go back to Canon service center.

I'll need to check the batteries for the Pentax and the Eos 3.

So I'll get some film from my freezer, Color only, so far! So I better get some Tri-X or something!

Asher

 

[Michael K. Carberry]

Thanks.I'm in but must use a lab so I hope this isn't a rush job.I'm not a very prolific shooter either.I think a great deal and go find what I "see".Takes some time but there's already a roll of Ilford Delta 100 in the AE-1 with a couple oddball shots on it.

 

[Jim Galli]

ha ha ha ha ha this is too easy Got some Aerial Recon plus X that I shot in the Yashica Electro 35 this Christmas if I can remember where I put it. Problem I have is I get interested in some little bargain 35, shoot film, then never develop it.

Are you going to show the pix in this thread? Have to be a Pentax? I've been playing with rangefinders. Konica and Yashica.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

I'l play As long as I can use my rf. I've only got FP4/rodinal in stock at the moment, so it's all a bit dark. I've also got about a dozen rolls waiting to be developed.

Mike

 

[Steve Robinson]

I don't think that we have to have any rules except to shoot some B&W film. There isn't any deadline for submission. It's going to be awhile before I can submit some images too.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Invitation to Shangri-La...in Edinburgh of course!!

I did not see too many takers!..
M7, lux 50 asph, xp2..processed and scanned by the friendly Boots across the street!

Best.

 

[Jim Galli]

Hoping this thread will take off. Here is mine for now.

old crow speed shop, burbank​

I had the Yashica Electro 35 and was out of film so I stopped in the old time camera shop on Vineland in North Hollywood and asked if they had any out of date bargain film. The guy sort of squinted like, what is film? Then he threw me a roll that said SILVER TONE, made in germany 400 asa and said, don't say I never gave ya nothin'. I'll assume it is an agfa product well out of date.

Developed in Dektol 1 gram / liter. 30 sec agitation and 18 minute stand. Not as sharp as I'd wish but the stand development sure produces nil grain in 400asa film. This is a film scan.

 

[Jim Galli]

A Tryptich

old crow speed from the alley​

Don't ask for bigger. This was all I got after all the work when I went to save I got the FATAL window and did a quick screen print before it dis-appeared forever. Never meant to be a serious study in any case. Hand held tryptich. As above.

 

[Michael K. Carberry]

Digital.
Oh man.Uhmm...errr.........ahhhh..........

Doh!Sorry had a brain cramp.As punishment I'll force myself to watch a Seinfeld rerun.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Digital.

Come on Michael, dig out that old film body and shoot some tri X or HP5, or even XP2 and have it processed and scanned in your local WalMArt

Mike

 

[Jim Galli]

Come on Michael, dig out that old film body and shoot some tri X or HP5, or even XP2 and have it processed and scanned in your local WalMArt

Mike

Mike, I think perhaps he's just indicating a digital scan of 6X6cm film? It would be a lot of work to get all those dust spots in a digi capture

 

[Mike Shimwell]

A couple from last November

FP4+ in Xtol

Mike

​

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Mike, I think perhaps he's just indicating a digital scan of 6X6cm film? It would be a lot of work to get all those dust spots in a digi capture

You could be right Jim! My digi spots are all black, though I have seen that many when staying in coal and wood heated houses.

Mike

 

[Steve Robinson]

Well, the Tri-X showed up today so now I've got to grab the SV, or ME Super, or A3000, and go shoot. ;~D

 

[Prateek Dubey]

FP4+ in Xtol

Mike

View attachment 99


View attachment 100​

Both are very impressive. Strong metaphors in that frame and the tree just flows beautifully.

 

[Asher Kelman]

This is so interesting. Who would imagine such diverse motifs could possibly connect, but they so. One appears constrained by many rectangles and the other free flowing complexity. It might be that the second is a comment on the first. The framing of the window lets us glimpse at the endless paths and complexity of human relationships. The second, divorced from what it was, part of a tree, has all this implied divers free flowing energy limited by what it is, dead and really the choice for movement are illusions.

BTW, are you developing the film or sending it out?

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

This is so interesting. Who would imagine such diverse motifs could possibly connect, but they so. One appears constrained by many rectangles and the other free flowing complexity. It might be that the second is a comment on the first. The framing of the window lets us glimpse at the endless paths and complexity of human relationships. The second, divorced from what it was, part of a tree, has all this implied divers free flowing energy limited by what it is, dead and really the choice for movement are illusions.

BTW, are you developing the film or sending it out?

Asher

Hi Asher

You can write my copy when I exhibit!

I am pleased that you like them. I develop black and white myself - currently have a few rolls waiting - and these are very quick and dirty scans.

Mike

 

[Dawid Loubser]

Allow me to join in, as some of you may know (from my few-and-far-between posts) I have switched over and am basically exclusively shooting black and white film (for the past 18 months now) and am having a ball.

Scanning film? What's that? Here are three analogue prints, one from each of my favourite cameras (35mm, 6x7cm, 6x17cm):

"Innocence"

(Olympus OM-1, Zuiko 250mm at f/2.0, Ilford FP4+)

"Stormy Mossel Bay"

(Mamiya RB67, 140mm Macro at f/11, Ilford HP5)

"Vaal River (flooding after opening of 13 sluice gates)"

(Linhof Technorama 617S, 90mm Schneider Super Angulon XL at f/16, Ilford HP5, Toned in Thiocarbamide)​

Not only does Black and White film draw uniquely, even more so, the cameras and lenses of this era are unique, there are often simply no digital equivalents. I love it!

 

[Jim Galli]

Allow me to join in, as some of you may know (from my few-and-far-between posts) I have switched over and am basically exclusively shooting black and white film (for the past 18 months now) and am having a ball.

Scanning film? What's that? Here are three analogue prints, one from each of my favourite cameras (35mm, 6x7cm, 6x17cm):



Not only does Black and White film draw uniquely, even more so, the cameras and lenses of this era are unique, there are often simply no digital equivalents. I love it!

Love the Innocence pic and also the Sea wall. Beautiful things to consider. I used to hate grain. Now it's rare and I like to see it. Weird eh?

 

[Wendy Thurman]

The RB-67 shot is absorbing. Thanks for showing!

Wendy

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I just took my EOS 3 out of the mothballs ;-). So I too will shoot a few rolls of B&W to see how it goes and to participate. But I really hate the scanning part though, it is too much PITA. That is the reason why I always end up "stopping" shooting film, I have gone through this cycle of renewed hope and inevitable disillusionment already 3 times before, lol. Last time I swore it was really the last time <sigh>...

Cheers,

 

[Dawid Loubser]

I just took my EOS 3 out of the mothballs ;-). So I too will shoot a few rolls of B&W to see how it goes and to participate. But I really hate the scanning part though, it is too much PITA. That is the reason why I always end up "stopping" shooting film, I have gone through this cycle of renewed hope and inevitable disillusionment already 3 times before, lol. Last time I swore it was really the last time <sigh>...

Cheers,

I am going to go ahead an just say it: Film was never meant to be scanned. Scanning film absolutely sucks, it almost always produces second-rate (compared to a full digital workflow) results, it takes enormous amounts of time fiddling with all sort dust, anti-newton-ring, and negative flatness mechanisms. I hate it, and only do it when there is no other practical option for me, such as when working with medium format colour transparencies.

If you are doing black and white film, you really must also print optically for the full experience and end result. A well-set up darkroom (and I consider mine such, even though I make copious use of Duct tape etc!) makes printing a negative a quick, fun, and pain-free experience. Each of my three prints I posted above took about 15 minutes to produce, as I have developed a consistent workflow according to my preferences. I am not sure you'll do much faster with digital printing.

So, when you pull out that EOS 3 (or better yet, get a cheap MF camera like a Yashica TLR for $25) try to include analogue printing in the process, there really is (in my opinion) absolutely no point to ever scanning 35mm B&W negatives. They will be full of dust spots, the grain is greatly exaggerated, and they end up looking flat, needing a bunch of post-processing.

Just to add to the collection of this thread, this was another snapshot I took in November 2008:

"Contemplation or solitude?

(RB67, Ilford HP5+, 140mm Macro at f/8, 8x10in analogue print)​

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I am going to go ahead an just say it: Film was never meant to be scanned. Scanning film absolutely sucks, it almost always produces second-rate (compared to a full digital workflow) results, it takes enormous amounts of time fiddling with all sort dust, anti-newton-ring, and negative flatness mechanisms. I hate it, and only do it when there is no other practical option for me, such as when working with medium format colour transparencies.

If you are doing black and white film, you really must also print optically for the full experience and end result. A well-set up darkroom (and I consider mine such, even though I make copious use of Duct tape etc!) makes printing a negative a quick, fun, and pain-free experience. Each of my three prints I posted above took about 15 minutes to produce, as I have developed a consistent workflow according to my preferences. I am not sure you'll do much faster with digital printing.

So, when you pull out that EOS 3 (or better yet, get a cheap MF camera like a Yashica TLR for $25) try to include analogue printing in the process, there really is (in my opinion) absolutely no point to ever scanning 35mm B&W negatives. They will be full of dust spots, the grain is greatly exaggerated, and they end up looking flat, needing a bunch of post-processing.
...

Well Dawid,

That's an extremely bleak outlook you have painted above. If you are right, I can then as well put that EOS 3 back into the closet and forget the whole thing. You see, there is no way I am going to start chemically printing my own B&W pics now. I used to have a dark room some 22 years ago to develop and print B&W, after that I have stopped. And having your negatives printed by a 3rd party is equivalent to getting mediocre results anyway, if one can find the shop to have it done to start with. I cannot get hold of film nor can I have it processed in the area where I live. The only option I am willing to explore is to shoot film and have it developed, then scan it myself and do the pp for those frames which are worth pursuing. After that print it properly using my Epson 3800 printer on Baryte paper, which I can do very well even if I say so myself.

Well,reading your argument maybe I can prevent a 4th cycle of disillusionment if I stop now before the whole hell breaks loose again. :-(

 

[Dawid Loubser]

Well Dawid,

That's an extremely bleak outlook you have painted above. If you are right, I can then as well put that EOS 3 back into the closet and forget the whole thing. You see, there is no way I am going to start chemically printing my own B&W pics now. I used to have a dark room some 22 years ago to develop and print B&W, after that I have stopped. And having your negatives printed by a 3rd party is equivalent to getting mediocre results anyway, if one can find the shop to have it done to start with. I cannot get hold of film nor can I have it processed in the area where I live. The only option I am willing to explore is to shoot film and have it developed, then scan it myself and do the pp for those frames which are worth pursuing. After that print it properly using my Epson 3800 printer on Baryte paper, which I can do very well even if I say so myself.

Well,reading your argument maybe I can prevent a 4th cycle of disillusionment if I stop now before the whole hell breaks loose again. :-(

Cem, I didn't mean to paint a bleak outlook, I am sorry it came across that harsh. I simply shared my opinion based on my experience, i.e. that, in this digital day and age, the B&W film experience is best enjoyed to its fullest. I personally do not enjoy a hybrid workflow - especially when (like it is in 35mm) the quality is usually inferiour to digital, unless you are shooting extremely fine-grained film and using a really good scanner to extract your results.

Anybody can set up a temporary darkroom in a bathroom for very little cost and effort, and the equipment is usually basically free. I simply feel that, the whole "point" of doing B&W these days, is to enjoy the experience and benefits of the analogue workflow, admittedly with the secondary benefit of being able to use hapticly (or is it "haptically?) satisfying old cameras.

I am not sure what interesting EF-mount lenses you have, but one thing which would appeal to me, is to use some of the more exotic Canon lenses (extreme wide angle, 85/1.2, etc) and capture some B&W images on film. I am sure this is not done often in this day and age.

Something which I would also love to do one day is to have somebody send some of their negative(s) for me to print with an analogue workflow, and then for me to send the prints + negative(s) back. Then one could test your statement of "And having your negatives printed by a 3rd party is equivalent to getting mediocre results anyway...". I am happy to do the printing for free, as long as somebody pays for shipping (to/from South Africa).

Perhaps this thread / "challenge" might be a way to get something like that going? I am not a master printer, but any practice in printing, and interpreting somebody else's work, would be interesting and worthwhile.

 

[Dawid Loubser]

The RB-67 shot is absorbing. Thanks for showing!

Thank you kindly, Wendy.
The atmosphere on that day was wonderful, I am glad I could capture it.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Cem, I didn't mean to paint a bleak outlook, I am sorry it came across that harsh. I simply shared my opinion based on my experience, i.e. that, in this digital day and age, the B&W film experience is best enjoyed to its fullest. I personally do not enjoy a hybrid workflow - especially when (like it is in 35mm) the quality is usually inferiour to digital, unless you are shooting extremely fine-grained film and using a really good scanner to extract your results.

Anybody can set up a temporary darkroom in a bathroom for very little cost and effort, and the equipment is usually basically free. I simply feel that, the whole "point" of doing B&W these days, is to enjoy the experience and benefits of the analogue workflow, admittedly with the secondary benefit of being able to use hapticly (or is it "haptically?) satisfying old cameras.

I am not sure what interesting EF-mount lenses you have, but one thing which would appeal to me, is to use some of the more exotic Canon lenses (extreme wide angle, 85/1.2, etc) and capture some B&W images on film. I am sure this is not done often in this day and age.

Something which I would also love to do one day is to have somebody send some of their negative(s) for me to print with an analogue workflow, and then for me to send the prints + negative(s) back. Then one could test your statement of "And having your negatives printed by a 3rd party is equivalent to getting mediocre results anyway...". I am happy to do the printing for free, as long as somebody pays for shipping (to/from South Africa).

Perhaps this thread / "challenge" might be a way to get something like that going? I am not a master printer, but any practice in printing, and interpreting somebody else's work, would be interesting and worthwhile.

Hi Dawid,

You did not come over as being harsh, do not worry about that . And I respect your opinion and experience. What I meant to write is not that I disagree with you, I don't. But since under my circumstances I am not willing to develop/print analog material myself, then your rightly formulated total chain value proposition will also dictate that I do not need to try after all, lol.

My experiences with B&W prints produced by dispassionate mass producing photo labs is that they have always been mediocre. And I don't have any professional custom labs in the neighborhood to have the prints done there manually. Even if I did, it would cost me an arm and a leg. Of course I know that you'd do the job a million times better, there is no dispute about that .

I have the EF 70-200 L IS f2.8, EF 100mm 2.8 macro, EF 50mm 1.4 and EF 17-40 L f4. The only one which is slightly exotic is the last one due to the extreme wide angle. Re. the scanning of film, although I have complained that it is PITA, it also happens that I am quite good at it. I know all too well the problems associated with the 35mm format, the dust, the grain, the whole works. I can get pretty good results, it is just that it takes a lot of time to get there.

Cheers,