Hi again, Singaporegirl,
First let me set the record straight about the first comment you
received.
SHARPNESS:
Hlabadie made two statements about sharpness.
Number 1: "The only real loss is in sharpness, but that is less of a
problem now than it once was, given the reduction in grain of color
films."
This sentence implies that sharpness is dependent on grain size, and
that a grainy print can't be sharp. That's not true. Some films with
large grain structure--Kodak's old standard black and white Tri-X is a
good example--are considered sharp films. Tri-X was the staple of
photojournalists for decades. Sure, it has pretty big grain. But it
produces sharp-looking prints because the edges of the grain are
sharp. It's possible to make film where the grain edges aren't sharp,
and, even if that film's grain is tiny, prints from it can easily look
mushy.
And sharpness depends on more than grain. In fact, there are many
other factors that affect print sharpness.
Printing color negatives onto some standard B&W (black and white)
papers will produce prints with increased grain. It's possible that
hlabadie equates a high amount of grain with a lack of sharpness, and
that's why hlabadie made that comment. Even so, it's misleading. On
top of that, it's possible to print color negatives and get black and
white prints without losing sharpness.
Number 2: "For many photogrpahs (sic), the softening is useful."
Hlabadie may like to make soft-looking photographs, but, with two
exceptions, it's not a good idea. One exception is a special
effect--making a photograph look soft on purpose. But like any effect,
if overdone or if done too often, it'll get old fast. The other
exception is in portraiture. When doing head and shoulders poses of
some people with my professional equipment, I'll sometimes put a
slight softening filter in front of my lens. Few people have the skin
and complexion of professional models, and some lenses are so sharp
that every skin blemish will be readily apparent. The typical amateur
photographer using typical amateur equipment wouldn't have to worry
about this issue very often.
The bottom line is that professional photographers almost always try
to make the sharpest photographs possible.
Again, maybe hlabadie defines grain and print softness differently
than photographers do. Or maybe hlabadie is a photographer whose
native language isn't English. Maybe this is simply a communication
problem, but that's not the way I read the comment.
COLOR VS. BLACK & WHITE EXPOSURE AND CONTRAST:
Hlabadie wrote, "It is also sometimes easier to get a good exposure
with color film than with black and white films. The contrast of the
black and white exposure can be difficult to manage for some
photographers."
I'll take the second sentence first. Many people think that black and
white prints have to be contrasty. That's usually because most black
and white prints are printed badly, resulting in lots of blacks and
lots of whites, both with little or no texture. Many B&W prints have
few middle tones. Why? Bad printing; it's that simple. Good B&W
printing is a dying art.
Going to the first sentence, it's a fact that modern color negative
films are immensely forgiving about exposure mistakes. In fact, it's
possible to get a useful photo from many color negatives that have
been overexposed by as much as four or five stops (note, though, that
I said "useful photo" and not "great photo").
But the same can be said for most B&W films. In fact, the tonal range
of almost all B&W films exceeds that of color films. That means that
the printer has more contrast control when working with B&W. Slide
films fall at the other end of the scale, with color negative films
falling in the middle. The more compressed a film's contrast range is,
the more contrasty that film is said to be. There's a specialty film
that's designed to produce only two tones: black and white. It's the
film with the highest contrast and the shortest tonal range.
Singaporegirl, you got good info from thatsafactjack. Thatsafactjack
is absolutely right about the Panalure paper. Kodak designed it
specifically for making B&W prints from color negatives.
I do, however, disagree with thatsafactjack on a couple of small
points:
1. It's not difficult to print Panalure. It does have to be handled in
almost total darkness (there is a safelight designed for it, but it's
very, very dim, and many printers just choose to work in absolute
darkness), but that's not a problem for people who are used to
darkroom work. And I don't consider it an expensive process. Some
commercial labs will charge extra for it compared to basic B&W
printing, but usually not too much more. Maybe thatsafactjack lives
where the labs charge a lot more for this process.
2. Printing color negatives on standard B&W paper doesn't *have* to
result in low contrast prints. (OK, I'll admit I'm being nitpicky
here. <s>) It's a common problem, true, but there are ways around it.
But now we're getting into esoteric technical darkroom issues that are
way out of the scope of the question. The easiest way to make a good
B&W print from a color negative is to use Panalure paper, just as
thatsafactjack said. :-)
Is it possible to make a B&W print from any color film? Yes. B&W
prints can even be made from color slides and from color Polaroid
prints. Digital processes make these transformations easy, but they
can be done the old-fashioned way, too. So why would someone prefer
B&W film to make a B&W print? Because more information will be on the
B&W negative. If the photographer or printer doesn't want all that
extra information--a long tonal range, for example--it's easy to
overlook. But if that information isn't there, then the printing
options are limited.
Singaporegirl, if you need color negatives printed on B&W paper, I
recommend that you find a custom photo lab in your area, and ask for
Panalure prints. A custom photo lab is one that caters to professional
photographers, but amateurs can use custom labs, too. This lab will
have a person making prints by hand. This type of print will almost
certainly be more expensive than you're used to, but you'll get good
results.
Good luck! |
