From   Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:20:27 -0700 remote
from fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:20:27 -0700
Received: from  ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 217191390; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:20:25 -0700
Received: from 67.95.238.9 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003042923231950055 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Wed, 30 Apr 2003 03:23:19 GMT
Received: from webupdate [67.95.238.194] by mail.netway.net
  (SMTPD32-7.13) id A0CA19C400DE; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:19:38 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: "Richard Prentiss" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Black & white photos/Chris Kenward
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:19:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


>
> Do you (or anyone else) have any ideas about what makes a good black and
> white photo? I am seriously thinking about buying some mono film and
> putting my Olympus 35mm camera to work again. Don't know which is the best
> film to buy and need tips on what to do differently to get mono to look as
> good as colour.

It seems to me that color (sorry) and mono photography occupy the ends of
a range or continuum, with a large area of overlap in the middle (grey
area?).
Classically, mono photos depend on line, form, texture, shape and contrast
for their
particular impact. For a color photo to be more than a record shot, the
color
element must take on an importance for its own characteristics. The classic
color-centric photo is a collection of cans of brightly colored paint, shot
from
directly overhead. Using, say, Tri-X, this would most likely not slap you
upside the head.
    Conversely, a black & white print which slides a gentle finger down
your spine would probably not be enhanced by the addition of color
information, and might likely be detracted from by it.
    As a practicioner of both forms (and still practicing) I am prepared to
defend my theory with my works. In my area of the Yahoo photo group,
"cloudpln" works on a monochrome level. Little if anything would be added
with color. As a side note, the b&w darkroom allows significant control
over rendition. If this negative is fully printed out, most of the frame is
covered by cloud. *Note 1
    Also in Yahoo photo group, "ladyinred" makes effective use of color.
This
was not set up, it was just there. However, I think it might work very well
in b&w too.
    On my own web site, page 4 of the general photo area, "pepper1"
depends on color and color contrast for most of its effect, I think.
A mono rendition would be rather "ho hum".
    For either a color or mono photo to "look as good as" the other
seems almost contradictory. When that does happen it is a remarkable
achievement.
     Films? For conventional b&w chemistry, Kodak Tri-X and Plus-X.
Since you're asking, you probably don't have tanks, reels and bottles,
oh my. For one hour processing in ordinary "color print" C-41
chemistry, Kodak and Ilford make a range of "Chromogenic" films,
these are processed at the knowledgable photo outlets that do
regular color print processing. You get negatives and a nifty set
of proof prints. I recommend against taking these films to be
processed at mass market outlets, since seeing the words
"black" and "white" will most likely throw them clear off
the rails.
    Have you really not shot b&w? Load and fire. Film
is cheap-time is expensive. *Note 2.
*Note 1-References to chemical darkroom processes are not
intended to disparage or detract from digital processes and
should in no way be taken as prejudicial toward them.
*Note 2-Unless we're talking about Infrared Ektachrome.

Richard Prentiss
www.backcountryimaging.com





--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5