Black and white versus colour - sometimes, it makes all the difference.
![]() |
| The doors of one of the Guisachan cabins at Guisachan Heritage Park, Kelowna. |
I have always liked black and white. I learned a lot about photography when helping with the Red Deer College Newspaper the Bricklayer (a nod to my friend Alan, who had a big impact on me); we did all our stuff in black and white. Tri-X film, darkrooms, and developer all became very familiar to me as I plied my "developing" skills.
The great thing about black and white is its ability to capture a wide range of tones. The jpegs of today (the above photo is a jpeg) have the ability to represent about 8 stops of light. A way to get around that is to shoot in RAW, but not all raw files are the same. Black and white negatives have tremendous latitude and can handle massive overexposure while tolerating a bit of underexposure. They also have a much better dynamic range and can capture up to 15 stops of difference between highlights and shadows.
The problem comes down to the convenience of digital versus film. No developing costs, easy workflow, you can shoot thousands of photos without having to replace a memory card (vs 36 images for film). In spite of the hassle, film seems to be making a comeback. I don't know anyone with a darkroom, but film cameras have become popular again.
I still have my old F90X (Nikon) and a Bronica medium format cameras, but I will not likely be using them again any time soon. The truth is that I take 10,000 photos a year and can't afford the cost of film, not to mention I sold all my old darkroom equipment. Yes, I can scan my negatives into my computer, but the result isn't anywhere as good as the old analogue process. Also, most of my images are of wildlife, which I prefer in colour.
However, I will say that there are times I wish I had a film camera with me. The results can be amazing.
Thanks for reading.
Eric Svendsen www.ericspix.com

Comments
Post a Comment