j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
In your 'part 2' you refer to a response letter form Kodak, wherein it was claimed that their 'customers' had 'asked for 'classic' stock'... this reminds me of when I was young, and very active in photography, printing my own B&W, and chose Ilford or Agfa paper over anything 'Kodak', because they had this ugly 'brownish' cast, as well as a certain 'flatness' when compared to the Ilford or Agfa... the reason given... 'customers had indicated they preferred the brown/flat paper'... I have no idea who their customers were, but amongst the my group, and any other photographer who printed their own B&W... Kodak was not a choice at all...
For the Wife's wedding biz we always used Real(tm) B&W film and papers, and probably from about 1995 on, used Fuji Neopan 400 (still not movie... unfortunately...) for negatives... We had tried the 'shoot color, desaturate... with really bad results', and even tried an Ilford B&W (well really more like a 'monochrome'...) emulsion that used C-41 processing, with similarly 'less than results'... there just wasn't a effective substitute for shooting B&W on B&W...
These days in digital, I'd probably go to the effort to understand how use 'color mixer' type tools in After Effects (which I use for 'B&W', but see if I could match up color response and contrast curves 'better').
That all said... the output is, at least for me... going to always be some form of computer display, and so, there the problem becomes how 'dark/light' and how 'neutral' the viewer display is for 'B&W'...
Last edited: