Cost

Color stock is more expensive than black-and-white.  But unless negative costs are a large part of your budget, color and B&W end up costing nearly the same.  Tilting the scales in that direction is the fact that there are often extra expenses connected to shooting B&W neg.  Since there are only a few labs that process B&W and they are located in Los Angeles and New York (16mm can be processed in Seattle,) productions shot outside of those cities have to ship exposed negative to one of these labs and the processed negative has to be shipped back to you.   These shippings not only add to total costs, they also introduce a significant element of risk, and add atleast 2 days delay between shooting and film-to-tape transfer. (Of course, for productions shooting where there is no access to a good local color lab, the risk and shipping-delay factors are identical whether you shoot on color or B&W.)

The Image

But what about the quality of the image?  If cost and time factors are not dominant, we can concentrate on which type of negative will craft the image we want.  Over the years I have shot both B&W and color negatives turned into B&W.  Each can look similar to the other, but they are never the same.  

B&W Negative

When I started shooting thirty years ago with my very first camera, a wind-up Bolex, I ran through every possible B&W negative available.  In those days there was a large choice.  I was a snarly young man living in France at the time and expected European stocks would way outperform Kodak.   To my surprise, it wasn't Ilford or Agfa or Gevaert which gave me the most delightful images.   It was Kodak's Double-X negative.  Today, Double-X is one of the few B&W stocks still available (Ilford still makes two B&W stocks, one rated EI 400, the other EI 125. They have to be ordered through retail outlets such as Adolph Gasser.) Double-X continues to have a marvelous spread from deep black to creamy white and a relatively fine grain, especially in 35mm.  To my eyes it is the stock of choice when you want a full-spectrum, medium-fine-grained B&W image.

Grain

But one doesn't always want such an image.   A while back I shot a boxing promo spot.  On this rare occasion I was directing and shooting and wanted to intercut both very grainy and relatively fine-grain images.   Because of budget and time factors I had to shoot 16mm color.  I shot a number of tests and ended up shooting two stocks:  for lots of grain I got the best results shooting 7298 (EL 500), and pushing it two stops for an effective ASA of 2000.  The result was a very grainy picture that went rapidly from black to white with little detail in-between.  The fine-grain shots I filmed on 7293 at its normal ASA (EL) of 200. 

Today it is relatively difficult to craft a convincingly grainy image.   Stock and transfer-machine manufacturers have combined to create nearly grain-free pictures.  If you try to add grain at the transfer it tends to look electronic (which can be a style).  The best solution seems to be to take the fastest stock available and push it at least 2 stops.  You will still need to add some additional grain at the transfer to enhance the effect.

Actually one of the most pleasingly grainy pictures I've shot was with Super 8mm using Tri-X B&W Reversal stock.  (Note the still at the right, taken directly from the finished spot.  The  actress was filmed under available light.)  Cut into 35mm color it makes a great contrast. It's also a very cheap solution.  Producers love that.

Filters

#58 - Green:  For a 16mm MTV film with John Lee Hooker ("Boom-Boom"), shooting outdoors with available light and just one mirror, I chose this strong green filter to brighten   dark green foliage and at the same time render  all colors of skin tone a pleasing shade and texture.

#25 - Red:  For another MTV film, this time on 35mm MTV, ("Kiss You Back" with Digital Underground,) I picked this relatively dark red filter to increase contrast between black and white skins.   I found, however, that while Caucasians were lighter than "normal," what really caught the eye was the creamy texture of every skin.  (Since we were indoors in a white and brown set, the darkening effect of this filter on green and blue was not visible.   Both "Kiss" and "Boom-Boom" were shot on Double-X.)

# 47 - Blue:  DP Ran Fortunato, in an article in the October 1998 issues of International Photographer describes how this blue filter makes "images look like orthochromatic film used in the silent era.  Basically insensitive to reds, the skin tones would darken and the highlights in the faces would be a bit exaggerated, while the sky would go a bleak white."

As we've already discussed, color negatives can be expedient when time matters.  They are an effective way to produce strong, grainy images.  And they can emulate true B&W.  For instance, I recently found while shooting a health-plan spot that the Kodak Vision color negative 5277, with its gentle span from dark black to pure white and manipulated through film-to-tape transfer, can render B&W images similar to Double-X negative. 

What about other color stocks as a means to achieve compelling B&W?  I would expect 5245 would produce a clean, very contrasty and grain-free image.  I'm looking forward to trying the new Fujichrome Velvia reversal film stock, with its extreme contrast as a means to an even harder yet relatively grainless image.  As I have the opportunity to try out some of these variations, I will update these thoughts. Perhaps other DP's would care to comment by email.  Should any of you do so, I will print your comments here, along with your web and/or email links. 

Final Considerations

Any time it looks like we will shoot B&W, my first thoughts go to Double-X negative.  Then I reconsider what style, what quality image do we want to best tell this story.  Perhaps the beautiful, creamy quality Double-X produces is just what we want.  Perhaps we seek something different and then our attention turns to a wide spectrum of color stocks, each with its special characteristics.   Sometimes at this point it's a good idea to consult the film-to-tape colorist who may have additional experience to offer.

There is one clear situation where whatever our style we must shoot on color negative:  if in the end product we want to keep color in some part of the frame.  For some years now it has been possible to isolate at the film-to-tape transfer single colors for dramatic effect.  Recently commercials have been playing with strips of color in a B&W image.  And the feature Pleasantville has taken these techniques much further by keeping entire characters B&W while others are in full color. Like every other part of our art/business, these possibilities keep evolving.

Finally there's the factor of indecision. Later on the client may want to change minds about B&W.  Sometimes the producer or director or agency is trying to get the client to go along with B&W and can haggle a "maybe" with the promise that if they don't like it, we'll make it color.    In this case too you must shoot on color stock.  (Of course, if the client changes mind after the transfer, someone has to pay for a re-transfer - a negotiation for the producer.)  By the same logic, one huge advantage for the DP or the director of shooting B&W negative is that downstream no one can say, "Oh, I don't like this B&W. Make it color." 

Other readings: