Is it still cheaper to film in Black & White in today's world?
or is it bizarrely even more expensive?
shareor is it bizarrely even more expensive?
shareCheaper.
You have to convert to BW, but that's just applying a bw filter in post. No cost.
And production is cheaper. Imagine you're shooting a scene in reds and greens. You need every element of the scene (walls, furniture, clothes, objects) to have the right color. In BW, though, you only need to care whether the color will translate as the right shade of grey.
I've heard psycho used chocolate syrup for blood in the shower scene.
shareI've heard that black and white has its own challenges regarding lighting, though, doesn't it? Isn't it more a case of changing out one problem (colour balancing) for another (lighting in stark contrasts)?
shareYes and no.
I'm no pro, but BW photography was a hobby of mine when I was a teenager. I even had my own darkroom and a (very cheap) enlarger.
BW needs to put some thought. While in color, most pics you take will be OK, in BW, chances are they'll feel lifeless and flat. In color, the combination of colors can create a very attractive photo, even lacking volume. And in some cases colors themselves can create the feeling of volume. That's not the case in BW, so lighting must be carefully considered to create the necessary volume. In a nutshell, taking just a decent pic is more difficult in BW. I imagine the same applies to cinematography. On the other side, while color can be easy for starters, it gets complicated. In BW a good lighting probably will guarantee a good (and even very good) picture. That's not the case in color.
Conclusion: I'd say that getting a great pic (or cinematography) is extremely difficult in both color and BW. In both cases, you have to be a pro or have a lucky day.
Thanks for the clarification! I knew there was something about it that made it tricky; glad to have heard from somebody in the know!
shareFilmstock and development are both cheaper for cinefilm.
share