>>3872560Oh and also, it's common to use filters with B&W, to get good tonal separation in B&W photos.
A made up example, imagine red boat on turquoise waters and blue sky. Amazing (colour) contrast if you shoot colour, but it's gonna be all roughly the same gray in B&W.
By using, say, a red filter, you'll turn the boat a bright white, the see almost black, and darken the sky. The opposite using a blue filter.
Here's another one that's maybe closer to the look you're after.
>>3872589Of course it does! It works exactly the same in terms of grain, shadow detail, highlight retention, etc. .
If you mean it's more *helpful* with wet printing because contrasty negs are a bitch to print on the enlarger than digitally, then sure.
But otherwise the benefits remain the same, no matter if scanning or enlarging.
>>3872598They're all the same anon.
Most people aren't able to tell the difference between, say, TriX, HP5+ and Kentmere 400, when developed in the same dev to the same contrast index and ISO.
