>>3876445Sure.
Maybe not compelling reasons to you, but there are some.
First off, speed. You can get any cheap ISO400 film in a pushing developer and get very close to ISO800, meanwhile it'd cost you $15 to get some Portra 800. Similarly for the highest ISO films, or the lowest ISO ones.
Secondly, printing (in the darkroom).
Colour film, both the dyes and the orange mask, make a mess of variable contrast paper, it's very hard to get a decent print.
Finally, if you care about that thing, it's more archival.
>would there be any difference if you put them both side by side after converting the color one to b&w?This is not the main reason to choose one over the other. Given similar "technology", the grain of B&W will be sharper and potentially higher resolving. But they're not similar technology, modern colour films are quite a bit more advanced than the vast majority of B&W films.
There are differences, but not always in favour of the B&W film. You might get better DR with some colour films for instance. Or you get the ability to apply filtration after taking the photo than before.
>does b&w film have any inherent advantages?The advantages are it comes in a vast range of ISOs (12-3200) for all kind of shooting conditions or cameras with limited shutter speeds and apertures. Also is very flexible - and easier - with processing (push, pull, compensating development, etc etc.) and works much, much better in the darkroom, which is its main purpose anyway: the print.
Slight differences in grain or sharpness and whatnot are not the main reason to choose B&W, colour film os good enough in those aspects.
