B&W400CN better than color neg for B&W purposes?

Does 400CN (or XP2) actually look better (tone, sharpness) than color neg (such

as Fuji NPS 160) for scanning and B&W inkjet printing" (forgetting for the

moment about ei differences?)?

 

Obviously I need to test this, but have YOU made the comparison?

 

My silver film looks better than XP2 IMO, but I'm thinking here about 35mm

minilab processing and Ice.

 

John

From what I hear (could be incorrect) the C41 B&W stuff has less grain than equivalent speed

C41 color. If that matters to you.

Yes, it is better and less grainy.

Read the Kodak spec sheets. The C-41 b&w films are less grainy than ANY color negative film in current production, not just speed-equivalent films. That is, in the C-41 world, a 400 b&w film is less grainy than a 100 color film.

 

That said, color negative films offer other advantages, such as post-capture filtration and, obviously, the option of color prints.

 

So, if you're printing so small that the grain would be unobjectionable in any case, color neg may be the way to go. But, for the least graininess from the C-41 process, use a chromogenic b&w film.

Jonathan, there's no "grain" in color neg, but there are dye clouds which might be equivalent except that they can't be as sharply defined (eg by Rodinal).

 

Of more concern than "grain" are detail resolution and the perception of sharpness. The latter can be created in post-processing, but the former...

 

What about the finest color neg Vs XP2 ..in terms of detail resolution?

John,

 

If I am going to change from silver halide film to C41 and I want a B&W image (and I frequently do this), then I wouldnt even consider using chromogenic emulsions. The amount of tonal control I get in post-processing from having the colour information available far out ways any other benefits that might lurk in single layer C41 films. However, if youre just looking for a desaturate and a few curves approach to the final image then I wont even bother to comment :)

i've printed a few rolls worth of C41 B&W (XP2 Super); in general I found the prints to appear virtually grain-free (i went up to 16x20 for the landscape roll), but there wasn't quite the range of tones that i'd expect from traditional B&W films. They had more of a 'graphic' look to them, if that makes sense - snappy and contrasty, but tonally 'shorter'.

XP-2 is wonderful stuff and very smooth. Came for 400 CN.

Craig, what's your prefered color > B&W technique/workflow ?

 

C41 is of interest primariy to process lots of film and then Nikonscan with Ice, auto-advancing multiple frames (ie set-and-forget for multiple frames).

 

My own silver negs are wonderful but Nikon's film transport makes scanning them a slow process. Each frame has to be individually advanced and positioned: the holder doesn't automatically advance frames of silver film, but Nikonscan (not Vuescan) does do it perfectly with C41.

Hello Craig,

I can't speak to scanning, but if you ever intend print in a WET Darkroom you will not be able to do so with C41 color film. XP2 on the other hand handles nicely in a traditional darkroom. 400CN on the other hand can be a pain. Both do well at a minilab of course. -Brad

Well, technically, C41 colour WILL print on Panallure - if you can find it. BUt this is obviously not the desired direction of this thread...

JBD

 

Completely agree... however, I dont even consider a wet darkroom these days :) but point taken.

 

 

John,

 

Levels and colour correct (a little) in RGB. I use Convert to B&W Pro as a PS plugin. However, I never use just a single pre-filter. I work through the options in realtime viewing (which makes it better than the channel mixer approach) then work out what parts work best with what filtration. Then I keep converting with each filter I want and convert to 16-bit greyscale, take a snap shot of the state, go back to the colour state and do it all over again for each filter colour I want. Then I pick the one the has the greater area as I want I from one filter and begin painting in from the other states with the history brush. Then is the usual curves stuff. But again, applying curves globally but focusing on particular areas, using history state, backing up and painting it in slowly. Tedious but it works. and I never use layers

Craig, thanks. Given all your manipulations, why do you bother with Convert to B&W Pro? Sounds like you could do everything you want without plugins..?

The plugin does three things I like; 1) it gives you a real time display of the effect as you vary the filtration without having to choose preview under the channel mixer, 2) it maintains constant luminosity as you filter - the channel mixer doesnt, and 3) It lets you filter on both primary and secondary colours - again the channel mixer doesnt, only having primary colours.

 

I agree I could work without it. Its easier with it and I bought it a long time ago to check out, so now I have it so use it.

John, there is technically no grain in color negative as you say, but there is still the "apparent graininess" of the dye clouds, which is the phenomenon usually discussed in such comparisons.

<i>"but if you ever intend print in a WET Darkroom you will not be able to do so with C41 color film"</i>

<br><br>

I've heard this several times, but I don't understand why. I have printed C41 color negatives on B/W paper in a traditional darkroom. I haven't even used any special paper, just a cheap Romanian brand, which unfortunately was discontinued in the meantime. It was graded, and I remember using a high grade, because on normal grade the image looked very dull. But the high grade paper worked fine. <br>

I haven't tried this with variable contrast paper, though. Maybe I'll try sometime...

Vlad, I've tried printing color neg on variable contrast b&w paper. In addition to needed heavy filtration to get normal contrast, the tonality (i.e., relative brightnesses of the different colors) was off. I did get a usable image, and it was acceptable for some purposes, but it wasn't really comparable in quality to what I would have gotten if I had shot on b&w film in the first place.

Panlure was designed for this specific task. It was more "panchromatic" than other papers. Actually looked good with color negs.

 

The classic workaround has always been to use higher contrast (eg 4) but of course that looks bad sometimes. Unfortunately Kodak never sold much Panalure, back when they were serious about photography, and I'd guess they sell none at all today.

 

Jonathan, grain looks sharp with a good developer, good lens, and good scanner. Dye clouds look like mush. Aesthetically they're apples/oranges.

Vlad, the reason people say this is because b&w paper does not respond to red (safelight), so the brightnesses of various colours (particularly reds) will not reproduce the same way as if you had shot a black and white negative.