No ICE, B&W help!

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by mva, Nov 2, 2012.

  1. mva

    mva

    Now,
    I love the look of Neopan 400 CN however I don't always like the grain. So, I tried Acros 100 - obviously the grain is fine. Little inconvenient: ICE would not work on my Coolscan! Removing fine dust from a large 56x56mm area, perfectly focused, is hell.
    On one hand I would like 400CN because I can use ICE on it, on the other hand I would like the grain of 100.
    So I would like your help and ask two questions.
    1. any chromogenic B&W film with low-speed / fine grain? Perhaps some exotic brands that I do not know such as Rollei etc?
    2. I normally send my films for development at Peak Imaging in Sheffield - I don't do it myself. I understand that if I pay them more, they can pull or push it. However pulling is something that i have never done and I am not familiar with. Do you think that I could ask them to develop 400CN as if it was 100? And, if I did that, what type of grain should I then expect?
    Thanks!!
    Marco
     
  2. ICE and traditional B&W film is a no go. The silver grains confuse ICE.. You can clean your negatives if you have a problem I use a micro fiber cloth and a horse hair brush. You can try to shoot your C41 B&W at E.I. 200 for less grain.
     
  3. mva

    mva

    Hi Larry,
    Have you ever tried a chromogenic film? Such as Neopan 400 CN? On it, ICE works. I wrote a few comments on my little blog here. Hence I wondered if I could have s similar thing with EI 100...
     
  4. Kodak's BW400CN is reasonably-grained (or dye-clouded as the case may be) and it scans superbly. If you are comfortable with a digital output this is the way to go. Printing that film is a challenge both using traditional color paper (for which it's designed) and on B&W paper. Getting a print on color paper with no color cast is nearly impossible. With traditional B&W paper you'll be using at least a number 4 filter to get enough contrast, and expect exposure times in minutes. But it can be done.

    I don't think you can change the grain of BW400CN by push or pull. It's C-41 and that's a pretty fixed development environment.

    Rollei Digibase should be lower grained, ASA 200, but folks say it is low contrast. It's a color film with no orange mask, so it should print easily on B&W paper. I have my first roll in a camera right now, haven't finished it yet.

    I don't think anybody makes anything in 120 though.
     
  5. mva

    mva

    Hi Patrick,
    If you know it, how would Kodak's CN compare with the Neopan 400CN (which is the only one I know)?
    Also you mention this Digibase that I don't know; low contrast might not be an issue. It is compatible with ICE, you say?
    Thanks for the info on pulling and C-41, I did not think of that.
     
  6. I have shot Chromo B&W and I find that 200 gives better grain/clouds in my eyes. I was referring to your use of ACROS with the traditional... As for CN Fuji It is a licensed version of Ilford. It is not the same and some say it is better. As 120 Ilford is still in production.
     
  7. Either shoot films processed in C-41 (B&W or Color) and use ICE, or solve your dust problem. There really isn't any other choice.
     
  8. Just forget about automatic stuff, and clean well before scanning and then touch up in Photoshop. IMO, you'll get much superior results that way.
     
  9. 2x JDM.
     
  10. Polaroid Dust and Scratch Remover can be downloaded at no cost. In Linux I use software called Tamanoir. Of course the best course is to clean negatives carefully before scanning.
     
  11. Kodak's B&W C-41 film has been discontinued but Ilford still makes its version.
    You can push in the C-41 process but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone pulling.
    Both Kodak and Ilford in the past have promoted their C-41 B&W as having almost a variable ISO -- it has enough latitude that you can shoot it anywhere from 100 to 800 and supposedly still get good results. So I'm not sure that pulling it for 100 would make a noticeable difference. And it's pretty close to grain-free to start with.
     
  12. Marco Venturini Autieri , Nov 02, 2012; 09:54 a.m.
    Hi Patrick,
    If you know it, how would Kodak's CN compare with the Neopan 400CN (which is the only one I know)?
    Also you mention this Digibase that I don't know; low contrast might not be an issue. It is compatible with ICE, you say?
    Thanks for the info on pulling and C-41, I did not think of that.​
    All C-41 and E-6 films are ICE compatible. The silver doesn't stay in the negative.
    If the Neopan is really Ilford's C-41 B&W film XP2, I'd say they are about equal. Same grain, with the Kodak a little finer IMHO.
     
  13. Craig Shearman [​IMG], Nov 02, 2012; 02:29 p.m.
    Kodak's B&W C-41 film has been discontinued but Ilford still makes its version.​
    While this has been rumored and predicted for quite some time, I've never seen it listed as such. It's a current product at B&H at least in 35mm, and they're usually among the first to know. Or did you mean 120 was cancelled?
    Do you have a source?
     
  14. ICE is a tough word to google search. Can somebody tell me what it stands for?
     
  15. Image Correction and Enhancement.
     
  16. 3x JDM.
     
  17. Or shoot b&w and use DR5 to make slides. No idea if that will make them work with ice though
     
  18. Read about is here on Photo.net that Kodak's version was discontinued. Isn't Photo.net the authoritative source of all photography information? :)
    Just looked on Kodak's web site and they still list it, but they show it both in 35mm and 120 under their professional films. Maybe the consumer version was dropped? Availability at B&H is a good indicator but not definitive -- could simply mean that they still have some left, not necessarily that Kodak is still making it.
    I only tried the C-41 B&W once or twice but it's a good way for people who don't want to do their own darkroom work to get to try B&W. Would hate to see it go.
     
  19. mva

    mva

    So,
    Thanks for the replies. To recap:
    • I understand that the only chromogenic films available are not rated 100. They are: Neopan 400CN (which I have used), Kodak BW400CN
    • The films I scan are always visually clean, straight from the lab. If I tried to clean them better, I am sure I'd worsen the situation. The dust I see in the scans is often just a matter of two or three pixels. The Coolscan with the glass support can be very precise
    • I have tried in the past the polaroid plugins and other non-ICE methods to reduce dust: they are horrible. The ICE of the Coolscan does not reduce in any way the sharpness of the image. Differently from the ICE of many other scanners (e.g. Epson's), the IR lamp does not require a separate pass from the visible light one, resulting in high precision. This is why I would like to use ICE and chromogenic films.
    At this point, I am considering either the Neopan 400CN again (that I know and like, although I would have preferrred finer grain for those times when I can use a tripod) or perhaps Kodak Ektar to convert in B&W...
    Ciao,
    Marco
     
  20. I recall that ICE works on conventional B&W if you use a pyro staining developer, but that was a discussion from 10 years
    ago. Still, it might be worthwhile to see if your lab can try that for you.
     

Share This Page