which color=finest 100B&W?

[jtk]

For scanning, desaturating, printing with QTR or black-only, which C41

color neg film comes closest to fine slow B&W for *acutance/sharpness*?

 

I'm not looking for fake B&W grain, I'm looking for maximum detail.

 

Which Walmart Fuji-something? Is there a better Kodak alternative (ie

that I might find in an actual camera store)?

 

Would my inventoried XP2 (old version) @320 equal the best slow color

neg?

[john_shriver]

Probably a tossup between Kodak 100 Ultra Color and the new Fuji Pro 160S. Slowest color films remain the sharpest, and these are the two newest (they still keep getting better).

 

BUT, neither is going to record the dynamic range (7 to 9 stops) of properly processed B&W film. Nor will they be as sharp as Efke 25, Ilford PanF+, Delta 100, or Kodak T-MAX 100. Color dye clouds are clouds, not sharp grains, they don't have high acutance. It's going to be like going overboard with a solvent developer like Microdol-X.

[jtk]

I've not paid much attention to subtleties of C41 B&W...

 

... doesn't T-Max 100 have the same "dye cloud" character, for better or worse, as Kodacolor Gold 100 or HD 100 (or whatever its name is for October)?

 

Is T-Max actually better for B&W than an equivalent-speed color neg?

[bruce_watson1]

You'll always have less acutance from color negative film. This is due to the many layers in the emulsion required to give the color response the film designers want. When converted to B&W, the effect is somewhat similar to the older thick emulsion films.

 

I had an idea to do exactly what you are talking about - just shoot color negative film for everything and desaturate in some way for B&W. My testing with 4x5 160PortaVC and 4x5 Tri-X showed me that the color film showed more grain, was not as sharp, and was a full stop slower. Thus ended my testing.

 

I'm guessing that the slowest color negative film is going to be comparible in sharpness to B&W negative film that's two stops faster. In other words, I don't think you can equal the sharpness of an FP4+ or 100Tmax with any color film. But I haven't run the tests, so clearly YMMV.

[link]

I don't really know the answer to this but it's cheap to buy the film and test it out.

 

I do know that I've used Kodak portra films quite a bit for my QTR prints and no

longer shoot B&W film for the most part. I do always like the option of printing in

color and like to shoot a film that, for me, makes nice color prints too.

 

At http://www.fujirangefinder.com/folder.php?id=118 I have many photographs

posted that were shot on color neg and converted to B&W with the type of film used

listed. A couple photographs have a color version and B&W version posted for

comparision.

[jtk]

BG, nice photos, but they don't address my application ...(they're sharp , but IMO the degree of sharpness is not critical to your particular images, whereas I'm intentionally pursuing max sharpness from C41).

 

A main purpose of this forum is to ask/share actual experience. So I'm asking. d'oh!

[Julio Fernandez]

>... doesn't T-Max 100 have the same "dye cloud" character, for >better or worse, as Kodacolor Gold 100 or HD 100 (or whatever its >name is for October)?

 

No, it does not at all.

 

>Is T-Max actually better for B&W than an equivalent-speed color neg?

 

IMO yes, by a long shot, as long as you want sharpness and acutance and you develop in T-Max. However, take care. T-Max should be exposed more as slide film, it does not has the same latitude as color negative film.

 

I prefer conventional medium speed emulsion films (Plus X, FP4+) to T-Max 100; more forgiving and easier to develop.

[lex_jenkins]

The usual suspects: Velvia or Provia; Reala; NPS or NPC; I'm not sure but perhaps Kodak Ultra 100UC (the 400UC is very good); should provide satisfactory sharpness in monochrome conversions.

 

But, as I've said many times before, there already is a conventional b&w film that scans beautifully: T-Max 100. Sharper with less grain than any of the C-41 process monochrome films. And it delivers the look of b&w photos without having to tweak the scan to death digitally.

 

OTOH, I've seen some beautiful large prints (16x20) made from larger negatives using Kodak and Ilford C-41 process monochrome films.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

Baloney about the latitude of silver B&W film. Chromogenic films have a much better exposure latitude.

[jtk]

Lex, I'll be running some Tmax 100 tomorrow in Rodinal 1:100....it's the only high acutance chem I had available. 20min, per Massive Dev Chart. I'll report back.

 

What's your preferred Tmax 100 developer?

[jtk]

...btw, I've been asking about 35mm and I'll be using Kindermann SS tank/reels.

[lex_jenkins]

John, I've gotten excellent results from TMX in ordinary ID-11 at 1+1, but I won't claim it's easy to do. TMX is a picky film and demands careful exposure and development ... most of the time.

 

Just on a lark I tried it in Microphen after a serendipitous mistake. It turned out so well I've switch to Microphen as my main developer for TMX. Microphen isn't quite as fine grain a developer as ID-11, which is okay with TMX since the film's grain is virtually nil anyway. What little effect Microphen does have improves the apparent sharpness. And it really helps with controlling the contrast of TMX. (I know some purists hate such loose abuse of terminology, but let's go with it for the sake of simplicity.)

 

I expose right at 100 and develop in Microphen 1+1. I'm not on my own PC at the moment so I don't have access to my development data. But I can say that this combination is much less fussy than anything else I've tried, including Rodinal and Ilfosol-S. (I also tried TMX in Diafine and it was ghastly so the less said the better because I'm a fan of Diafine otherwise.)

[lex_jenkins]

Dan, that's a pretty popular claim, especially among manufacturers of C-41 process films. But it simply ain't true. When C-41 monochrome films were first introduced manufacturers and fans make all kinds of wild claims that it could be exposed variously at 50 to 1600 on the same roll. That's just silly. Finally most of those claims disappeared, tho' occasionally a newbie asks about this fabled "any ISO" film.

 

Films like Kodak Gold 100 (I detest the new "Bright Sun" moniker so I refuse to use it), Ilford XP-2 Super, NPH and Superia X-tra 800 can handle one stop of over- or underexposure very easily. Beyond that, especially with underexposure, things go to hell very quickly. Only expensive custom printing can rescue badly underexposed C-41 film.

 

Films like Tri-X can be abused mercilessly and deliver results that, depending on one's standards, can be considered very good, acceptable, usable or interesting. The simplest and most obvious advantage is that we're not dealing with any consequences of color shifts with conventional silver halide films.

 

However, I can't think of anyone offhand who was persuaded by others regarding this particular issue. Usually it's just something folks have to experience for themselves.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

It's important to nail your exposures no matter what medium you use (negs, slides, digital) because it makes printing or scanning so much easier!

 

Robert

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

Sorry Lex, I believe my eyes. The highlights on XP2, or other chromogenic films hold MUCH better. Furthermore, you can expose XP2 between 100 and 400 ISO, at a similar contrast. Highlights hold. You can't do this with silver B&W. Underexposure of course, is not handled by those films well at all.

[dennis_oconnor3]

John, try a couple of rolls of 400BW ( PORTRA, C41 process)... This should do what you want...

 

For more info go to Kodak.com

 

denny

[jtk]

Dennis, I got lost in Kodak's site...but it's worth a visit...they're WAY beyond issues of film sales now, totally refocused. Some great stuff, some of which would be useful if one shot film in high production portrait/wedding studios. Don't know quite how it'll be useful to me, but it'd be brilliant if I was in the print sales biz.

[ken_hughes4]

Dan, normal black to white range for zone system is 11 stops. I have done dilute dev to max the range and have gotten up to 15 stops. It was a shot of a church in california, full sun, priest out front in pure white silk robe (just did a wedding) and the foyer which has no sun in it at all, had full shadow detail and the robe was not burned out. Color films can get no where near this.

[magumi]

I would choose a slow, low- to medium contrast film to allow for more tweaking with curves, i.e. one of the 160 natural color portrait films.

 

Concerning the dynamic range, you can get up to 14 stops with FP4+. I don't know of any C41 film that would come even close.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

The point is, to achive a wider latitude with B&W film, you need to develop it specially. XP2 has the latitude within a standard development C-41 process. You can shoot it between 50-400 on one roll, and have it processed normally by the lab, like expected. The highlights hold very well.