Do Professional BW films exist?

[simus]

Hi everybody,

 

As it happens for slide or colour films, are there also professional BW film. In

this case which are they. What they differs from non professional ones.?

 

Regards,

 

Antonio

[trw]

<blockquote>are there also professional BW film</blockquote>

<p>yes</p>

<blockquote>In this case which are they.</blockquote>

<p>All of them</p>

<blockquote>What they differs from non professional ones.?</blockquote>

<p>They're sold at stores that do high volume (so they're fresh) and keep their backstock in the refrigerator or otherwise at a cool, constant temperature.</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi Antonio.

 

There is a case to be made that some chromogenic films are made for the consumer market, and there is often a a huge qualitative difference between films made by the first tier manufacturers (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji), and the lower tier manufacturers of EU and Asia. The differences can be attributed to manufacturing technology and quality control, with the first tier manufacturers being decades ahead of the lower tiers. I hope this helps.

 

Jay

[simus]

Thank you for your very quick reply.

But what kind of problems could a professional have by using non pro films? I have read that Foma and Efke makes really good film which are cheaper than better known makes. Can either be considered as pro films?

Thank you again for your help,

 

 

Antonio

[photojim]

Professional films as sold by film manufacturers are colour films that are pre-aged to be ready to use immediately. Immature, unripe colour films have a slightly skewed colour balance that amateurs don't mind but pros usually prefer to avoid.

 

With blank and white film, colour balance is not an issue so there is no need for a segregated product.

 

As for Foma, Efke, etc., these films are definitely suitable for professional usage. The quality is not quite as consistent as Kodak, Ilford and Fuji's quality but the films are very good.

[csafdari]

I believe all BW films are "professional" but of course films like Tmax are a newer technology that TriX so there are some variations (some show grain more than others)

 

However there are reports in LF that some of the cheaper films produced in Eastern Europe may have occasional pinholes.

[don_mckeith]

Easy answer-

 

expensive film is professional quality-

 

cheap film is consumer quality-

 

The expense comes from R+D and QC. All of the FSU film use "old" technology, because they haven't spent any $$$$ on R+D----which is not necessarily a bad thing.I like the different look and the lower price of these films, -- but then I'm not a professional, so I can easily put up with slight emulsion defects from lack of QC,--though as these Co.'s move into the mainstream(Western) market,abandoned by "The big Boys" ,it looks like even they have to pick up the QC,as they compete for whats left of the market.

 

 

From J&C website--

 

"Starting in July of 2006 all of our ADOX films receive additional quality inspection after being delivered from the factory. Each batch of film is tested to make sure that the right film is packaged in the right box, that the films are properly cut and packaged, that the film is not streaked and that the speed and density of the film is within specification. In addition, for the life of the film we will keep testing each batch to be sure that the film is maintaining it's speed and density and will provide our customers with this updated data so they can adjust exposure and development accordingly."

 

 

I'm expecting a price increase.

[pico_digoliardi]

A "Pro" B&W film will behave properly no matter the particular manufacturing lot. A Pro can't afford to have film fail.

 

IMHO, Efke is not a Pro film, at least not the 4x5 I've used. It's variable in nature, such as emulsion characteristics, and I've even had some that was cut a shade larger than other so that it squeeked into the holders.

 

I expect a Pro B&W film in LF and MF to have a robust emulsion, retouchable (although you won't retouch it, it has a qood quality), doesn't scratch as easily (as Efke) and is within a one-digit percent of performance of all the other of the same regardless of lot.

 

Fuji, Ilford, Kodak have professional films. You pay a bit more. They are outstanding.

 

Efke is cool for cheap.

[john_shriver]

<p><b>PROFESSIONAL COLOR FILMS ARE NOT AGED FOR RELEASE. THEY ARE MANUFACTURED DEAD-ON IN COLOR BALANCE, AND KEPT THAT WAY BY REFRIGERATION. PLEASE DO NOT KEEP REPEATING THIS URBAN LEGEND FORMULATED BY SOME STUPID WRITER AT ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHY MAGAZINES.</b></p>

 

<p>Yes, consumer color films are manufactured to allow some color shifting to optimal while sitting at room temperature waiting to be sold and used. But, really, this isn't very important anymore, as comsumer film is pretty much essentially only C-41 color negative, and you correct the color balance in printing anyways. The last consumer film that had serious color shifts in aging is Kodachrome, and they actually mostly fixed that, at least in Kodachrome 64's last revision.</p>

 

<p>In Kodak's case, I suspect that the big difference between consumer and professional films is which sales and marketing organization is handling them. The terms and conditions of business are probably different.</p>

 

<p>Kodak's B&W films are all labeled professional because they are sold by that marketing arm. (The one exception being the Chromogenic C-41 B&W film, whatever they call it now.) The last "consumer" B&W film was Verichrome Pan. The great masses just don't buy anything but C-41 film, indeed it's hard to get "consumer" B&W processing anymore. Although you will ocassionally see Tri-X sold in consumer channels, but that's about it.</p>

 

<p>Kodak's black and white chemicals are labeled "Professional", but that's probably to avoid some silly safety regulations. Selling something that you can hurt yourself with if you do something stupid like drink it isn't allowed unless you call it "Professional". Auto body paint is also a "Professional" product.</p>

[don_mckeith]

John-

 

"Kodak's B&W films are all labeled professional because they are sold by that marketing arm"

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to point out here, but if Kodak's b+w films aren't "professional quality"(the choice of professionals) then who's are?

[randall ellis]

<I>I'm not sure what you are trying to point out here, but if Kodak's b+w films aren't "professional quality"(the choice of professionals) then who's are?</I>

<BR><BR>

I would say that he is pointing out a typical marketing technique, which is to charge more for anything labeled 'Professional' and that there is no real difference in black and white materials labeled 'professional' and those that are not - only that some are C-41 process, which is typicaly considered consumer despite the fact that a number of 'pros' use C-41 film and some use older developing processes.

<BR><BR>

- Randy

[pics]

Ilford labels their Delta lineup as "professional" although I'm not aware that Delta films are more suited for professional purposes than the "Plus" lineup. As Randall said, its more of a marketing ploy than anything. All films made by Kodak, Fuji and Ilford are certainly capable of professional quality. Films made by the more obscure companies can be used for professional purposes as well but you probably have a greater chance of experiencing some sort of manufacturers defect along the way. The technology and QC of the "big three" is much more advanced and refined and of course you pay accordingly.

[larrydressler]

If you made any money from a picture you took then you must have used profesional film and you are a pro.

 

*g*

 

Larry

[ted_chambers]

"Professional" is used in two ways in marketing film.

 

One is just as a marketing term and means nothing.

 

The other way the term is used, as noted previously, is in relation to certain color transparency films. These are (probably were, these days) used primarily in catalog shots where color consistency was critical. They were not necessarily designed for all professionals but were sold in lots that could be expected to return consistent results from one end of the lot to the other.

 

For all practical purposes today, the term means nothing at all. It never meant anything in relation to B&W film.

[al_kaplan1]

The old ISO 320 Tri-X Professional had a slightly rough surface, a "retouching tooth", so that retouchers could use pencils on the film, and supposedly had a contrast and spectral sensitivity optimized for portraiture.

[janet cull]

JIm, very interesting info I've never seen before about the aging of color film!

 

Janet

[theamazingtr3v]

In my humble opinion, the "BW Pro" would be one who understands the aesthetic

differences in films and uses them accordingly, not to say that there aren't bad films out

there and that you can't use one type of film strictly (many people do) but in monochrome

its all about aesthetics and grain structure and little to do with quality. if you havent

noticed most 7-11's out there don't sell black and white film at all, but are more than

willing to hand you some horrid colour film. one piece of advice is to stay away from

colour process BW. i mean XP2 is versatile yes, but it there anything really great about it?

and the kodak BW c41 process films are just garbage in my opinion.

 

 

on a side note, xp2 will develop in black and white developers (HC110, i've tested) and

produces *interesting* results.