Chromogenic or Black and Whote

[jasonvicinanza]

Im interested in canded photography and ive been suggested to use Chromogenic film. This is due to the fact that (a) You can get them developed at a lab for the same price/time of a colour film (b) The images produced are generally richer/deeper than comparative B+W images.

Whats your opinion on this, the film that has been recommended is the KodakProfessional T400CN.

Any experances with this film? Comments?

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your opinions

 

<p>

 

Jason

ps. Thank you very much all the guys that responded to my previous question.

[albert_smith]

Jason,

 

<p>

 

Black and white really comes into it own when you control the entire

process. I am speaking of a traditional "wet' darkroom... I haven't

gone digital yet. The demand for B&W is such (low) that quality

processing is not as readily available compared to color. You can go

to a pro lab (expensive) or do it yourself. The basics are easy to

learn, but the ability to repetitiously turn out good work is not

something that will happen without a lot of effort and good note

keeping. There are so many controls... dodging, burning, chemical

manipulation, but if you are a control freak, you can't beat it. You

also can't blame anyone else for shoddy results. There are many

darkroom people that have developed a great reputation that don't

even take pictures... the science is involved enough that you can

live in the darkroom for a long time "playing" with just a few

negatives. An acceptable print is fairly easy... a stunning print

takes work. It is a personality thing... what are YOU satisfied with?

 

<p>

 

I've used T400CN film and it is quite good. Be aware that while it

can be developed and printed at any one hour lab, it is still printed

on color paper so there may be some tint if the lab isn't experienced

with it. The best thing is, use the one hour lab as a "proof" and

then use the negatives in your own darkroom with real B&W paper... or

take it to a pro-lab. For the speed, it is quite smooth as far as

the grain.

 

<p>

 

As a beginner, I recommend that you pick something and go with it for

a while. Your speed of acquiring a new skill will be accelerated if

you limit your variances. One lens, one camera and one film... you

will get good rather quickly compared to the guy with a bag full of

options... trying to decide what to use.

 

<p>

 

Good luck!

[andrew_schank]

I haven't been overly pleased with the results done on color paper,

but they do make good inexpensive proofs, and there is less chance of

a developing screw up than when sending B&W film out to a consumer

lab for developing. Al is right, you can then take your best shots

and get them printed on conventional B&W papers and the results will

be nice if the exposures are good. I don't know about the "richer

deeper" part. I use T400CN when I want to do B&W these days because I

no longer have a B&W darkroom at my disposal, and that really is the

only way I found I could get good consistant B&W images with regular

B&W films (unless you plan to dump tons of money each month into a

custom B&W lab).

[wilhelm]

Try it, you'll like it, although I personally prefer the other

Chromogenic film, Ilford XP-2. These are the perfect films for

Candid/Street Photography -- high speed, fine grain with excellent

detail, and a huge exposure latitude if you don't have time to

meter. Plus you don't have to f**k with it yourself in the darkroom.

[john_chan2]

Jason,

 

<p>

 

I personally like the Ilford Delta 100 and 400 B&W films as well as

their Pan-F and HP5 films. I'm not too sure about these C-41 process

films (except if you're NOT planning on developing yourself) because

you have limited control of the manipulation of the images.

Personally, I go from the Film Developing CookBook by Anchell and Troop

for developer formulations and I like the ability to experiment (within

bounds) with different formulations AND save a whack of $$$$$$ by

buying my own starting chemicals (and not the bulk they sell you).

You'll be suprised at how simple some developers are chemically!!! If

you're going to shoot alot then I think non-chromogenic B&W is better

as it could be cheaper for you in the long run and you end up with a

more comprehensive appreciation of the art.

 

<p>

 

Of course this is all IMHO.

[bobtodrick]

Jason, a few points.

The general consensus among most working pros is that the

C-41 films will give you better result compared to conventional

B&W only if they are both processed comercially. Most labs run

a 'tighter ship' so to speak when it comes to C-41, which is their

bread and butter. If you have your own darkroom, or take you

conventional film to B&W to a custom lab, the favour will turn to

the conventional films.

Witness the current B&W masters, no matter what the format or

subject. Whether it be Sebastio Salgado (photojounalism), John

Sexton (nature) or Richard Avedon (portraiture).....they all use

conventional films. If something out there gave them better

quality, they'd use it.

In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to spend the money we do

on Leica gear and then give it to the local Wal-Mart or corner one

hour lab to process. As much of your final image quality

depends on what happens after you press the shutter as does

your camera choice.

But if you are going to use the C-41 films there is one thing to be

aware of. Many people wonder why the Kodak film has the

typical (to C-41) orange cast and Ilford does not.

The Kodak film is primarily designed for someone who wants a

B&W image quickly, taking it to a minilab and having it printed on

color paper. They build in the orange masking layer so it can be

easily printed this way and gives fairly good results.

The Ilford on the other hand, doesn't have the masking layer and

is designed for someone who takes their film to the minilab to

have processed only, but then prints the negs themselves on

conventional paper. They'll both work either way, but, the Ilford is

much easier to work with in your own darkroom, especially in

regards to contrast control.

[Robin Smith]

Ilford XP2 is great. I am not altogether convinced that the masters

mentioned don't use it because it is inferior. In my experience most

phtographers stick with what they like and know and many

photographers grew up with the Tri-Xs of this world and have got used

to using them and know what they are capable of and what they are not.

Changing to a new film is often a big change. I also am not all that

convinced that negative processing is such a big deal in terms of Al

saying that most want to control it themselves. The whole point of

chromogenic film is that you do not have to do this - a good C41 line

will have excellent control and reproducibility. Easily as good as

what you can manage at home - in fact if you use dip and dunk then you

might say better. However, it is also true to say that XP2 cannot be

pushed above 800 and so you will need a conventional halide film if

you suddenly need to shoot at 1600 or 3200. This is useful! It might

also be true that the chromos are not quite so sharp - not that I have

noticed really, but it might well be true. Also of course if you like

grain then the chromos are altogether different. Also chromos are

probably not as archival.

[bobtodrick]

Robin, a lot of what you say has merit.........but. I think most

would agree that unless you really hate darkroom work, you can get a

better print doing it yourself rather than having someone else do

it. I find that dodging, burning, etc. are very personal, and of the

moment. I may look at a contact sheet, decide what needs to be done,

then get in the darkroom and do something entirely different.

My main point above was for people not to think that by taking their

C-41 chromo to anything but a custom lab will give them the results

they may be looking for.

On another note however, I deal with working pros on a daily basis,

mostly photojournalists and commercial shooters. They are always the

first to try new products (in part because Kodak, Fuji, Agfa etc. are

always giving them free samples). Todays pro works in a far too

competitive field to not use what will give the best result.

[Robin Smith]

Bob

 

<p>

 

Interesting, my experience of the average pro is often the same as

you, but many of the "name" photogs often seem to be "antique" in

their methods. I agree with you about printing, b & w, of course, what

I was referring to was processing the negs, which is really a chore I

must say - and in this the chromos are as good as you can do

yourself and might even be better via dip and dunk. Custom b & w and

minilab black and white printing, I agree, usually stinks.

[albert_smith]

Robin,

 

<p>

 

Traditional negative developing is not that hard. I prefer it to

letting a lab do it because most of my film needs to be processed

differently, and rather than explaining all of the variations to some

guy that really couldn't care less... I do it myself. I like to

shoot my 400 ISO film at ISO 250 (over exposing the film) and then

cutting the development time by 20% (under processing) which gives

negatives that are very easy to print... tons of shadow detail, no

burned out highlights. I can also under expose the film and over

develop the negative for enhancing contrast in week lighting...

enhancing apparent sharpness.

 

<p>

 

This goes back to my point of keeping good notes. I have this down

to a science now, based on my mistakes from the past followed by a

learning curve that I can count on for tweaking the process for

specific needs. I use a light tight tank, inversion agitation, a

good timer and thermometer. My 100th roll looks just like my first

roll. I agree, not everyone has the temperament, but I guess I'm

anal enough to pull this off. Now if I could just cook I wouldn't

have to let restaurant cooks do all of my food preparation.

[Spearhead]

Chromogenic films lack a traditional grain appearance. When enlarged

enough, they look like crap. I can't enlarge XP2 beyond 5x7 without

thinking it looks lousy. I can get to 11x14 with Tri-X. (This is

with a 35mm negative.) I use XP2 for snapshots in an old rangefinder

(Olympus 35RC) but I can't imagine using it for anything serious.

[kens]

Thanks, Jeff. The way the thread was going I thought I was the only

one who thinks this film is less than ideal. I tried it. Never

again. :)

[Robin Smith]

Al

 

<p>

 

My point is that negative developing is a chore - not like printing

which is fun and interesting. Film developing is not that difficult,

but it is rather uninteresting, this is what I meant about the

chromos removing the chore bit and making room for one to go

immediately to the more interesting bits of the process.