Verdict: Chromogenic B&W Films Suck

[evan_parker]

OK, so perhaps I'm being a bit drastic. However, I work at a local

one-hour lab that uses a Fuji SFA processor (previous generation

before Frontier) and prints onto Fuji Crystal Archive paper, and I

have been less than impressed with all the chromogenic B+W film that

has come through, even the Kodak T400CN with its orange mask.

 

When I'm operating the printer, the computer automatically makes a

correction adjustment, I view it, and then I correct with my own

judgement for every exposure. Problem is, our printer gets very

confused with B&W film and basically prints it with some absurd color

shade. One order I processed had six different color casts on

different exposures of the same roll, and I couldn't do anything

about it!

 

Is there a way to make these films produce GOOD prints on color

paper? Perhaps with a Frontier?

[jimvanson]

Evan...I think a <i>bit drastic</i> is an understatement.<p>If you used your head you might say the machine sucked.<p>Or maybe the operator�

[marc_leest1]

Strange advocate you are. You admit that the Fuji SFA can't handle the input very well though you blame it on the film. My experience with chromogenics is that, when printed with a frontier, they all have a brown/sepia cast. Kodak claims that Portra B/W is especially designed to avoid this problem. I have currently a Portra BW in my camera, so we'll see.

[richard_cochran]

Not that I'm prone to defend chromogenic films, but

I think the title should read "Verdict: Printing B&W on

automated printers using color paper sucks". Would it be any

easier to make make those prints on your machine if the

film had been a non-chromogenic B&W, developed conventionally?

<p>

Does your machine have any way to lock in the color filtration

settings?

[evan_parker]

You're probably right, Mr. Vanson. It's just that I've had these films printed at many different places that have had Noritsu and Fuji printers, and they've all turned out bad. Perhaps, like you said, it is the operator's fault.

 

Also: The SFA, at least as far as I know, can lock in color filtration settings, but only RELATIVE corrections, meaning that it will make its decision about color correction and then apply the locked in corrections, making it a semi-useless feature.

[lex_jenkins]

Can't wait 'til Scott Eaton weighs in on this one.

 

I'm prepared to let this thread ride just for the entertainment value. ;>

[david8]

I'm with Richard on this one....

 

anyone who believes that they're going to get a great B+W print

on color paper is perhaps a bit, well, off.....

 

 

Nothing beats the chromogenics if you're scanning and have a

digital darkroom, IMHO....

[lachaine]

I don't think the prints directly from the machine can be expected to be anything more than proof prints that play the same role as a contact sheet. I've found this to be the case even with conventional B&W processing these days.

[john_cook1]

It is clear to anyone with even the most vague understanding of this craft that black and white photographic technique peaked about fifty years ago. Since then, there has been a steady decline in quality, in the pursuit of �ease of use�. Even drugstore deckle-edged prints were technically superior to the majority today�s professional work.

 

As someone who worked (as a kid) in Hollywood when some of the great masters were still there (like Hurrell) it grieves and sickens me to hear anyone naively try to defend chromogenic film as anything more than the happy-snap-crap that it is.

 

Aside from that, it�s not too bad...

[kelly_flanigan1]

Actually Scott Eaton is the one who said Chromogenic B&W Films are very good........I had not much experience with them until some high school kids brought some in to make 24x36" posters from...................<BR><BR>The posters from the Kodak scanned Chromogenic film came out ALOT better than I thought they would; the customer had several different ones done; and now is a repeat customer......The negatives were from a p s negatives ; smaller than thirty five millameter "easy" stuff

[kc_dougherty]

I work in a mini-lab and the Ilford XP films used to drive me crazy. It got to the point that I had Aperion switch the XP test negatives with something else and I made my own test negs. I also made my own pseudo step tablet with shades of gray to get aims on my densitometer. Our Fuji printer is an FA-140. The test negs for T400-CN are better though. You are never going to get true black and white on color paper without custom correcting each print. I usually make test prints of two to three negatives on a roll to pick a filtration.

[roger_stevens]

Where are ya Scott?

 

I need to get to bed soon and could use a good hardy laugh before I hit the sac.

[carl smith]

My personal conclusion is that the chromogenics don't print well on traditional B&W paper because of the orange base acting like a contrast filter. You can monkey around with it but if my intentions is traditional B&W printing I'll shoot traditional B&W most times. The chromogenic films also have a different look. I shoot XP2 some times and if shot at 100 it has a nice glow and at 200 it's real rock solid.

 

I've basically relegated XP2 to digital use however because it scans real nicely and since I don't have to develop it, the workflow matches most of the digital work I do.

[m0002a]

OK, you are correct that there are no automated printing machines that can make good B&W prints from XP2 (or other C-41 equivalent), and certainly not any automated machines that can print from traditional B&W negatives.

 

But Ilford XP2 still produces very good negatives that can be scanned or manually printed using traditional B&W silver materials. That by itself is more than enough justification for its use and recommendation in appropriate circumstances.

[Troll]

That's very strange. I've used XP-1 and XP-2 and XP-2 Super ever since it came out, and had film developed and printed when traveling all over the US. The results have almost always been good, and I'm sure a hell of a lot better than if I'd handed rolls of Tri-X across the counter and asked for a 4x6 of each. I'll admit, however, that I've always taken it to respectable appearing camera stores, and not to the local one-hour-horror, or Walgreens.

[Andrew in Austin]

Evan, better minilabs stock a paper cassette loaded with Kodak Portra, which is designed to print B&W with RA-4 chemistry. - Don't blame the film -

[group 11]

i have a print in the wash, so i'll be brief.

 

i have shot quite a bit of xp2. after a couple of hundred rolls, here are my observations: 1) it prints terribly at a lab on color paper. the kodak version has an orange tint that compensates for the sepia that you get on the color paper. xp2 does not. 2) xp2, however; prints like a king on black and white paper. it does skin tones very much justice while keeping the highlights in check and providing wonderful shadow values. 3) chromos are excellent producers in high contrast situations, especially those involving a human.

 

those that want perfect prints back from a lab are better suited to shoot the kodak version. the folks that kick out their own prints are better off using xp2.

 

i dig xp2. i regularly shoot xp2 and fp4 for portraiture.<div></div>

[scott_eaton]

I just had a long visit today on lunch with one of my local labs running a Frontier and Durst Lambda, and showing off a series of about 5 11x14's they had printed in their lobby from chromogenic film with different tonal effects made to order. Corporate Color on Grandville Ave in GR if anybody wants to know. Check out the prints in the front lobby. Greyscale, Sepia, some done with post Photoshop work and looking very exellent. Knock-out, gorgeous prints that would lead you to throw rocks at most conventional RC prints from B/W film. I see this caliber of work weekly, and it's a basic service with my local labs. Wanna know why those prints look to good? Because they were scanned and printed digitally.<p>

 

I actually agree with Evan and his frustration. XP-2 sure the hell wasn't designed to be printed on conventional mini-lab film channels, and T400CN is only marginally better. With a conventional mini-lab lab you need Portra B/W, which has a thick enough mask to keep the filter corrections within a tolerance range that you aren't drowning in slope variances and yielding technicolor prints. The software on the SFA was not designed to handle these types of films which is why Kodak came up with Portra B/W. Yeah, I could do it, if you let me at the machine software so I could manually fudge my own tables.</p>

 

Yeah, Portra B/W should fix the color cast problem, because if you can't get neutral prints from Portra B/W using a Gold film channel, then you <b>WONT </b>be able to give me a neutral grey card printed on Gold 100 either. Same thing as far as the printer logic is concerndd. I'll cut Evan some slack with T400CN and XP2 because I've been there. Erratic color shifted prints from Portra B/W though is no excuse. <p>

 

Even with Portra B/W, I'm still not thrilled about the chromogenics on amatuer color paper via conventional labs. Gamma just doesn't look right or match up. A well run Frontier is a totally different matter, but Evan is only concerned about the machines <b>he's</b> working on.

[gareth_harper]

Most chromogenics as pointed out are designed to print on B&W paper as already pointed out.

Machine printing for B&W sucks whatever the film anyway.

Find a darkroom, buy some decent B&W paper and learn to print. Incidently chromogenic films are a good starting point if learning to print, they are very easy to produce good prints from.

[25asa]

In our lab the only B&W film we get the best results in printing are Kodaks with the orange cast. With XP2 we automatically have to add 2 to 3 magentas to get it as close to neutral as possible. We hate that film as it shifts more then the other films. Slight over or under exposure will result in a color tint (either green/ cyan or magenta). Our machine (2102) in some cases doesn't have a fine enough adjustment to get rid of the color. This is only because of the way our machine is preset. In the Kodak B&Ws we if the machine is calibrated properly, most if not all come out neutral. Some times a slight tint turns out, but in most cases we can get rid of it. As a side not true B&Ws we also have to add magenta, so the XP2 films basically prints the same as pro films. You wouldn't believe the bitching we get sometimes when we can get rid of the tint completely. I wish in these cases our lab could stock the Portra B&W paper, but since our lab is a chain that will never happen.

[25asa]

Man my keys are wearing out. Thats if we CAN'T get the tint out, and as a side NOTE. Oops.

[scott_eaton]

Portra B/W paper would also allow you to get conventional B/W prints from *any* color neg film. Shame your lab coulnd't offer a once a week service. The matte based version yields better results than color RA-4 paper from the chromogenics (except for the Frontier).