If the Fuji Frontier can print in grayscale, is there any reason to use C41 B&W film?

[r.t. dowling]

After searching through the photo.net archives, it appears that Fuji

Frontier systems are capable of printing nice, neutral "black & white"

prints from color negatives or slides.

 

With that in mind, is there any compelling reason why I should

continue to use films like T400CN, XP2-Super or Portra 400BW? I

realize those films offer certain advantages if you want B&W prints

from an optical/analog machine... but if the Frontier can convert

color images to grayscale, would the C41 B&W films still have any kind

of advantage? Or would it make more sense just to use Portra 400UC,

or NPH, or Reala? Theoretically I'd get the best of both worlds -- I

could have color prints *or* black & white prints, simply by asking

the lab operator to print in either color mode or grayscale mode.

 

Thanks in advance to anybody who can help me figure this out. :-)

[emaxxman]

I get better results with XP2 printed on the Frontier vs a grayscale NPH/Reala image. It's probably the skill of the operator but you go with what gives you the best results.

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

Even if the film is C-41 black and white, it still interprets color differently than the Frontier would. You'll probably notice it best when comparing a black and white shot with a color shot of the same subject printed on the frontier in black and white mode.

[scott_eaton]

Nope. No advantage. None of my local Frontier labs promote the B/W chromogenics either and consider them obsolete.

 

The B/W chromogenics can't touch Portra UC 400 in terms of grain/speed ratio either. I'd also bet nobody in this forum could tell XP2 from desaturated NPH or Portra UC either in a properly made Frontier print, aside from the finer grain of UC. It's all grey in the end.

 

Plus, using the Frontier in this fashion allows you to vary the contrast by using 400 speed slide films like Provia 400F, or 800 speed print films like Superia 800. Either material has more snap than XP2 or Portra B/W, and that's an added tool in your bag vs being locked into using the nice, but often boring tonal range of the B/W chromogenics. Have greyscale prints made from Provia 400F sometime. Very cool.

[r.t. dowling]

Thanks Scott. That's what I figured, but I wanted to hear it from folks who have actually tried it a few times.

 

One last question: if I go to a lab with a Frontier and they tell me that they can't print in grayscale, or that I would have to pay extra for "real B&W paper", are they full of crap or are there actually some Frontiers that don't have a grayscale capability? I think I know the answer to this one but it can't hurt to ask.

[igsman]

If they say this kind of bull***t, they are either totally clueless or plain lazy. Either way, find some other alternative (i.e. another Frontier lab).

 

By the way, in their most recent issue, Popular Photography favored B&W-ed Kodak Gold 400 (!) to Tri-X and T-Max in terms of grain and tonality. Now, how do you like them apples!

[scott_eaton]

Conventional B/W films typically look lousy on the Frontier because the scan software simply can't handle the unique gamma curve of classic B/W films. My Frontier shops which are both dedicated pro labs, have B/W 8x10 samples on the walls from a variety of color films. They are simply superb.

 

I'm hardly surprised at Pop Photo's preference. The contrastier amatuer prints films might suck for color work, but they often produce better prints when desaturated than their professional cousins because of the greater midtone contrast which is preferred with monochrome work. Their B/W enlargements from 10D files are to die for.

 

I'd avoid a Frontier shop that can't deliver good greyscale prints. The Kodak B/W RA-4 paper isn't bad if you prefer to stay with that shop, but a well run Frontier is better.

[bernhard]

Scot E. said:"The B/W chromogenics can't touch Portra UC 400 in terms of grain/speed ratio either."

 

Portra 400 B&W has a PGI of 40 @ 8.8x whereas Portra 400UC has a PGI of 60 @ 8.8x magnification (Kodak Teck Pubs E190 and F4012). If you believe this numbers, then Porta B&W should have a better grain/speed ratio. Has anyone compared the stuff side by side on a Frontier?

[scott_eaton]

Sorry, but I trust the Kodak tech pubs on grain measurements about as literally as a Superbowl beer commercial. Remember, these are same guys claming Portra NC has more contrast than Pro 100.

 

Portra B/W does not have scan potential as Portra UC in my experience. The color film being sharper vs the older tech Portra B/W, although the B/W film is very smooth.

[tapani_rauha2]

Maybe my Frontier shop situation is unique, but I do get an advantage from the chromogenics: My Frontier shop operators are able to make a 'Sepia' which is not the Frontier 'sepia' but one which has a lot more hues within the 'sepia' look. A pleasant and extremely subtle touch of purple and green tints, whereas the Frontier 'sepia' is very 'one-coloured'.