Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica] Re: Slightly OT: C-41 b&w films
From: "Phong" <phong@doan-ltd.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:43:58 -0400
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030529203926.00a10360@pop.2alpha.net> <3ED70BCB.2070904@aol.com>

Gerry and others who work with B&W regularly,

This question is very timely for me, as I have a portrait project
in mind that I'd like to do in B&W.

What do you lose in the quality of the prints  if you shoot in color
then convert to B&W in post-processing ?    I have not done much in
B&W except for when I first learned photography years ago,
or the occasional roll of TMAX.  I expect to scan the film,
post-process digitally (Photoshop).   Final products should be
prints mounted on walls (from 11x14 inches, and  up).

- - Phong



- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Walden" <gwpics@aol.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica] Re: Slightly OT: C-41 b&w films


> Interesting that you go back to silver for higher speed films. I have
> gone totally C41 and although I shoot 400CN for 400iso I now use colour
> C41 if I want higher speed and convert greyscale with no problems. I
> would use colour for everything, and then convert, but for some unknown
> reason I just can't get my head around having colour in the camera and
> 'seeing' in b&w - for the higher speeds I just have to!
>
> Gerry
>
> Peter Klein wrote:
>
>  > To add my two cents to what others have said:
>  >
>  > I tried XP2, didn't like it.  Grainy.  Muddy shadows and high contrast
at
>  > 400. In fact, doesn't seem to really be a 400 film.  Haven't used it
>  > since.
>  >
>  > I love T400CN.  Here's what I love most about it:
>  >
>  > - Almost grainless.  ISO 100 quality in an ISO 400 film.
>  >
>  > - Scans beautifully, even at 2700 dpi.  ISO 400 silver film has grain
>  > aliasing problems at 2700 dpi, it's smoother at 4000 dpi.
>  >
>  > - A great tonal range.  You can capture the whole range in a "flat"
scan
>  > and then tweak the curve to get really fine, smoothly-graded inkjet
>  > prints.
>  >
>  > - Doesn't block up highlights with moderate overexposure.
>  >
>  > - You can shoot it outdoors at ISO 200 or 250 and get detail in
>  > everything
>  > from the not-quite blackest shadows to bright highlights.
>  >
>  > - Infrared dust and scratch removal (ICE, FARE) works with it, unlike
>  > silver film.
>  >
>  > - I don't have to develop it myself, just take it to any reliable C41
>  > lab.  They run off 4x6 prints instead of squinty contact sheets.
>  >
>  > Here's what I *don't* like about T400CN:
>  >
>  > - It isn't the world's best available light film.  When you have deep
>  > shadows, you need to shoot it at 200 to have a prayer of getting shadow
>  > detail, otherwise they are grainy mud.  Or to put it another way, you
>  > will
>  > get detail several stops above your exposure, but anything more than
one
>  > stop under is going to look lousy.  Tri-X is much better here.
>  >
>  > - It's lower contrast than silver film.  On dull days, things look even
>  > duller than they are, and you have to work harder in the image editor
to
>  > compensate.
>  >
>  > - If you even *look* at it harshly, it scratches.
>  >
>  > - Silver chauvanists have me filled with existential doubt that one
day,
>  > the images will just fade away.
>  >
>  > Here's T400CN in bright desert light, shot at ISO 250:
>  > http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/california2003/JoshTree35.htm
>  >
>  > And here's one in a concert hall with so-so lighting:
>  > http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/quartet.htm
>  >
>  > In the latter picture, the original scan has more detail in the
>  > background
>  > wood paneling and better separation between the performer's jacket and
>  > the
>  > piano.  But bringing out that detail brought out speckly mud, so I
>  > "printed
>  > it down."
>  >
>  > I once tried Portra 400 and got similar results to T400CN.  The latter
>  > has
>  > become a universal B&W film for me.  But when I know I'm going to do
>  > hard-core available darkness, it's back to silver.  Neopan 1600,
>  > Neopan 400
>  > or good ol' Tri-X.  With Xtol, the ISO 400 silver films are not *that*
>  > grainy, especially when scanned at 4000 dpi.  Grain is just a silver
>  > molecule's way of letting you know it's working hard for you.
>  >
>  > --Peter Klein
>  > Seattle.
>  >
>  > --
>  > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>  >
>
> --
> Gerry Walden LRPS
> www.gwpics.com
> +44 23 8046 3076
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from "Gerry Walden" <gwpics@aol.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica] Re: Slightly OT: C-41 b&w films)
In reply to: Message from Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net> ([Leica] Leica] Re: Slightly OT: C-41 b&w films)
Message from "Gerry Walden" <gwpics@aol.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica] Re: Slightly OT: C-41 b&w films)