Re: [Leica] Cn vs B+W

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

Roy-
Until recently, I worked in a mini-lab ( part time while retired, just LOVED
to make pictures!) and I found that the B&W Plus had a mask and slope almost
exactly like the Gold 200 film, and printed it on that channel with
a -Magenta correction ( about 14% on this particular machine)
The results could vary as the slopes of the two films are not the same,
exactly, but it was close, and for most people it was acceptable and a good
alternative to tradional B&W processing, which here in Greensbor, is only
done by outlab services, or the B&W custom lab that charges up the WAZOO for
their work ( It's good, but expensive!)
If you want B&W and do not intend to print it your self, then I suggest the
B&W Plus. If you want to have the film developed and proofed, where the
print may be sepia or green and it won't matter, and you intend to print in
the traditional darkroom, I would suggest the CN or XP-2 as it prints in the
enlarger much like traditional b&w film.
I did just that for a lot of students- they were required to make photos,
and keep them for the first part of the course- printing them later in the
semester at the school's darkroom. Therefore, they needed thier negatives
printed, cheaply, and the XP-2 was an excellent choice- they could get cheap
processing and a look at their prints, and leter, when they started to do
the darkroom phase, they had negatives that printed very much like HP5 or
Tri-X. For that type of work I always recommended the XP-2.
Dan
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Roy Feldman <royfel@hotmail.hotmail.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 6:21 AM
Subject: [Leica] Cn vs B+W


> According to Kodak pro services the new 400 B+W is geared to processing in
a
> mini lab using a color processer. The CN film has less masking making it
> more desirable for traditional B & W  process ( although I still find I
need
> a 3 or 3 1/2 VC filter to make it look normal).