[Leica] Another 'story' in four shots

[sethrosner at nycap.rr.com (Seth Rosner)]

Peter, much more than I asked for but extremely welcome information. Still 
curious about Graham's uses.

Seth
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Klein" <pklein@2alpha.net>
To: <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Another 'story' in four shots


> Seth:  I grew really fond of T400CN, and it became *almost* a universal 
> B&W film for me.   More on the "almost" in a moment.  I still haven't 
> forgiven Kodak for discontinuing it. But why should today be different? 
> Kodak's marketing strategy seems to be that every time I like one of their 
> films, they either discontinue it, rename it, or tag it for "export only." 
> Fortunately the replacements are close in quality.
>
> The CN B&W films have a wonderful tonal scale and can be exposed at 
> various speeds successfully, even mixed in the same roll.  They scan 
> easily, and can be processed anywhere that does color negs.  If you scan 
> them yourself, digital ICE and other Infrared dust and scratch elimination 
> methods work, unlike with silver B&W negs.
>
> The bad news is that at IE 400, T400CN and its brethren are better, tend 
> to get muddy and grainy in the shadows. The other problem is that the 
> negatives get scratched if you so much as *look* at them harshly.
>
> If you want a B&W film that approaches medium format in tonal scale and 
> clarity, expose CN B&W film at EI 200, and life is good:
> http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/california/JoshTree35.htm
>
> At IE 400, you can do available light if the important stuff is in the 
> highlights and midtones, and you don't mind doing a bit of extra work to 
> make the shadows black to hide the noise.  This next photo is a nightime 
> shot from the same roll as the above Joshua Tree scene.  There is some 
> shadow grain/noise on an 8x10, but it's quite usable.  Tri-X would have 
> been slightly more grainy in the lighter parts, but better in the shadows:
> http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/california/2-09BlondGirlStFair.htm
>
> Here's a couple of B&W400CN shots from a family wedding this past summer:
> http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/family/5-20NaomiEliZzz.htm
> http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/family/2-34Antionette.htm  (wish I'd 
> opened up a half stop more on this one, as I just lose detail on her left 
> side).
>
> Bottom line:  For available darkness, Tri-X or Neopan 400/1600 is better. 
> But for good light or a mix of light, T400CN and its brethren can be very 
> nice, indeed.  For best results, shoot it at 200, dropping to 400 when you 
> need it. At 400, if the shadows are important, give it an extra half to 
> full stop when you can.  You can always overexpose and you'll probably be 
> OK.  Underexpose, and you may get mud.  Handle with care, and use a good 
> lab.
>
> --Peter
>
> Seth Rosner asked Graham:
>
>>I'm curious about your choice of film; it appears that most often you use
>>the Kodak 400TCN or however they denominate it today, and occasionally, as
>>here, Tri-X. The chromogenic certainly scans more easily.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>