Ken, What is the realtionship between Portra and TCN 400?? There is one other disadvantage of chromogenic films -- you are dependent on a processing lab. I just spent 15 minutes "cloning" scratches out of a file. It reminded me that one of the reasons I use standard B&W films is that I can develop them myself. Steve --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@c...> wrote: > Steve, give Kodak Portra 400 B&W a try also. It also has that "lush" look, > something like a Plus-X neg. I'm pretty impressed with the detail. Plus, > it works with digital ICE, which won't work with silver b&w film. > > Regards, > > --Ken Carney > www.kencarney.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <skobrin@h...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:28 PM > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B&W Chromogenics > > > > Roger, > > > > I use both super XP2 and Ilford fp 4&5. I really like XP2, especially > > shot at 320 rather than 400. While there are others who are better > > at the technical details, I find XP provides a very nice tonal scale > > with a "creamy" feeling that I cannot be more specific about. While > > I do not think it is quite as sharp as the standard Ilford films, it > > does well enough in that regard and the flexibility is wonderful. (I > > suspect that the standard films also provide more shadow detail, but > > I am not 100% sure about that.) I tend to shoot a lot with older > > cameras and it is nice not to have to worry about metering dead on > > for every shot. From what I understand, XP2 is a marked improvement > > over XP1. I scan it with a Nikon LS-200 with few problems using the > > color setting and converting to B&W in PS. > > > > One other advantage is that if you are traveling it is easy to get it > > processed and you do not have to deal with multiple X-Ray scans at > > airports. > > > > Steve > > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Sopher > > <rlsopher@c...>" <rlsopher@c...> wrote: > > > I have used XP1 in the past (when I still had a darkroom) and > > wasn't > > > overly impressed compared to what I could do with large & medium > > > format Tri-X but that was some years ago. I didn't really expect > > > 35mm to compete strongly with 4x5 and 6x9. Maybe that was just a > > > self-fulfilling prophesy... > > > > > > There is little chance I will ever set up a darkroom again and I > > > have sold off my large and medium format gear so I am interested in > > > what opinions are concerning the chromogenics, particularly Portra > > > and T400CN. My intent would be to scan them to a digital image with > > > my 4000ED. I have been using Fuji color print film for this purpose > > > with no particular unhappiness but I wonder if the B&W C41 films > > > might produce a bit better image for scanning. I can certainly do > > > the experiment myself but I am just as lazy as the next fellow... > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and > other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same > page. > > > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > > - Include your full name with your message. > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep > them short. > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or > &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various > resources on the homepage. > > > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > >
Message
Re: B&W Chromogenics
2003-01-12 by Stephen Kobrin <skobrin@hotmail.com>
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.