Digital BW, The Print

I was very lukewarm about chromogenic B&W for quite a while, but I've
discovered that Kodak Portra 400BW, at least, isn't bad at all (I haven't
tested others enough to say).

I went out one chilly evening and took some shots by the river with a tripod
and a 6x6 MF camera, on Portra 400BW.  I recall using exposures of several
seconds so that I could get some decent DOF.

Here's one example that surprised me:

http://www.mxsmanic.com/stairs.jpg

The shot surprised me for several reasons:

1. Portra 400BW is extremely sharp.

2. The film also has amazingly fine grain, particularly for an ISO 400 film.

3. It scans extremely well.

4. This shot had a lot of stark contrast.  I was surprised and pleased to
see that Portra 400BW had a great deal of headroom for manipulation, in both
shadows and highlights.  I was able to pull rich detail from both
(seemingly) blocked shadows and blown highlights, making them look very nice
indeed, with no perceptible increase in noise or grain.  This allowed me to
reduce the contrasts and come up with a very balanced image that shows
detail in just about every corner.  Note the subtle shadows on the water
surface, the details in the shadows on the wall on the right, and the detail
in the highlight just opposite the lamp--much of that was extracted with
Photoshop.  It was wonderful to be able to goof around with shadows and
highlights and just see boatloads of extra detail waiting to be extracted.

5. This film handles a much wider range of light intensities than I
expected--i.e., it's a lot closer to B&W range than I at first thought it
might be.  I didn't expect chromogenic B&W to hold contrast so well.

6. Portra 400BW seems to work extremely well for night shots, just the
opposite of what I had expected.

This scan is extremely sharp.  For a full-size excerpt from the original
scan, see

http://www.mxsmanic.com/stairs1.jpg

This was at 4000 dpi, and the grain is still hard to see in most of the
image.  Fine details in the stone stand out.  I'm not sure where I had the
focus set for this shot, as I set focus to maximum DOF rather than to target
any specific detail.  Most of the area near the lamp is very sharp, though.

Now, what I'd really like is to be able to get an image that looks like this
on paper, with a dedicated B&W ink-jet printer.  How close could I come?
Since this is MF an A3 enlargement would be easy to prepare.

I have two other unusually successful examples of this film, one in MF and
one in 35mm, but I accidentally overwrote the scans and I have to rescan one
of them first.

Portra 400BW, in summary, seems to be a kind of poor man's Tech Pan for me,
as it has almost the same fine grain, and almost the same resolution, but it
is much faster and does not require special B&W development.  It does have a
kind of flat rendering like one sees in all truly panchromatic B&W films,
but in these night shots, that doesn't seem to be an issue (sometimes it
flattens day shots, though).

Anthony, what scanner and scanner software are you using to scan your
portra 400bw?  nice results!

kenb

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...] 
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 2:09 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Portra 400BW example
> 
> 
> I was very lukewarm about chromogenic B&W for quite a while, 
> but I've discovered that Kodak Portra 400BW, at least, isn't 
> bad at all (I haven't tested others enough to say).

Sunday, May 18, 2003, 2:08:43 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

AA> I was very lukewarm about chromogenic B W for quite a while, but I've
AA> discovered that Kodak Portra 400BW, at least, isn't bad at all (I haven't
AA> tested others enough to say).


Nice results for sure. I'm curious which you've tried and not liked.
I've gotten wonderful results from XP2 and have not been as keen on
Portra 400BW myself.  I find the XP2 scans but easier for me with my
Nikon LS4000 and in medium format with my ol' Epson 1200U.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

L i n k s  t o  m y  g a l l e r i e s:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246

Anthony, or anyone else using Portra b/w 400:   What was your experience with 
reciprocity failure shooting the film at night?   If I take a few midtone 
readings off of my Digisix in streetlit night shots and dial them into my 
Rolleiflex, how much do I need to bracket?   If, on top of the other things 
you've mentioned, Portra is more predictably exposed at night, you may have 
converted me.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Sanders McNew.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For night photography, insofar as producing negatives for scanning for
digital printing, the main problem is burned out highlights and inadequate
shadow density.  This is not a big deal in darkroom enlarging, but the
difference with digital is a scanner cannot burn in a highlight.  Try this
idea to push process the shadow areas while simultaneously pull processing
the highlights.  This is called "water bath" development by Ansel Adams in
his books.  Water bath development is the basic technique that Ansel Adams
used to make his most famous photograph "Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico",
although he did have to selectively intensify the foreground area also.  The
information published in his book "Examples" is incomplete, my source is a
magazine article interview published forty years before the book was
written, if you want the citation let me know.

Water bath gives you the net effect of a two minute development for
highlights and a 15 minute development for shadows.  The way it works is
that you soak the the film with developer briefly, and then transfer it to
water.  The emulsion of the film, which is carrying the developer, can be
thought of as a sponge.  The highlight areas are hungry for developer and
use up all that is contacting a highlight at once.  Shadows use very little
developer so whatever is in the emulsion tends to be retained and continue
developing shadow areas, even when the highlights have exhausted their
supply.  Here is how I do it:

Using real-silver B&W film, set up some extra tanks when you develop.  In
addition to develop, stop, fix, add a tank with a mild balanced alkali and
add another tank with raw water

Presoak your film for two minutes in raw water, then put your film in the
developer for 30 seconds with constant agitation.  next, lift your film out
and gently put it into the alkali.  do not move or touch it.  Be sure the
table is not vibrating from your stereo or a fan motor, etc.  Absolute
stillness is necessary.  Let it sit for five minutes.  Next put it into the
pure water and vigorously agitate.  (the purpose of the water is to get the
alkali off the film).

Repeat the procedure for a total of three cycles.  This is to prevent
mottling of the sky area.  It is a good idea to flip the film alternately
upside down in the alkali to reduce "bromide drag"

I think you will find that silver B&W, which already records a full 11 stops
of visible light, will record a few more, and that the silver film has a far
longer scale than any chromogenic film.  There are several other favorite
developer techniques for night photography, such as Rodinal diluted 1:90.

Tom Robinson

Anthony, thanks for answering my reciprocity failure question.   This thread 
has prompted several other questions, and I hope people will bear with me for 
sticking with a question not directly related to print-making.   (1) Is there 
any benefit to be had from taking Portra 400BW to a professional lab?   A 
Kodak one-hour shop just opened up on my block, and they seem to be using new 
machines, and their prices are cheaper than Duggal and the other professional 
labs in Manhattan.   (2) How well does Portra 400BW handle pushing and 
pulling?   (3) Is there a way to minimize the "flatness" that Anthony 
suggests is a problem with the film, when used in daylight exposures?

BTW Anthony, very nice work on your site!   It is a testament to the enduring 
value of Tri-X, yes?   It also makes me realize how many photographic 
opportunities I let slip past me every day here on the streets of New York.   
Thanks for the inspiration.

Sanders McNew.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]