Digital BW, The Print

Hi,
I gave up on C-41 films for fear of their lower archival life (in spite of liking the small grain and smooth flesh tones for a 400iso film). 

Recent posts have reminded me that, now that I'm about to buy a good film scanner, I should try these films again - to get speed *and* fine grain - as digital archival reduces my concerns about preservation.

Portra seems to be mentioned often, but I wondered about the other C-41 Kodak films - 'T400CN' and 'Black and White'.

Some have concluded that the emulsions are the same and the differences concern compatibility with the likely printing process of the lab down the road from wherever. I read that T400CN is more suited to black and white paper. Does any of this have any significance for us as digital printers?

What matters to me is the tonal and grain characteristics of the films.

I would appreciate any feedback about ... any of the above, really

I get my film processed at a pro lab and plan to print (eventually, when I can afford it) on an Epson 1290 ... with MIS inks.

Thanks in advance,
Richard
------------------------------
photos: http://photos.smallfield.vze.com 
homepage: http://smallfield.vze.com
favourite website: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/ 


   "Today, when I throw away a musical birthday card, I
    am tossing out more computer power than existed 
   in the entire world in 1948."
   --Denis Waitley

I've been using both TMY and the Portra 400 for Black & White Headshots.
The Portra I scan on my Nikon LS40 and print it using Lyson Inks on an Epson
860, lately with Ilford glossy paper.  I will say the Portra BW is very fine
grained and has good sharpness, or at least can be sharpened up nicely in
Photoshop using Unsharp Mask.  The stuff scans amazingly well, the only
complaint I have is less contrast then I like.  I rate it at 250 and get it
processed locally.  Clients like getting 4x6 prints.   I used to use 400CN
but think the Portra BW to have a better look.   There is no doubt the
Portra looks much better under Studio Strobe.   As I recall, Kodak indicates
400CN is better for darkroom printing, Portra is designed to have a base
that makes it easier for Color Labs to get true Black & White.

There is also Kodak Black & White Select, which I only used once and it
seemed good, much like Portra rather then 400CN.   If in fact it is the
consumer version, I should use it because its cheaper.  I'd love to hear
others comments about these chromogenic Black & White films.

Rick Schiller
www.rickschiller.com

Message: 7
   Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:47:35 +1200

   From: Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...>
Subject: C-41 BW films for scanning

Hi,
I gave up on C-41 films for fear of their lower archival life (in spite of
liking the small grain and smooth flesh tones for a 400iso film).

Recent posts have reminded me that, now that I'm about to buy a good film
scanner, I should try these films again - to get speed *and* fine grain - as
digital archival reduces my concerns about preservation.

Portra seems to be mentioned often, but I wondered about the other C-41
Kodak films - 'T400CN' and 'Black and White'.

Some have concluded that the emulsions are the same and the differences
concern compatibility with the likely printing process of the lab down the
road from wherever. I read that T400CN is more suited to black and white
paper. Does any of this have any significance for us as digital printers?

What matters to me is the tonal and grain characteristics of the films.

I would appreciate any feedback about ... any of the above, really

I get my film processed at a pro lab and plan to print (eventually, when I
can afford it) on an Epson 1290 ... with MIS inks.

Thanks in advance,
Richard
------------------------------
photos: http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
homepage: http://smallfield.vze.com
favourite website: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/


   "Today, when I throw away a musical birthday card, I
    am tossing out more computer power than existed
   in the entire world in 1948."
   --Denis Waitley

At 06:42 PM Thursday 10/2/03, you wrote:
(re Portra)
>The stuff scans amazingly well, the only
>complaint I have is less contrast then I like.  I rate it at 250 and get it
>processed locally.  Clients like getting 4x6 prints.   I used to use 400CN
>but think the Portra BW to have a better look. 

I have scanned some T400CN negs from about three years ago and haven't been able to extract much shadow detail - I've never found this with ordinary film and wonder if it could be caused by the negs fading a bit, although they've been properly stored.

>There is also Kodak Black & White Select, which I only used once and it
>seemed good, much like Portra rather then 400CN.   If in fact it is the
>consumer version, I should use it because its cheaper.  

Oddly enough, as it's the consumer version, I've found that the sorts of shops that do sell it, do so at a higher price than T400CN and the pro shops I've tried only have T400CN and neither of the others:-\

thanks,
Richard 
------------------------------
photos: http://photos.smallfield.vze.com 
homepage: http://smallfield.vze.com
favourite website: http://www.masters-of-photography.com/ 


   "Ask her to wait a moment - I am almost done. " 
   --Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855), while working, when 
   informed that his wife is dying.

A few months ago I tried the Kodak Select \ufffdBlack and 
White\ufffd (\ufffdBW 400-2\ufffd as marked on the film) sold in 
Walmart and had it processed by a local one hour lab. 
I was pleasantly surprised by it.

With a makeshift test target and a Polaroid SS4000 
scanner, I only got about 6 useful zones out of it. 
The curve looks more like ASA 500 than ASA 400. The 
\ufffdgrains\ufffd of the scanned image are very fine and 
compared favorably with the film I used routinely, 
ACROS. To me the apparent higher contrast is not a 
problem since I used the \ufffdBW 400-2\ufffd film in dim light 
situation and the higher contrast turned out to be 
an advantage.

One example from my test shots of \ufffdBW 400-2\ufffd is the 
5th photo of
<http://www.glorious-light.com/beech.html> labeled 
as \ufffdTrillium Trail\ufffd. 

I have not used this film much since I found that it 
is not cheaper than pro BW C41 films. But it did get 
me interested in exploring BW C41 films. 

Regards,

Yih-Tai Chen
------------
http://www.glorious-light.com
e-mail: ytc@...
 
--- Rick Schiller <rschiller@...> wrote:
> There is also Kodak Black & White Select, which I
> only used once and it
> seemed good, much like Portra rather then 400CN.  
> If in fact it is the
> consumer version, I should use it because its
> cheaper.  I'd love to hear
> others comments about these chromogenic Black &
> White films.
> 

--- Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...>
wrote:
> Portra seems to be mentioned often, but I wondered
> about the other C-41 Kodak films - 'T400CN' and
> 'Black and White'.
> 
> Some have concluded that the emulsions are the same
> and the differences concern compatibility with the
> likely printing process of the lab down the road
> from wherever. I read that T400CN is more suited to
> black and white paper. Does any of this have any
> significance for us as digital printers?
> 
> What matters to me is the tonal and grain
> characteristics of the films.
> 
> I would appreciate any feedback about ... any of the
> above, really



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

> One example from my test shots of "BW 400-2" is the 
> 5th photo of
> <http://www.glorious-light.com/beech.html> labeled 
> as "Trillium Trail". 
> Yih-Tai Chen

Enjoyed your photos very much.  Very nice!

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm