CN or Silver

I agree with Pablito. While both Kodak and Ilford promote the wide latitude of their b&w C41 films, I find there is a fairly narrow sweet spot, and outside that range tonalities and grain go all to hell. I will shoot CN (or XP2) for convenience sometimes, but IMO there is nothing like TX, TMY, TMY-2, Pan F+, etc., for real b&w.

If you are scanning, how much of a darkroom do you really need? Answer: You only need a dark space to load the film into tanks; a changing bag will do in a pinch.

And if you care for Rodinal, here's a hint: a huge number of silver films process @ 20 minutes/20C at 1:100. So far I have had great results with TXP/400, TMY-2, APX100 and Pan F+ at 20 minutes/1:100. I suspect that they are developing to exhaustion, so if you go over it won't change tonality too much, if at all, though extended wet time is not kind to grain.

YMMV. Let's keep EK, Ilford, and others making silver film. If price is an object, bulk is cheaper and brands other than the Big 2 make decent films.
 
I shoot both, but I think when my last roll of c-41 process B&W film is shot up that's it. I get my negs developed & scanned to a cd only, no prints. On the last couple of rolls I have been getting a faint pinkish tint to them. Next time I will try someone else. It's a bit of a hassel. When I shoot TMax & develop myself, I still take the negs. to be scanned to a cd for a few $$'s & I don't have to worry about them being ruined by their darn machine.
 
navilluspm said:
I don't doubt that you can make digital look great - given the right tools and, for a print, a really decent printer. But my printer is not good enough for digital BW prints - too magenta. I need different inks and a different printer.
Click to expand...

It won't look like Ansel Adams' work, but try printing "black only," the same printer setting you use for printing text. The dots are obvious on small prints, the tonality is unique and, surprise, it sometimes makes gorgeous print (and if it is a carbon ink, ones that last a long time).
 
navilluspm said:
By the way, Bill, I was wondering if you find yourself using less and less film, and moving more toward digital now, and if so why? (Eg. Is it because of the convenience?
Click to expand...

Professionally, anything I shoot currently is digital. The fast delivery of digital for editing and the ability to send images over the internet are simply taken for granted. Journalism moved to digital early,.

I still use an old M3 with a collapsible Summicron, a motorized M6, a Contax T3, a Minilux and an 8x10 view camera for fun. But I also use a DSLR for fun.

To me, photography is fun. I don't much care whether it's film or digital. But the professional photography is all digital. Oops, that's wrong. I still make stock sales of old film images.
 
Bill Pierce said:
It won't look like Ansel Adams' work, but try printing "black only," the same printer setting you use for printing text. The dots are obvious on small prints, the tonality is unique and, surprise, it sometimes makes gorgeous print (and if it is a carbon ink, ones that last a long time).
Click to expand...


I've tried. I don't think my Canon printer will let me. I think this is one of the Canon things. It prints color photo's beautifully better than my experiences with Walgreens, Walmart, and even some labs, but it will not print a decent black and white and always mixes color in with the prints - set on grey scale - you name it. Maybe someone knows how to set it better. It is a Canon iP6600D.

I know a cheap alternative would be an Epson c-88 with MIS ink cartridges, but, as cheap as it is, it still is less expensive to print with the enlarger.
 
Trius said:
Which is a big thing for me. My long lamented Zone VI Brilliant glossy (air dried matte) was gorgeous, especially when treated to an Amidol spa.
Click to expand...

Be sure to try some of the new Baryta inkjet papers, especially with some of the new printers. And...

I think it was Winogrand who said a good picture survives in a variety of prints.
 
I go back and forth as desired or needed. I have a bit of a backlog of conventional b/w film to process (need to set up a work spot in the basement, as I can't soup in the household), so I cheerfully shoot chromogenic (Ilford XP2 when I can get it, Kodak BW 400CN otherwise). Yes, scanning is pretty easy with ether, but only XP2 leaves open the option of easy wet-darkroom printing as well; BW400 has that color neg-like mask that makes it fairly easy for minilabs to bang out neutral b/w prints, but this makes it a chore to print on in a typical b/w darkroom.

Speaking of scanning: when I worked at a stock-photo agency some years back, we'd gotten hold of a Noritsu C41 processor for faster turnaround and tighter QC for our in-house shooters (I was in charge of this, as well as duplication services and our initial forays into digital work with scanning and such). When Kodak's T400CN first came out, it seems we almost immediately started pushing it a stop. That film didn't take to pushing as well as XP2 did, but I had an Ace for this: slowing down the Noritsu's film transport a certain percentage, thereby overdeveloping. The results were pretty good, all things considered, but even better when souping my own XP2 through it this way (now there's a perk I really, really miss). Trouble is, most small labs I've requested this from didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about, even though practically all C41 machines have this capability.

So, Bill, I have no opinion as to which is "better." I love the DIY approach to working with conventional b/w, which is why I'll never stop shooting the stuff. But I can't imagine living without the chromos. As long as film is my primary medium, I want both in my 'fridge.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
I have mixed feelings about CN. I like the really smooth tonality, fine grain (dye), sharpness and massive amount of dynamic range. It also scans very nicely.

But it's more expensive to shoot than something like Tri-X, especially if you do your own processing. The lab cost alone deter me. I develop all of my B/W and even mix my own developer, so my costs are as low as they are going to get.

CN also has a different spectral sensitivity than real black and white film, which gives a different look. It probably also has the same lifespan as other C41 films, which is shorter than real b/w.

I've mentioned this before, but what will ultimately kill film is the lack of reasonably priced, reliable and good analog cameras. Unless companies continue to produce them (not only 4x5 etc) or we can get them properly serviced, it will be over. You can't shoot film with a broken camera.
 
Generally for night time exposures I have found the greatest success with Ilford XP2. And so I have stuck with that rather than using a traditional B+W film. The good thing about XP2 is I can print it easily and get great results in my darkroom, as opposed to something like Kodak BW400CN which whilst pretty decent, it on an orange base.

Everything else I shoot traditional black and white as I can develop it easily at home, print it etc., and I for most of my shots that aren't long night exposures, I just can't get enough of the tonality that I get out of my favoured black and white films.
 
I have begun shooting B&W again recently using both XP-2 and TMY-2 pushed to 1600 -- on a current project, frequently exposed at 1/15 and f/1.5 (a Sonnar) at my church during daylight no less! Processing in both cases has been at my local lab. Negatives are scanned on a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED. I find both films to scan well, especially the XP-2. The T-Max at 1600, of course, has more grain (even after processing with Noise Ninja but at a very low noise reduction setting) but acceptable for the type of project. The XP-2 seems to need a little more sharpening than the T-Max.

Back in my darkrom days, I typically shot Tri-X (who didn't?) processed in Microdol-X 1:3 or D-76 1:1 and printed on Brovira developed in a Beers solution. In those days, my prints tended to be "light" -- somewhat typical for the era, I think. Now I am printing using an Epson 3800 using its ABW palette, fine tuned a little to get me the tonal range more akin to Portriga.- a change in my preference, not the materials. Overall, I have come to prefer, even for B&W, digital printing -- a lot more convenient and I like the prints at least as well if not better. I have not tried B&W from my DSLR, but that may happen eventually.

One point we should all remember, however: If the image speaks to your audience, it does not matter how you got there.
 
in my early photo-times(70/80ties) i used plus x(200) and later almost all the time tri-x developped in promicrol(may+baker) at that time. then i went to roto-panorama(30 years back). horizont,horizon(35mm), widelux, roundshot(120/220/70mm). using CN is a must for panoramic work. latest development are the agfa avicolor films. only 35mm version is n800. n100,n400(x100,x400 without mask), n800 are only 70mm and above. for 100 and 400 in 35mm we must cut them down. its a pity that even there are no 120/220-long rolls around. the x-types(100,400) -without mask are ideal for scanning and b+w. all avicolors can easily be pushed/pulled. there was even a h100 around(h=high contrast). i think this was the agfa ultra 100-emulsion. one can shoot under difficult light-situation and get the colors right.
all avicolors have uv-filter built in. i did my own 70mm developping. want to shoot 35mm again, mostly for panoramas. hope to do this in spring using newest kodak ektar 100 and contax/yashica/zeiss. i have a lookaround 360 pancam-prototype(18,24,28,35mm) can use 35mm UP film(see above 70mm cutting). would lead to impressive one-shot-panos for large prints. its a pity that until know noone has announced to produce this wonderful mechanical camera(electronic option). i would like to have leica m6 with c/y-adapter for slow panorama-work. but my yashica fx-3 super 2000 could do the same, even better regarding focussing.
btw: mahn foto of germany offers an x-400-variant( 200 asa) in 120 size.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom