BW400CN or TriX?

[Allan Reade]

I've been using Kodak BW400CN and getting it developed in a local lab. The last 2 rolls have had lab problems, developing marks on one and a fogged first frame on the other so will change to a different lab which can also develop true BW film. Is there any advantage of using TriX if I'm still using a lab?
Thanks for any thoughts, I realise lab processing is very limiting in terms of getting the best from the film, but for me it's the answer at the moment.
Allan

 

[wlewisiii]

First - what do you mean by Lab? Any place that is more than a 1 hour drugstore Fuji frontier should not have any problems with something as simple as C41/BW400CN. If they did, they need to _PAY_.

If I want some one else doing the work, I buy BW400CN. If I will be processing it, I buy conventional film, type being dependant upon what I'm doing. More 100 these days than 400 for what it's worth.

If you can not process at home, buy the C41 film and find a processor you can trust.

William

 

[gb hill]

Most labs don't do traditional films like tri-x & the ones that do are shoddy (meaning they don't care) + expensive. Traditional b&w films are much better suited for home development. It depends much on the developer used, temperature, times, etc. Just find yourself a good lab & consider getting set up to do your own b&w processing. It's not hard or expensive especially if you use one shot developers like Rodinal or Kodak HC-110.

 

[not_in_good_order]

I use a lab to develop my traditional b&w film (like tri x) and have always been very impressed with the results. I don't scan any of my traditional b&w film (I only scan c-41 and e-6), so I don't have any examples online to show, unfortunately. I'm considering trying to develop tri x at home, but because of space limitations, I would still have to take the negatives to the lab to get a contact sheet and/or prints made. Here is a link to the lab I use:

http://labwork-bw.com/

 

[Al Kaplan]

Properly processed conventional film's silver image will be more long term stable than a C-41 film's dye image. The orange mask in Kodak's C-41 film makes it a pain to print on conventional B&W silver halide papers.

 

[Santafecino]

I have always thought that a film like tri-x gives you a longer and smoother tonal scale than a film processed by C-41 and producing a dye image. I've never tested this in any careful manner, but the photofinishing prints that I see come back from black and white C-41 film look awfully contrasty. On the other hand, I've seen some pictures posted here from C-41 films that look pretty good. Come to think of it, you can get characteristic curves for most kodak b&w films--they should be on the web--so this can be compared at least roughly.

 

[pakeha]

what city are you in Allan?

 

[Allan Reade]

Thank you for your replies.

Pakeha, I'm in Christchurch, how about you?

Allan

 

[mfogiel]

BW400CN is a nice film for taking female portraits in good light, that's about it. For anything else TriX wins hands down, that is if you do not mind the appearance of some grain in your photos. It is the best B&W film ever made for latitude, tonality, consistency and ease of processing, and developed correctly it can also be quite sharp.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have always thought that a film like tri-x gives you a longer and smoother tonal scale than a film processed by C-41 and producing a dye image. I've never tested this in any careful manner, but the photofinishing prints that I see come back from black and white C-41 film look awfully contrasty. On the other hand, I've seen some pictures posted here from C-41 films that look pretty good. Come to think of it, you can get characteristic curves for most kodak b&w films--they should be on the web--so this can be compared at least roughly.

In my experience (born out by theory) the exact opposite is true with Ilford XP-series: a long, straight characteristic curve is why you can rate chromogenics at a wide range of speeds without changing development.

You may prefer the Tri-X tonality, but that's aother matter. And Kodak's chromogenics have a funny-shaped characteristic curve which gives inferior highlights to XP.

For scanning, XP2 has the enormous advantage of no Callier effect, i.e, light scattering by the silver image, and it also prints very well indeed on 'real' paper. The picture on the web page referenced below is an XP2 Super print on Ilford Multigrade Warmtone and I don't think you can fault the tonality: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool3.html.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha, I'm in Christchurch, how about you?

North Island Allan, i was going to suggest the lab i use if we both resided in the same island, lucky to have one here that really cares and is proffressional. regards