srtiwari
Daktari
You know, I have tons ( 100 rolls ? and ten 100ft rolls ?) of conventional B&W film, BUT both, the Reala conversions, and the B&W C41, look great to me !
C-41 for B&W, Reala vs Chromogenic
- Thread starter srtiwari
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 2K
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Reala:
Neopan 400 CN:
No changes from minilab scans. I wouldn't want to, I don't know how, and really can't see why.
All I do is resize, and maybe trim just a tiny bit and straighten the horizon.
Some people can't tell margarine from butter.
Neopan 400 CN:
No changes from minilab scans. I wouldn't want to, I don't know how, and really can't see why.
All I do is resize, and maybe trim just a tiny bit and straighten the horizon.
Some people can't tell margarine from butter.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I do wish people would read these threads and answer to the point.
srtiwari was very clearly asking about C41 films, not conventional films.
Who knows his situation? But that was what he asked.
I could well have asked a similar question myself, and been annoyed when I was advised to use conventional B&W film. Not just this thread today but over and over again at RFF. As if you're not a real photographer if you don't develop your own film.
In my case...
1 Only 1% of my work is B&W, so it makes sense to use C41, rather than use conventional film and do it myself.
2 Conventional film is not available here.
3 B&W film processing is not available.
4 The equipment and chemicals are not available.
5 The water supply can suddenly be turned off without warning for long periods.
6 The water heater is not reliable.
7 There are unexpected power cuts which can last all day.
Yes, I can develop conventional B&W, and have done many. I was a long time into my photography before I even used a color film.
It just annoys me how some people will not or do not stick to the point, and perhaps do not understand that some of us work within constraints beyond our control.
srtiwari was very clearly asking about C41 films, not conventional films.
Who knows his situation? But that was what he asked.
I could well have asked a similar question myself, and been annoyed when I was advised to use conventional B&W film. Not just this thread today but over and over again at RFF. As if you're not a real photographer if you don't develop your own film.
In my case...
1 Only 1% of my work is B&W, so it makes sense to use C41, rather than use conventional film and do it myself.
2 Conventional film is not available here.
3 B&W film processing is not available.
4 The equipment and chemicals are not available.
5 The water supply can suddenly be turned off without warning for long periods.
6 The water heater is not reliable.
7 There are unexpected power cuts which can last all day.
Yes, I can develop conventional B&W, and have done many. I was a long time into my photography before I even used a color film.
It just annoys me how some people will not or do not stick to the point, and perhaps do not understand that some of us work within constraints beyond our control.
robertdfeinman
Robert Feinman
darkroom
darkroom
The purpose of the C41 B&W films is to allow quick processing via color chemicals while making the prints using conventional silver printing processes.
If you are going to scan the negatives and print digitally then these films offer no advantage. Issues of grain and "sharpness" are insignificant at all reasonable magnifications.
If you shoot color negative you have the option of printing in color later. In addition you can add color "filters" afterwards.
Here's my tip on this:
Using Color Film to Make Black and White Prints
There is a lot of snobbery in photography, where the difficulty of using the materials is supposed to imply the end result is "better".
darkroom
The purpose of the C41 B&W films is to allow quick processing via color chemicals while making the prints using conventional silver printing processes.
If you are going to scan the negatives and print digitally then these films offer no advantage. Issues of grain and "sharpness" are insignificant at all reasonable magnifications.
If you shoot color negative you have the option of printing in color later. In addition you can add color "filters" afterwards.
Here's my tip on this:
Using Color Film to Make Black and White Prints
There is a lot of snobbery in photography, where the difficulty of using the materials is supposed to imply the end result is "better".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Robert,
Absolutely -- which is why I find chromogenic mono (XP2 Super) to be both easier and better. See the first picture in:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps how process 35-120.html
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
My 2 favorite films these days are Reala & BW400CN; I prefer to use each for it's primary purpose as I think that the BW400CN does a much better job than the conversions.
William
William
Ilford's original XP1 chromogenic used a slightly modified C-41 process that resulted in higher densities and contrast than running it through the local C-41 lab. Ilford sold XP-1 processing kits in at least a couple sizes for home and small-lab use, containing very C-41-like chemical solutions but which specified 5 minutes development (as I recall) instead of C-41's 3.25 minutes at 100 degF. The standard lab C-41 worked ok too, just with slightly flatter negs. This wasn't all bad, as at least it recorded a wide range of scene brightness, but usually called for higher-contrast printing paper. I did a lot of my own XP1 film processing, and printed a lot on Ilford Multigrade papers.
There was no corresponding XP2 processing kits, I think, when the improved chromogenic was introduced. I'm certain that one of the improvements was to make the film more fully compatible with the standard C-41 process, with normal negative density and contrast. The old XP1 processing kit still worked, as it did also for Kodacolor II.
I don't know if it's true, but back in the XP1 days we were told that the film did have three dye layers like color films, just that the dyes were all black, and that the layers aided the claims of wide ISO tolerance. If so, then this would also support the idea that the chromogenics have some inherent advantages over color neg films printed as B&W, say in tonal qualities. This is CERTAINLY true in the conventional darkroom printing on B&W papers, especially multi-contrast ones, since Ilford's, Fuji's, and Agfa's chromogenic films had no orange mask to mess up the effort.
Scanning removes the masking distinction I think, and post-processing might well address other differences. Still, I happily use Ilford XP2 and its Fuji clone (giving generous exposure), and like the "look".
There was no corresponding XP2 processing kits, I think, when the improved chromogenic was introduced. I'm certain that one of the improvements was to make the film more fully compatible with the standard C-41 process, with normal negative density and contrast. The old XP1 processing kit still worked, as it did also for Kodacolor II.
I don't know if it's true, but back in the XP1 days we were told that the film did have three dye layers like color films, just that the dyes were all black, and that the layers aided the claims of wide ISO tolerance. If so, then this would also support the idea that the chromogenics have some inherent advantages over color neg films printed as B&W, say in tonal qualities. This is CERTAINLY true in the conventional darkroom printing on B&W papers, especially multi-contrast ones, since Ilford's, Fuji's, and Agfa's chromogenic films had no orange mask to mess up the effort.
Scanning removes the masking distinction I think, and post-processing might well address other differences. Still, I happily use Ilford XP2 and its Fuji clone (giving generous exposure), and like the "look".
ampguy
Veteran
Subhash
Subhash
You might want to sell off the b/w film. One of the reasons I use Reala is because it's simply cheaper than b/w film for me.
Subhash
You might want to sell off the b/w film. One of the reasons I use Reala is because it's simply cheaper than b/w film for me.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Roger Hicks said:
Roger Hicks said:
I'm getting confused here.
srtiwari
Daktari
Thank you all !
Thank you all !
Well. This thread appears to have had a longer- and more interesting- life than I would have predicted. And I have learnt something - that the Chromogenics are very good for much of the B&W work that I enjoy. Whereas Color (Reala) offer more options, getting veery good B&W prints is more complicated, and by the less skilled, not as good. THIS was the question I was tryiing to clarify for myself.
I did not ask about conventional B&W films, but have also learnt something useful- that the differences with Color/Chromogenics are NOT as great for the sizes and types (11x14 , Inkjet) of prints I normally like to make. And that to fully utilise information for making larger exhibition type prints, B&W film would better.
Interestingly, I realise that many people passionately defend the 'obvious' superiority of B&W film.
And lastly, I own so much B&W film because-
1. I enjoy developing.
2. The 1hr Labs may be increasingly difficult to find for 35mm, as they are for 120 already.
So, nice try, AmpGuy, but I think you're going to have to find your own.😀
Hmm...Maybe I should try out doing XP2 Super in Rodinal. :bang:
But then, I better save that for a whole new thread. 😛
Subhash
Thank you all !
Well. This thread appears to have had a longer- and more interesting- life than I would have predicted. And I have learnt something - that the Chromogenics are very good for much of the B&W work that I enjoy. Whereas Color (Reala) offer more options, getting veery good B&W prints is more complicated, and by the less skilled, not as good. THIS was the question I was tryiing to clarify for myself.
I did not ask about conventional B&W films, but have also learnt something useful- that the differences with Color/Chromogenics are NOT as great for the sizes and types (11x14 , Inkjet) of prints I normally like to make. And that to fully utilise information for making larger exhibition type prints, B&W film would better.
Interestingly, I realise that many people passionately defend the 'obvious' superiority of B&W film.
And lastly, I own so much B&W film because-
1. I enjoy developing.
2. The 1hr Labs may be increasingly difficult to find for 35mm, as they are for 120 already.
So, nice try, AmpGuy, but I think you're going to have to find your own.😀
Hmm...Maybe I should try out doing XP2 Super in Rodinal. :bang:
But then, I better save that for a whole new thread. 😛
Subhash
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
