C-41 for B&W, Reala vs Chromogenic

[srtiwari]

Now that I have "discovered" C-41 for Black & White (See pics), and the convenience, I wonder- Is there any benefit (in terms of final output) to using a color film and then converting to B&W vs the XP2Super/BW400CN films ? Of course, the Color film can also be used for Color pictures- obviously. I am only asking re: final Black and White prints.

BW400CN@ EI 250, 9000ED

 

[mfogiel]

You can use color film and convert - the result is going to be like a B&W picture from a bad digital camera - do you like these?
Well, maybe I am exaggerating slightly, but even if you scan at 48 bit, you will not get the same sharpness, because the film emulsion is thicker - there are 3 layers instead of one.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I use Fuji Neopan 400 CN from time to time.

The difference for me is that when that film is in a camera I know I'm looking for forms and light, and not for bright splashes of color.

The film changes my photography.

 

[srtiwari]

You can use color film and convert - the result is going to be like a B&W picture from a bad digital camera - do you like these?
Well, maybe I am exaggerating slightly, but even if you scan at 48 bit, you will not get the same sharpness, because the film emulsion is thicker - there are 3 layers instead of one.

I am not sure I understand. Perhaps you could clarify-

What do you mean when you say "- do you like these ? " I kinda do, but maybe I'm missing something ?

"...even if you scan at 48 bit, you will not get the same sharpness, because the film emulsion is thicker ..." Does this apply to the Chromogenics as well ?

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I don't know about emulsion thickness.

But I do know that if Fuji make the film* and Fuji make the scanner then they will have done some joined-up thinking along the way to ensure it all works together.


*Actually Fuji doesn't make this 'Fuji' film I use. It's actually made for them by Ilford, and is said to be very similar to Ilford's own XP2.

 

[Nh3]

the best option is to try it and find out for yourself.

 

[mfogiel]

The colour emulsion has 3 layers, the B&W emulsion one layer - simple. Take a look at these two portraits, and tell me which looks better:

I have actually scanned the second one badly, the final version does not have this pure white area on the sweater. One photo converted from a chrome colour film, the other is from a traditional silver film.

And a second set:

Same story as above - which one you like better?

 

[Bingley]

I am increasingly liking BW400cn for its tones. But it's possible to get pretty good results from a color c-41 film. Look at Tuna's recent work, which includes some really nice B&W shots taken w/ Reala. This shot of mine below was converted from Portra 160NC:

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

mfogiel:


But he's asking about C41 film, either using C41 color and taking out the color later or using C41 B&W.

 

[srtiwari]

"...Same story as above - which one you like better?..."

I prefer the second photo in both sets. However, the reasons may, or may not, be the same as yours.
Picture 1 in set 1 looks like some of mine when I apply too much noise reduction, and the tonality is not as good. In the second set too, the tonality is smoother, and the contrast is to my liking.
But, I do not see that the "sharpness" would be any different, and I do not see that as a problem in my pictures.

And, Yes, Jon, I was asking between the color vs the XP2 Super/ BW400CN options.

 

[mfogiel]

srtiwari
In fact, in both cases, the second shot was done on silver film - and you see the difference especially in terms of tonality - the sharpness can be altered through scanning and sharpening, etc. I find B&W chromogenic films acceptable for beach photos and especially for portraits. They fall down dramatically when you want a decent rendering of the lower middle tones, the shadows just fall apart... For general shooting however, if you want to use them, I have found XP2 to be better than Kodak, which may be preferable for portraits. Remember to expose at ISO 200 maximum.

 

[Papercut]

srtiwari,

the difference between colo(u)r vs. chromogenic b/w is two-fold, I think. First, the color allows you (if you use PS) to play with color channels or the new b/w mixer tool to map specific colors to specific gray tones, much like a black and white conversion of a digital camera file. You lose this capability when you move to any black and white film (c-41 or silver), as the film does this for you.

Second, is the question of whether you can get satisfactory results from color film. I've seen some very nice b/w conversions on the web but these are all at web resolutions. I personally have tried with numerous color film shots of my own and I simply cannot get acceptable black and white results. The conversion always ends up with objectionable "grain", which really looks more like ugly digital noise than traditional silver grain. The conversion is more flexible (see #1) to be sure, but I personally just cannot get good results, so I prefer to let the films (either traditional silver or BW400CN) do the conversion for me.

Some people don't like the chromogenic black and whites (mfogiel is clearly in that camp), but I find Kodak's BW400CN to be an excellent film -- I'd shoot it a lot more if it wasn't three times the cost (once processing is included) per roll of my Neopan 400! 🙂

The best advice is to try it and see for yourself. Do some color conversions and have them printed, see if you like the results. Shoot similar scenes with chromogenics and traditional silver and compare the prints and decide based on those.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

One is Reala with the color information taken out, the other is Neopan 400 CN...

and

"Can you tell margarine from butter?"

 

[mfogiel]

For me, Reala is the second shot, it looks like it is tonally much poorer, although you could have pulled the contrast on purpose.

 

[Roger Hicks]

From personal experience, making prints, XP2 beats the pants off colour conversions. So too do MOST (far from all) of other people's conversion prints: they almost always look muddy to me. I have seen some excellent conversions, but I suspect that it may be heavily subject-matter-dependent. Also, some things look better on the web or in repro than as originals.

Then again, I vastly prefer real silver prints for B+W anyway, so it may be no more than my lack of skill in scanning and printing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wray]

I find that converted c-41 negs can be quite tonally rich if processed properly in Photoshop. Here's a converted Fuji Superia 400 shot.

 

[srtiwari]

Wray, I agree with you. And that is a terrific picture.
Differences there may be, but these are not so obvious, and the B&W C41 film allow for excellent prints.
Of course, my original question did not involve conventional B&W films at all.

 

[wray]

Wray, I agree with you. And that is a terrific picture.
Differences there may be, but these are not so obvious, and the B&W C41 film allow for excellent prints.
Of course, my original question did not involve conventional B&W films at all.

Hey, don't get me wrong. 😀 I have plenty of Xp-2 and B&W 400 cn film on hand. They all work if well exposed and post processed properly. If you look at the image above there are tones from pure black to white and I don't think the shadows are blocked nor are the mid tones muddy.

 

[ampguy]

Hi Jon

Hi Jon

interesting thread and examples, but I could easily get Reala to look like the 2nd one with d76 (straight or 2:1) and "chemical x" fixer.

One is Reala with the color information taken out, the other is Neopan 400 CN...

and

"Can you tell margarine from butter?"

 

[wray]

Oh and I did dig up a converted Reala image.