dazedgonebye
Veteran
My current preference is to use color negative film (Kodak 400UC) and scan the negatives. Almost everything gets converted to black and white in photoshop.
Would there be any advantage to shooting BW400CN instead and scanning that? Does the BW400CN offer the higher definition of traditional black and white?
Thanks
Would there be any advantage to shooting BW400CN instead and scanning that? Does the BW400CN offer the higher definition of traditional black and white?
Thanks
VinceC
Veteran
I don't know if it has higher definition. When exposed around 125 to 200 ISO, it has extremely fine grain. The exposure latitude is excellent.
I tend to shoot differently when black and white film is in the camera. With color, I am consciously aware of colors, whereas with black and white, I am aware of tones and contrasts. I typically use Fujicolor for color work and the Kodak chromogenic for black-and-white work. It costs about twice as much per roll as the Fuji, but I like the discipline and thought process of knowing it's genuine black-and-white film.
I tend to shoot differently when black and white film is in the camera. With color, I am consciously aware of colors, whereas with black and white, I am aware of tones and contrasts. I typically use Fujicolor for color work and the Kodak chromogenic for black-and-white work. It costs about twice as much per roll as the Fuji, but I like the discipline and thought process of knowing it's genuine black-and-white film.
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
No real benefit unless you happen to like the character and "profile" of the chromo film. I happen to really like XP2 for some situations and use it from time to time. Using color of course, and using various conversion methods in PS and such, does allow you to change your results as if you used various B&W filters which is nice.
That all said though I still shoot about 90% traditional B&W films like Fuji Acros, Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5+, FP4+, etc. I just find their character, grain, tonality, etc. something I cannot duplicate in converting color films to B&W.
That all said though I still shoot about 90% traditional B&W films like Fuji Acros, Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5+, FP4+, etc. I just find their character, grain, tonality, etc. something I cannot duplicate in converting color films to B&W.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I like the look of 400UC converted better than the look of the chromogenic films. 400UC, sweet film that seems to be disappearing from my local drugstore.
gb hill
Veteran
RayPA said:I like the look of 400UC converted better than the look of the chromogenic films. 400UC, sweet film that seems to be disappearing from my local drugstore.
They have it at WalMarts around here. I've never tried 400uc, How is the exposure lat. on color films compared to the B&W chroms. I've always rated my color films by whats on the box. Maybe i'm missing out on something cool.
GeneW
Veteran
With col C-41 film you get the 3 channels to play with and mix as desired: red, green, blue. This gives you more tonal options when converting to B&W. And you retain the option of keeping it as a col shot.
Gene
Gene
dazedgonebye
Veteran
GeneW said:
That's always been my thinking...but I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something with the chromogenics.
I do miss the grain of true black and white films. I've got my first roll of Tri-x (for some time) out being developed.
I think I run the one roll of BW400CN that I have through for the fun of it as well.
Long ago I read an explanation that the chromogenic B&W still use three sensitive layers but that (unlike color film) all three have black dyes. Each of the three layers has a somewhat different sensitivity or speed, from which arose the manufacturer's claim that it was usable from EI 50 to 800 or more. As it turned out, I just like the "look" and tonality of the chromogenic, so it's been a favorite since the 80's.
One thing that has puzzled me a bit is that every one of the chromogenics, whether from Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Konica, or Agfa are all basically rated at ISO 400. None designed for primary use faster or slower, as with color films. I do find that 2/3 stop or so extra exposure tends to smooth the grain especially in the shadows for a richer look.
One thing that has puzzled me a bit is that every one of the chromogenics, whether from Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Konica, or Agfa are all basically rated at ISO 400. None designed for primary use faster or slower, as with color films. I do find that 2/3 stop or so extra exposure tends to smooth the grain especially in the shadows for a richer look.
R
rich815
Guest
I have a 622 Standard, a 2.8E Planar, 2.8C Xenotar and 3.5E3 Xenotar. Owned and sold (wish I never did!) a 3.5 Xenar Rolleicord a few years back. Love them all. You really cannot go wrong. Most people would say be patient in your search and find the one in your price range in the best condition you can. Calculate in a CLA cost (I've used Paul Ebel for all my Rollei TLR work, great guy, good prices, great work----$125 for a full CLA and even some tweaking repair? Not bad).
Most important is get it from a reliable source. My 3.5E3 Xenotar I obtained for only $125 and described as "needs a CLA". Well, it actually had been severely dropped on it's focus-knob side and on the front, badly. Paul had a heck of a time getting things straightened out and it seems it will be ok. An ugly beater user and even after my $140 or so in repair and shipping I still got it for a decent price but if I had known I would not have taken it. Reliable people may charge a bit more but if you find a too good to be true deal it usually is too good to be true.
One more site to check out for Rollei TLRs:
http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/index.shtml
Most important is get it from a reliable source. My 3.5E3 Xenotar I obtained for only $125 and described as "needs a CLA". Well, it actually had been severely dropped on it's focus-knob side and on the front, badly. Paul had a heck of a time getting things straightened out and it seems it will be ok. An ugly beater user and even after my $140 or so in repair and shipping I still got it for a decent price but if I had known I would not have taken it. Reliable people may charge a bit more but if you find a too good to be true deal it usually is too good to be true.
One more site to check out for Rollei TLRs:
http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/index.shtml