CN or Silver

[Bill Pierce]

For those using film rf's and b&w film, I wondered who were using the CN films(and why) and who were using conventional films (and why)?

I find myself using more and more CN film and having it processed "out" even though I have a wet darkroom (CN scans really well.)

But I am worried that less and less film use could mean the disappearance of this service from labs and the decline in maintenance of the line at small one hour photo operations.

 

[Ken Ford]

I shoot CN almost exclusively - I don't care to maintain my wet darkroom, and CN scans well. The exposure latitude is a real plus.

 

[Glenn2]

Am doing much the same as you Bill. I mainly shoot Fuji Pro400P but also use Tri-X or HP5+ which gets home processed. Am very pleased with the Fuji material and am starting to refer to it as colour Tri-X.

Unfortunately the one hour place in the small town where I live has an extra step they run films through. Not quite sure what it is, but think it involves sandpaper or wire brush. ;-? As a result all my colour film goes to a large camera shop and is sent to a lab in Vancouver with better quality control.

In the old days I used to develop and print my own colour (Afga CNS) but have gotten too lazy in my elder years.

Glenn

 

[ferider]

If you don't mind a related question in your thread, Bill:

Is there any B+W C41 film that scans well, 800 ASA or above ? If it matters, I use a Nikon 5000 ED.

Thanks,

Roland.

 

[back alley]

i have finally admitted to myself that i am no longer interested in darkroom work.
i have sold off or given away almost all of my non c41 films.
i use a dslr for some stuff and when using my film gear the bodies have xp2 in them, rated at 200.
a good one hour lab takes care of developing and low res scanning. i can rescan any good shots i want printed.

i want to stay with rf gear but likely will start using an rd1 soon.

 

[Ken Ford]

I know what you mean, Joe. I fear that as soon as a full-frame M mount alternative comes along I'll be the same way - I've already seen it happen to my Nikons.

 

[back alley]

i'm starting to wonder about the new micro 4/3rds cameras with an adapter to use my m lenses.
the g1 looks good and oly might come up with something even better.

 

[Ken Ford]

That would be getting closer, but I think I'll wait for a full-featured RF experience - or at least a really good VF with accurate focus brackets slaved to focus indicators.

Sorry, dragging Bill's original question OT.

 

[rbiemer]

I don't have a darkroom and , for where I live most of the year, I can't do any film processing. So the CN films--mostly Kodak BW400 and a small amount of XP2--are very important to me. And I quite like the look of the Kodak. As joe mentions above, I use the low res scans as a contact sheet and rescan any thing I need bigger/better.
I found the Konica film just as it was being discontinued. That was too bad as I liked what I got from that film and was just starting to get to know it.
If I could find a good mail order lab, I'd be happy to shoot "real" BW film. Not sure why but it seems when I do find a place, they do well for a year or two and then I start getting badly treated negs back.
Rob

 

[mh2000]

For 35mm I shoot BW400CN exclusively, for 120 I still shoot traditional b&w films... reasons as stated by others, the c41 process is cheap and easy and the film scans wonderfully. For me, commercial processing of 120 is expensive and inconvenient (long drive).

No c41 b&w films have enough latitude for ISO 800 IMO (I'm scanning with Coolscan V and shadows look like crap even by 600).

 

[Ronald_H]

If you don't mind a related question in your thread, Bill:

Is there any B+W C41 film that scans well, 800 ASA or above ? If it matters, I use a Nikon 5000 ED.

Thanks,

Roland.

I've always liked Fuji Superia 800 (which is of course a color film, but you can always do a B/W conversion). I rate it at 640 in my Nikon FM. Don't underexpose it, or shadows get ugly. But with carefull exposure and a bit of Neat image (digital noise/grain reduction software) it can really sing.

It scans well in my old Minolta Scan Dual and in my Nikon Coolscan V.

Check this gallery, the color pics are all Superia 800.

http://ronald.krezipmedia.org/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=112&page=1&sort=na

Frankly, I don't really get the point of B/W C41 film. Why not use commonly available color film and make B/W from there? For traditional work there's always Tri-X... If there is an advantage to B/W C41 I've yet to find it, but be aware I don't print myself.

 

[ferider]

Thanks, Ronald.

You have any experience with Superia 1600 ? If yes, how do you rate it ?

Best,

Roland.

 

[Ronald_H]

I shot a few Superia 1600 rolls at concerts, a long time ago. Lighting (and metering) were unpredictable. I can say that I got usable negatives, but nothing to write home about. But it's too long ago really. My skills and equipment have come a long way since then...

When I started shooting film again I got a few rolls of Superia 800. My first results were rather disappointing, but I just needed to refine my technique for my current equipment. Correct exposure is really important, almost like shooting chromes. I guess it doesn't matter as much when doing conventional printing, but when scanning for sure.

Superia 800 really is very good when treated well. I still have some 20x30cm prints up from a few years ago, made from scans from the Minolta Scan Dual II. Even without grain reduction they look really nice.

Maybe you can get a few rolls and try some 800 and 1600? That doesn't break the bank. If you want to try traditional processing, Fuji Neopan 1600 in Diafine is also rather nice, but very contrasty. See below.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I have shot silver in both 35mm and 120 exclusively for the last four years now. I shot the chromogenics for several years before that.

The primary reason I shoot silver now is convenience & turnaround. I can carve 30 minutes out of this evening and process the film I shot yesterday and today. If I wanted to print tonight, I could. But if I had shot chromogenic, I would have to find time tomorrow or later to drop film off at the lab, then find time to go back and pick it up.

Cost is a secondary reason. I am now paying $1.99 a roll for 35mm film (Arista Premium), and $2.74 for 120 (Neopan 400 from B&H) Developer / fixer adds another dime per roll. Essentially film and developing cost is now insignificant.

Silver and chromogenic both have good image quality. Of course the silver is more flexible. Basically, this is a non factor in the choice for me.

 

[navilluspm]

I use conventional BW films in Rodinal, and have even started experimenting with Kodak Gold developed in Rodinal through stand developing with some decent results.

Why? It is cheap. I don't want to spend $4 a roll developing when I can do it for less than $0.50. Over time it adds up. I have 6 100 foot rolls of Pan F+ (Old Arista 50) that I got for $12 a roll and the expired Kodak Gold was $0.25 a roll.

I also lack a good BW printer and get better quality with my cheap AGFA paper from Ultrafine and $30 Omega enlarger. Cost per print is lower, even if I have to experiement with multiple prints a little in the make shift darkroom/bathroom - becasue the paper was 1/3 of the price of quality inkjet paper and the chemical are far far less expensive than inkjet ink.

So, those are my reasons.

 

[Pablito]

I dislike everything about the C41 films except the fact that they scan well, which can't be denied. I don't like the way those films look, period. Shadows are grainy and if you expose enough to get rid of the grain in the shadows, then the tonal curve is ugly, photos look too smooth and too flat. My personal taste, of course. I shoot a lot of DSLR and a lot of b&w. I'd rather shoot digital and convert to b&w than shoot C41. For serious b&w projects, I shoot HP5+ and TMZ. Oh and btw, cost is not a factor as I work from grants or commissioned projects.

 

[Dogman]

I dislike everything about the C41 films except the fact that they scan well, which can't be denied. I don't like the way those films look, period. Shadows are grainy and if you expose enough to get rid of the grain in the shadows, then the tonal curve is ugly, photos look too smooth and too flat. My personal taste, of course. I shoot a lot of DSLR and a lot of b&w. I'd rather shoot digital and convert to b&w than shoot C41. For serious b&w projects, I shoot HP5+ and TMZ. Oh and btw, cost is not a factor as I work from grants or commissioned projects.

I agree with pretty much everything said here except I prefer Rodinal and D76 for developers.

Also, as time goes buy and digital continues to grow in popularity, it will eventually become difficult to find any place that processes C41 film. If you want it done, you'll have to do it yourself and B&W film developing is simple and cheap.

 

[Bill Pierce]

If you don't mind a related question in your thread, Bill:

Is there any B+W C41 film that scans well, 800 ASA or above ? If it matters, I use a Nikon 5000 ED.

Thanks,

Roland.

When you say 800 ASA, there are a lot of variables. Once, when a pack of photographers were all going out to lunch, I had everybody meter the same scene at some ASA I picked out of a hat. The span of different exposures that everybody came up with - the same scene, the same ASA - was amazing. You'll be close to the speed limit of b&w CN films, but try it and see if your 800 looks good.

And, as has been noted, try shooting the high speed color and converting to b&w.

I am disturbed by the prevalent position that there is a glaring difference between b&w prints from digital (either digitally shot or printed from film that has been scanned) and from film. You can make digital look almost any way you want. One of the most powerful tools in any of the programs for digital raw files is the curve function. If a digital image is making a nice color print, try making the curve in the b&w conversion a stronger s curve. Compressing the shadow and highlight values and increasing the midtone contrast the way that film does may give you an image that seems more film like. As always, experiment. Some of the folks who see my work are experienced curators and fellow photographers. They can't tell the difference between the silver and inkjet prints without checking the reflective surface of the print.

 

[navilluspm]

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.

 

[navilluspm]

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?