Steve M.
Veteran
I bought this C41 B&W film on fleabay for $1.14 a roll (had to buy 100 rolls though)
and posted my results here about a week ago. Unfortunately, my usual man wasn't at the Walgreens photo desk when I dropped off the film that day, and of course the results were all over the place. Mostly from bad and oversharpened scans.
I went back today w/ new film and the usual guy was there, so I dropped off a roll of the Kodak C41 B&W, and a roll of the generic B&W film. Both rolls were shot w/ the same camera, a Nikon N8008s w/ a Leica R 90 2.0 Summicron lens. They were taken on different days, but I let the camera use it's AE on both rolls so the exposures should be similar.
These scans turned out very well, as they always do when The Man is there.
So there's a bit of control here. Both films from the same camera, and developed and scanned by Walgreens the same day. I performed the usual amount of processing that I would normally have done in PS.
Here's a representative scan from the Kodak film, followed by one from the generic B&W film.
Here's the links to the folders on flickr. First the Kodak, then the generic film.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41465667@N06/sets/72157626083751070/show/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41465667@N06/sets/72157626083769338/show/
These are both very good films. The Kodak has that odd orange mask, and the grain is very smooth. This film doesn't have a lot of mid tones, so it likes lots of contrast. If you do have a scene w/ a lot of mid tones you may regret it, as my experience is you get really boring, gray negs. It doesn't mind a little under or over exposure. The blotches in the sky on the church shot are little black deals on the negative. It's the only one on the roll that had that problem, so who knows?
The generic B&W film is more like Ilford XP2, w/ no orange mask and has a grain to it. The grain is more attractive than the Ilford to me, but a lot depends on that. This film does not like to be over exposed. The couple of times I accidentally underexposed it (like the last shot of the 'maters) resulted in a better photo in my opinion. I also included a filtered shot of the lamp post so you can see the difference. Personally, I like the first shot w/ the grain.
Disclaimer: Before anyone moans about wanting better scans, there is no way I'm going to scan in a lot of these negs w/ a film scanner. I hate scanning, and my experience w/ my Walgreens is that if they do the scans right, there really isn't that much to be gained by using a better scanner other than a larger file size. Your results may be different, as mine were when the wrong people were at the scanner controls. These may look sharpened, but only a little. Hey, it's a Leica lens! It's SUPPOSED to be sharp and 3-D ish.
and posted my results here about a week ago. Unfortunately, my usual man wasn't at the Walgreens photo desk when I dropped off the film that day, and of course the results were all over the place. Mostly from bad and oversharpened scans.
I went back today w/ new film and the usual guy was there, so I dropped off a roll of the Kodak C41 B&W, and a roll of the generic B&W film. Both rolls were shot w/ the same camera, a Nikon N8008s w/ a Leica R 90 2.0 Summicron lens. They were taken on different days, but I let the camera use it's AE on both rolls so the exposures should be similar.
These scans turned out very well, as they always do when The Man is there.
So there's a bit of control here. Both films from the same camera, and developed and scanned by Walgreens the same day. I performed the usual amount of processing that I would normally have done in PS.
Here's a representative scan from the Kodak film, followed by one from the generic B&W film.
Here's the links to the folders on flickr. First the Kodak, then the generic film.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41465667@N06/sets/72157626083751070/show/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41465667@N06/sets/72157626083769338/show/
These are both very good films. The Kodak has that odd orange mask, and the grain is very smooth. This film doesn't have a lot of mid tones, so it likes lots of contrast. If you do have a scene w/ a lot of mid tones you may regret it, as my experience is you get really boring, gray negs. It doesn't mind a little under or over exposure. The blotches in the sky on the church shot are little black deals on the negative. It's the only one on the roll that had that problem, so who knows?
The generic B&W film is more like Ilford XP2, w/ no orange mask and has a grain to it. The grain is more attractive than the Ilford to me, but a lot depends on that. This film does not like to be over exposed. The couple of times I accidentally underexposed it (like the last shot of the 'maters) resulted in a better photo in my opinion. I also included a filtered shot of the lamp post so you can see the difference. Personally, I like the first shot w/ the grain.
Disclaimer: Before anyone moans about wanting better scans, there is no way I'm going to scan in a lot of these negs w/ a film scanner. I hate scanning, and my experience w/ my Walgreens is that if they do the scans right, there really isn't that much to be gained by using a better scanner other than a larger file size. Your results may be different, as mine were when the wrong people were at the scanner controls. These may look sharpened, but only a little. Hey, it's a Leica lens! It's SUPPOSED to be sharp and 3-D ish.
Last edited:
