> My understanding has been -
> XP-2 if you print your own but don't want to process as it has
very
> little base (orange) mask and performs better on BW paper.
> Kodak B&W Select if you use an ordinary but good mini-lab,
>T400CN if you use a pro lab. The Kodak films seem to be
>optimised for colour paper.
> Both Kodaks appreciate being rated at 200iso for slightly
>higher contrast
> according to a test I saw in a local magazine. For >the
'masses' - I'd > recommend B&W Select for safety.
>...and what about portra 400bw?
Here's a brief matrix of the C41 films, from my perspective:
Film Paper best for Curve characteristic
-------------- ----------------- -------------------------
Portra 400BW Color Paper Good mids, short shoulder
T400CN Color/BW Paper Long toe, long shoulder
Select BW Color Paper Long shoulder
XP-2 Super BW Papar REALLY LONG shoulder
Portra is NOT intended for BW enlargers in any way, shape or
form. It is intended to be a near perfect match to the rest of
the Portra film line and is to be printed on the same paper with
nearly the same channel information. The negs are too dense to
work with in the darkroom on traditional BW paper. The curves
are off a bit too, and the contrast steps do not match without
using split-grade printing. (In photoshop terms--the gamma is
off). I've printed a few shots from Portra BW in the darkroom
and find that it is on the verge of impossibility. Not a fun
project. Portra prints very nicely in a pro color lab, and is
intended for wedding/portrait work.
T400CN has a very long toe and shoulder. As such, there is very
poor tonal seperation if the film hasn't been exposed as close
to full density range on the film as possible. The film gets
much sharper as it is overexposed, but you pay for it on the
back end. T400CN scans well (like the Portra), and prints
nicely on color paper. For traditional BW printing, T400CN is
an order of magnitude harder to work with than traditional
films. As with the Portra film, the gamma is a bit off. Most
exhibition grade prints require split-grade printing techniques.
BW Select is harder to work with in the darkroom than T400CN, if
you can believe it! I've pulled a few hairs out trying to get
satisfactory prints from this film. I have one word for this
film: "Yucky!" The base is too dark and the color throws off
the multigrade paper into being 1 1/2 grades too soft. Along
with T400CN, this film needs to be printed at Grade 4 or
thereabouts. Blacks aren't clean and the tonal seperations just
aren't there. This is a film that should be reserved for
scanning or color printing. I think the "grain" is unsightly
too. Just my opinion, though. I have comparision rolls taken
with four different types of film and compared to HP5 or XP-2,
the Kodak C41 films just didn't look natural or pleasing. They
look more like a desaturated color picture.
XP-2 Super's base, when adequately washed should have a nice
purple cast to it. It almost looks like TMAX. The base is
clear enough that you can print it almost two grades softer than
Kodak films. This is very important as an increase in paper
grade will inherently exaggerate any problems in the enlarging
process. Dust, scratches, peppergrain, it is all intensified
whenever you have to increase paper grade.
Consider the output. If you are seeking BW prints from a
one-hour lab, I'd give the nod to Kodak's BW Select. If you are
seeking BW prints that need to match color prints from a
wedding/portrait shoot, I'd recommend Portra BW. If you want a
good either/or film, T400CN is a fine choice--just expose it
carefully. If you want a C41 BW film that you intend on
printing on BW paper in a darkroom, Ilford XP-2 is my
recommendation.
Since I've been running lab work for others, I've printed from
just about everything. My recommendation is to ignore all of
the exposure "rules of thumb" that you've ever heard and reset
your meter back to the film's ISO rating. Only after you've
PROVED through experience (and good quality lab printing) that
your shadows need more exposure do you downrate the film speed.
Especially with C41 based BW films. These films have a longer
toe than traditional BW films so there will be an apparent
increase in shadow detail anyway. The HUGE shoulder of these
films means that ANY overexposure of the film will result in a
loss of tonal seperations. XP-2 being the biggest example of
that.
If you want the best BW film, use a real BW film and control the
development carefully. The film is part of a complete "system".
(I personally use the complete Ilford "System" of films,
chemicals and papers). Changing one element of the "system"
over to a C41 based process and going to dye-cloud negs skews
the "system". However, for the bulk of you, the intended output
is either One-Hour color process/prints and scanning. For that,
any of the C41 based films would be a better choice than
traditional BW films, with a nod towards the Kodak because the
base color is better for color printing.
If your intent is to use the One-Hour lab and scan most items
with an eye for the occasional exhibition grade print, I'd
recommend the Ilford XP-2 Super.
If you want the best BW film, well, stick with the Ilford
Deltas.
One man's opinion.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|