>Kodak then released essentially the same emulsion with a
>slightly different orange mask for consumers called Black and
>White Plus 400 about a year or so later, along with the same
>thing under a slightly different name for APS. The release of
>a B&W chromogenic under the Portra umbrella was relatively
>recent after several years of marketing them as T400CN and the
>consumer version. All of these are essentially the same film.
They are, but they aren't. The response curves vary a bit
between the films. The Portra version tends to be a bit better
in the skin-tone department than the others. Portra doesn't
have the extreme "latitude" of the others either (better tonal
seperations because the shoulder is shorter).
Frankly, I find the Kodak versions to be very inferior to Ilford
XP-2. Skin-tones of Portra BW are better, but that's it.
Folks, it is really hard to beat TMAX 100 or Delta 100/400.
These films, with the proper developers, are the best of the
best.
But if you must shoot a C41 based monochrome film, I'd give the
nod to Ilford XP-2 for printing on conventional BW paper. If
you want a good "BW" film for portrait/wedding work, I'd shoot
Portra. Kodak's other BW-C41 films are nasty to work with in
the darkroom.
Very nasty!
Double the cost of reprints nasty!
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.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 >
|