Chromogenic B&W Film

alapin said:

I haven't shot B&W film for along time. The only available film in my area is limited to Kodak BW400 CN. I found on the web which says it can be developed in color developer, but is difficult to print on BW paper or to make digital scans. I know you can order from the web and get Ilford XP Super chromogenic cn film as well. I also found that Kodak Portra Cn is available but cost much more.

The question is does anyone use any of these and what is your opinion of them? Do you recommend using them or such I just order regular B&W film.

I am looking to setup a darkroom around the first of the year. So I would need to use a lab until the darkroom is up and running.

Click to expand...

In a pinch, I've used the XP2-Super. But remember the reason they can process C41 is because it's a film made up of dyes for b&w rather than color. And eventually all dyes fade.

Stick with silver-based b&w film and (if properly stored) can last 100 years.
I've got glass-plate negatives which today still print perfectly more than 100 years old.

I hope I'm around in a 100 years to print all the crummy negatives I'm turning out

Scanning these films are easier than trad B&W since the image is formed by dyes; you can use ICE to take care of dust and scratches.

Easier? Maybe but even today you could make a print from an 1800s glass negative. Who will be able to read whatever format imagery has morphed into by then? Not that long ago we were using ZIP drives. Now they're kaput. Photo CD? Can get dirty, scratched, broken. Everything lost. Even storing in the computer, sometimes a virus will kill that file. Then what have you got?

I've still got the negative and a darkroom for up to 20x30 printing! Make a fresh print, all done.

Permanence of the negative is not relevant to me. The negative is just something that allows me to make a print, which I do expect to be permanent. I don't care at all whether someone might be able to print one of my negatives a hundred years from now. In fact, I rather think that I would prefer that not be the case since the negatives were made with my vision and visualization process and it is doubtful that someone removed 100 years in time would understand that. And for every glass plate negative from the 19th century that has survived I would wager there are at least a thousand that have not.

As for dye based B&W film versus traditional, I generally prefer traditional films developed in staining developers (which also give a dye) because of their greater dynamic dynamic range compared to C41 type B&W films. However, you can definitely get more out of a C41 B&W film by scanning than by printing it directly.

Sandy

Rolleijoe said:

Easier? Maybe but even today you could make a print from an 1800s glass negative. Who will be able to read whatever format imagery has morphed into by then? Not that long ago we were using ZIP drives. Now they're kaput. Photo CD? Can get dirty, scratched, broken. Everything lost. Even storing in the computer, sometimes a virus will kill that file. Then what have you got?

I've still got the negative and a darkroom for up to 20x30 printing! Make a fresh print, all done.

Click to expand...

I wish to thank all of you who have taken the time to look and response to my question.

Once my darkroom is up any running, I will be using regular BW film. BW400CN is the only available bw film I can buy local and having no knowledge about it, I asked those who have used it for their experience with it. I have learned a great deal about these films from your replies.

I again thank you for your time and knowledge.

Alapin

Don't get hung up on buying locally. Although getting something the same day can be convenient, the range of products available at the big mail-order retailers (B&H, Adorama, Freestyle, etc.) is great enough that it's worth the inconvenience of waiting a day or two (or even a week or two) to get your order to buy from them.

I didn't use Ilford, and with Kodak C400N my experience is that it is best for using with flash, bright sunny day, and in high contrast situations. I printed it in my darkroom on Ilford multigrade paper and got best results when used film in mentioned situations. I never was able to get good result (good balcks, and enough conrast) with that film in situations with dull (overcast day) light, tungsten light, that is in not bright light.

I also gave film to be printed in commercial labs, but since I am not sure how goot personell in labs was I can't give conclusion. I got sometime reddish cast, sometime greenish, I don't belive I ever got neutral print...

I think colour casts are a characteristic of most Chromagenics printed on colour minilabs using colour paper, Certainly in the early days the manufacturers did warn about this quite strongly.
With more modern equipment this tends to be minimised, as your average scanner/printer minilab does have more latitude and adjustment range.
From what I've seen using XP2, the colour casts tend to vary with exposure, so over exposing at 200ASA will tend to slightly greenish blacks, whereas normal exposure at 400ASA tends towards amber

I actually quite like the sepia effect you get, and with the right subject it can look pretty good. Certainly as a no effort way of getting a toned print, it has merit, even if the results aren't as good as a printer with years of darkroom experience could get. Its also a little unpredictable.

Of course if you want proper blacks and whites with no casts at all, you have to print on proper black and white paper of your choice.

Many minilabs today have a "B&W" setting that produces a near-neutral B&W tone on color paper. My local Walgreens, which uses a Fuji Frontier, can produce pretty decent results from both Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2 Super. In a side-by-side comparison with a conventional B&W print, the difference is obvious, but it's not throw-the-print-in-the-trash objectionable, as I've seen from some photofinishers with both films.

FWIW, I've heard of people printing conventional B&W negatives on RA-4 color paper to produce pseudo-toning color effects. I've never tried this myself, though.