Here's a neat article.

BruceN · Apr 11, 2005

Someone's probably already posted this, but I couldn't find any evidence of it. I just stumbled onto it and thought it was pretty neat.

http://www.acecam.com/magazine/robert-bruce-duncan.html

Carol Flutot · Apr 11, 2005

Nice Article,

Thanks for posting it!

Carol

Claire Senft · Apr 11, 2005

A thoughtful article

I enjoyed the article. Well written and thoughtful is it. I think that there are probably some photographers who will find the opinion of the superiority of tradional B4W films to C-41, as due to tonal rendering, not much to their liking. I use only silver based films and so I feel that I do not have a dog in this fight.

Thank you for posting the link.

BruceN · Apr 11, 2005

Claire Senft said:
I use only silver based films and so I feel that I do not have a dog in this fight.

Same here, I just don't see the point in the c-41 stuff. My local camera shop gave me a couple of rolls of it to try a year or so ago and I'm a little ashamed to admit that it's still in the fridge. I looked at some negs from it that they had there and wasn't real impressed. Why mess with c-41 when I can process my own silver based stuff right here - and do it exactly the way I want?

Tom Duffy · Apr 11, 2005

except for the nudes, I thought most of his pictures would look better in color...

BWGirl · Apr 11, 2005

Thanks for the link, Bruce. Nice article.

I've seen some of the C-41 stuff. About a month ago, someone in one of the camera clubs I go to brought over their "B&W" prints to show me cause I'm the only one in the club currently shooting B&W. It was obviously C-41... had that telltale green cast. I said "These are nice compositions. Did you buy the film at Wal-mart?" They were shocked that I knew that. I told them about C-41 film and the process, and let them know that if they ever wanted to shoot a roll of true B&W I would be overjoyed to help them develop it & make prints.

It's wierd...I've made this offer to everyone in both clubs and so far... no takers. I'm not that bad, am I Claire???

roteague · Apr 11, 2005

Back in the days when I did B&W, I shot a lot of Ilford XP1 (and XP2) in addition to the standard HP5/FP4. I don't really see any issue using C41 process B&W film, to me I felt that it printed out as well as traditional silver based films, using traditional papers. Of course, you really lose the capability of easily adjusting the development times, and you don't get the longevity of silver-based films. My understanding is the new Kodak C41 B&W films have finally solved some of the problems caused by the orange base. These days, though I am sticking with traditional silver based films.

bjorke · Apr 11, 2005

A lot of talk but not much behind it. Not that there's anything new there

One thing that annoys me to no end is writers who make sweeping generalizations about the world based on what they choose for themselves. This is true for zealots of every stripe, whether they be silver-film dogmatists or arrogants teens with a phonecam. And of course, a lot of the work he seems most excited about on his own website is in color.

Sorry, this article was a complete yawner.

Charles Webb · Apr 11, 2005

I thought the article was a good read, Thank you for posting it. Several
years back I used a great deal of Ilfords c 41 develop film, of course I did my own processing, they printed and enlarged beautifully. Since I do not like any sign of grain in my photo's I liked that aspect very much. The negatives funky color as far as I could tell did nothing to change the image color when printed on my normal stock paper. (Velour Black from DuPont 8x10 thru 24x30)

Roger Krueger · Apr 11, 2005

I've got some C-41 B&W languishing in the fridge too. To me, developing my own is one of the big advantages of B&W, not an inconvenience.

My choices for C-41 are either a (shrinking) variety of mini-labs/drugstores (all of whom apparently have toilets that flush directly into their final wash water), mail order, or a good but distant lab that'll cost me $10 in gas before I'm done. It's far, far simpler to do final wash in distilled water and use a filtered Senrac drier than it is to spend eons Photoshopping out someone else's processor crud.

Plus, 400 speed doesn't appeal to me much. Either I'm trying to get the absolute sharpest, smoothest image I can on a tripod with Tech Pan (or maybe Acros if I don't have 30 minutes per shot, or don't want to waste my precious stash), or I'm pushing Delta 3200 to 12,000 handholding somewhere really dark.

Peter De Smidt · Apr 12, 2005

I used a lot of 120 Ilford xp2 on a trip overseas. I used it so that I could have the lot developed there by a good pro lab. I found it to be a terrific film. The 11x14 prints made from those negatives look very much like those from TMX/Xtol, although the xp-2 gave me two stops more speed, which was very useful for vacation style pictures. (The London Eye photo on my site provides and example. Alas, I had to trim some of the print to get it on my scanner. I liked it so much that I'm considering doing c41 here at home.

Peter
www.desmidt.net

Paul Howell · Apr 12, 2005

I shoot some 35 mm Kodak C 41 B&W when I travel or in the Summer when the water tempature is 90-95 F from my tap and I dont want to fool with chilling the wash water. I process the negatives at any 1 hour drug store, some mini labs have the C 41 black and white paper and make reasonable prints for proofs. They print as well as TMax 400.

rbarker · Apr 12, 2005

Thanks for the link, BruceN.

Bruce (of the Duncan clan) is as much a philosopher as he is a photographer and writer. Thus, the style of the article seems appropriately on the thoughtful, rather than technical side. While I like his nudes, he's probably best known for his two books on wooden boats.

Claire Senft · Apr 12, 2005

I have not seen the nudes in question. I am not anti-boat. I do find the ribs in the human female to be of more interest than those of boats that have them. Not to mention the bow.

Lee Shively · Apr 12, 2005

I consider C-41 chromogenic black and white to be the film equivalent of "Desaturate" in Photoshop. It's a reasonable facsimile but it ain't the real thing.

Of course, it's only my opinion. To me, that's the only one that matters.

mark · Apr 12, 2005

I never had a problem enlarging the C-41 BW films, but to each his/her own. When XP2 first hit the market A friend and I cranked a 35mm neg up to 16x20 and it held together very well.

BruceN · Apr 12, 2005

mark said:
When XP2 first hit the market A friend and I cranked a 35mm neg up to 16x20 and it held together very well.

Really?! I guess I'm gonna have to dig that stuff out and give it a try after all.

Bruce

Here's a neat article.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency