Kodak BW400CN question

[BassTone]

Hi out there. I'm trying to get back into film photography and I've purchased some various film to try out, but recently a photo supply clerk informed me that unless I make my own prints in my own darkroom, the unique characteristics of the various films I've purchased will be made mute in the digital printing techniques employed by even pro-level photo developers. She steered my toward Kodak BW400CN 135 format film until such time as I can create a darkroom for myself, saying that this film is maximized for modern photo mat printing processes. I know that this film is designed for development in C-41, but is any of this true about wasting money on other films?

The places I take my film for processing and printing are:
http://www.philadelphiaphotographics.com/ourservices/filmprocessingcontactproofs.html

using both C-41, E-6 and Tmax developers

and I recently tried but haven't picked up my prints from:
http://www.greenfieldphoto.com/pages/services.htm

They use C-41 and E-6 and say they print digitally, but the actual picture is a print made with photo paper going through developing baths and not ink shot onto the paper surface.

So, what are your thoughts? Many thanks!!!

 

[Aurum]

Machine printing will do a perfectly good job if the machine is running properly. Ilford lab direct in the UK, use one to develop and print any B&W film you send them http://www.ilfordlab.com/

Also a decent machine C41 line will work OK with BW 400 CN, also it will work very well with other chromagenics like Ilford XP2 super, or the Fuji equivalent if you can lay your hands on it.
BW400CN isn't my film of choice as the stuff is orange masked, and is a right royal PITA to print in a regular darkroom. XP2 isn't masked, and despite what some people will tell you prints very nicely indeed on machine lines if they tick the right box on the screen.

Same goes for regular B&W negatives (Although you'll have to develop them separately)

 

[JPR]

Hello Aurum

Thanks for posting this information. I'm actually shooting and developing my own black and white. But scanning for the moment... My long term goal is to have an enlarger. So, I'll be sticking XP2, if I do happen to use a Chromogenic. Although now, I'm shooting mostly Plux-X and Pan F.

Cheers,
JPR

PS-What makes the Kodak one difficult to print? Does the orange mask give it a grey base color?!

 

[MattKing]

PS-What makes the Kodak one difficult to print? Does the orange mask give it a grey base color?!

The orange mask clashes with the spectral sensitivity requirements of Black and White papers - especially variable contrast papers. One tends to end up with low contrast prints.

It is also harder to see through the mask, for purposes of focussing.

 

[Athiril]

I don't see why a machine would work any less well with BW400CN than with XP2.

 

[Ottrdaemmerung]

...informed me that unless I make my own prints in my own darkroom, the unique characteristics of the various films I've purchased will be made mute in the digital printing techniques...
...I'm actually shooting and developing my own black and white. But scanning for the moment...

So basically, you're saying that the photo clerk said that unless you're printing optically with an enlarger, that all B&W films are the same? No. This is hogwash.
Each film has its own certain "look," which you can then tweak in the developing and scanning processes, and the way you see it on your screen is how it will print. In fact, one could say that scanning technology is more sensitive to the particular inherent nuances in differing films than is optical technology. I've developed and scanned many different films, both native B&W and chromogenic, and can easily say that each has its own look, its own flavor. Some I love, some I don't.

The only thing I can contribute about BW400CN is that it has a very smooth, grainless look, almost like digital, and I'd expect XP2 to be similar. It's a beautiful film but you have the added hassle (and possibly shorter archival longevity) that C-41 developing brings.

 

[cowanw]

But, if you are getting the developing, scanning and printing done by an outside lab as you said in your OP,then you are not tweaking the development process and they are probably printing on colour paper. In that circumstance your clerk is substantially correct. Even more so if they are standardized to Kodak colour paper.
Scanning silver based B&W films is much more time consuming that the c-41 films. Labs around here initially charged alot more to do so and now have all discontinued scanning and printing silver based films.
BW400CN does require strong magenta settings. Older, below the lens, Kodak or Dupont filters are excellant. Other than that there does not seem to be a big difference to me; although your range of available contrasts if diminished in the high end and vastly expanded in the low end.
BW400CN may be preferable if you are shooting a high contrast scene; it really shines in strong sunlight and harsh shadows.
I think you have a clerk that knows whatof he speaks. Stick with him.

 

[BassTone]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. It's clear to me now that I should work toward doing the development and optical printing myself - which is fine, but I can't do that right now lacking proper facilities to do so. My somewhat local Greenfield Photographic prints on Kodak color paper regardless of the film. I'm not sure about Philadelphia Photographics, however, they at least develop B&W film in Tmax chemicals per their website.

Has anyone here ever had development and printing done at Blue Moon? They claim full optical enlargement and true B&W prints.
Dead Link Removed

 

[softshock]

I see that you are in the Philadelphia area; if you don't wish to develop your own b&w film, I am available to do it for you. I am able to offer some things which the other labs cannot, mainly hand development and the use of different developers. Please send me an email if you'd like to get some film developed for your experiments with different emulsions.
I assure you that scanning will not render the different qualities unnoticeable!

 

[winger]

I'd say that if you intend to print them yourself at some point that you should use B&W film or XP2 and not worry much about the oddly colored prints a machine gives you for now. If you can learn to develop it yourself (it's not that hard and doesn't require a darkroom), you'll be able to do your own tweaking.

 

[BassTone]

Thanks everyone for your input! Softshock, I've been thinking of trying my hand at developing and work toward printing at some point when I have the room. I haven't developed film since 1995 when I took a course in B&W photography, so I would be starting the learning process all over again LOL! But I might be giving it a go sometime soon. If it doesn't appear to be working out for some reason or If I get too bogged down with my myriad projects, I will certainly keep your offer in mind. Thank you!

best,
John