Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Interesting that you go back to silver for higher speed films. I have gone totally C41 and although I shoot 400CN for 400iso I now use colour C41 if I want higher speed and convert greyscale with no problems. I would use colour for everything, and then convert, but for some unknown reason I just can't get my head around having colour in the camera and 'seeing' in b&w - for the higher speeds I just have to! Gerry Peter Klein wrote: > To add my two cents to what others have said: > > I tried XP2, didn't like it. Grainy. Muddy shadows and high contrast at > 400. In fact, doesn't seem to really be a 400 film. Haven't used it > since. > > I love T400CN. Here's what I love most about it: > > - Almost grainless. ISO 100 quality in an ISO 400 film. > > - Scans beautifully, even at 2700 dpi. ISO 400 silver film has grain > aliasing problems at 2700 dpi, it's smoother at 4000 dpi. > > - A great tonal range. You can capture the whole range in a "flat" scan > and then tweak the curve to get really fine, smoothly-graded inkjet > prints. > > - Doesn't block up highlights with moderate overexposure. > > - You can shoot it outdoors at ISO 200 or 250 and get detail in > everything > from the not-quite blackest shadows to bright highlights. > > - Infrared dust and scratch removal (ICE, FARE) works with it, unlike > silver film. > > - I don't have to develop it myself, just take it to any reliable C41 > lab. They run off 4x6 prints instead of squinty contact sheets. > > Here's what I *don't* like about T400CN: > > - It isn't the world's best available light film. When you have deep > shadows, you need to shoot it at 200 to have a prayer of getting shadow > detail, otherwise they are grainy mud. Or to put it another way, you > will > get detail several stops above your exposure, but anything more than one > stop under is going to look lousy. Tri-X is much better here. > > - It's lower contrast than silver film. On dull days, things look even > duller than they are, and you have to work harder in the image editor to > compensate. > > - If you even *look* at it harshly, it scratches. > > - Silver chauvanists have me filled with existential doubt that one day, > the images will just fade away. > > Here's T400CN in bright desert light, shot at ISO 250: > http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/california2003/JoshTree35.htm > > And here's one in a concert hall with so-so lighting: > http://www2.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/quartet.htm > > In the latter picture, the original scan has more detail in the > background > wood paneling and better separation between the performer's jacket and > the > piano. But bringing out that detail brought out speckly mud, so I > "printed > it down." > > I once tried Portra 400 and got similar results to T400CN. The latter > has > become a universal B&W film for me. But when I know I'm going to do > hard-core available darkness, it's back to silver. Neopan 1600, > Neopan 400 > or good ol' Tri-X. With Xtol, the ISO 400 silver films are not *that* > grainy, especially when scanned at 4000 dpi. Grain is just a silver > molecule's way of letting you know it's working hard for you. > > --Peter Klein > Seattle. > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- Gerry Walden LRPS www.gwpics.com +44 23 8046 3076 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html