Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]BW400cn will most likely have a less grainy appearance the Gold 200 and better tones. BW400 was designed for scanning in mind. True, the orange cast makes it a difficult darkroom beast but I only printed a handfull of prints with it before going over to scanning and inkjet prints. The pro lab I use charges .60 per scan for high res scans. I then FTP the scanned image back to me and tweak it with PS. The other film I like for scanning is Neopan 400 & 1600. By the way, check your local Best Buy for 35mm BW400. I picked up 4 3-packs last month. $10 per pack. They hide the film by the disposable camera POS's. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence Zeitlin" Subject: [Leica] Re: Kodak BW400CN film > Question: > > I have never used a BW chromogenic film. I've done all my B&W photography > with silver based films developed in the traditional > way. But in the last couple of years I've abandoned my wet darkroom > because of skin allergies to chemicals. I have been scanning > all my color negatives to create a data base, using a Minolta Dimage 5400 > scanner. Apart from taking a long time, the ICE > facility is marvelous for eliminating all those nuisance dust spots. > > My specific question is - if I standardize on a readily available color > negative film, say ASA 100 or 200 Kodak Royal Gold, scan > the negative, then turn it into a grayscale in PS, will the results be > comparable to a B&W chromogenic film. The Kodak web site > seems to indicate that if you want prints, then silver based B&W films > are preferable. Their reasoning seems to be that the dyes > and base color of BW400CN makes printing difficult. But if I want to use > an ink jet or laser printer, does it matter? > > Larry Z