Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 2/11/07 4:58 PM, "Lawrence Zeitlin" <lrzeitlin@optonline.net> typed: > 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 > You may find that an 800 ASA film gives you the results you'd expect from a 200 ASA film. 99.99 of the r&d of any and all films when to color neg films all those years. And they progressed logarithmically. ASA 100 and 200 films would be overkill IMO for anything smaller than 16x20's. And that includes 11x14s of course. Those 100 and 200 are for me "tripod films" and studio strobe films. Ultra high go for the gusto rez. Asph APO. Mark Rabiner New York, NY 40?47'59.79"N 73?57'32.37"W markrabiner.com