Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Kodak BW400CN
From: dorysrus at mindspring.com (Don Dory)
Date: Tue Jul 20 04:29:17 2004

Adam,
Your question receives a strong unflinching maybe.  The 400 speed color
negative films will be not quite so sharp and somewhat grainier as there
are the additional color layers.  In most cases the above is a
technicality, theoretical not really visible issue.

If you use PS and channel mixer then the response of a color negative
film is whatever you make of it.

Why not pick up either some of the Fuji 400 or the new Kodak Ultra,
shoot a typical shot for you and use channel mixer to balance the color
channels in PS; an alternative would be to find a Frontier lab and have
them print it as a B&W.  I suspect that ultimately, you will buy the
film that is least expensive.

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf
Of Adam Bridge
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:21 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Kodak BW400CN

Thanks, Don.

So, do these film have different responses than say a 400 ASA color
film? If I'm going to only want a B&W image is there any reason to
simply just shoot color and then manipulate in photoshop? Or do I get
a gain in .... something .... by sticking to the black and white?

I like TCN a lot, especially for portraiture (when I don't want grain
that is), but I'm wondering if I shouldn't just chose a color negative
film instead.

adam

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:48:35 -0400, Don Dory <dorysrus@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> Adam,
> You don't really push or pull C-41 with these chromagenic films.
> Basically you are trusting to the really long characteristic curve of
> these films.  At the low ISO settings you find more of the image from
> the shadows, lose detail in the highlights, and reduce contrast. At
the
> high ISO settings you lose shadow detail and gain more detail in the
> highlights.
> 
> The chemistry of C-41 films is fascinating.  Each color layer is at
> least two; one of high sensitivity and one of low sensitivity.  Within
> each layer is a chemical restrainer that doesn't let the density build
> up too fast or too far.  The restrainers are why four stops
overexposed
> can still produce flat but reasonable prints.
> 
> Don
> dorysrus@mindspring.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf
> Of Adam Bridge
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:29 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Kodak BW400CN
> 
> So how do you ask to have it processed if you're going to shoot at 50
> which is pulling the film 3 stops. Do you then get an incredibly thin
> negative that's still scannable?
> 
> I'm just curious because I haven't liked the resuilts when I shoot TCN
> at 200 wtih normal processing and I don't want to process it for 200
> (read I'm too damn cheap and don't like to wait the extra time it
> takes.)
> 
> Thanks for any thoughts. It's good to know that there is SOMETHING
> about this new BW400CN that people are liking.
> 
> adam
> 
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:14:10 -0700, JCB <jcb@visualimpressions.com>
> wrote:
> > At 04:55 PM 7/19/2004, Oliver wrote:
> >
> > >When I dropped off some color negative film at the New Lab today I
> asked
> > >whether they had formed an opinion on BW400CN, the successor to
> TCN400. I
> > >was told that the new film is sharper and has better shadow detail.
> The
> > >reply to my question whether the new film should also be rated at
ISO
> 200
> > >was, "most pros who want a little extra snap in the prints expose
it
> that
> > >way."
> > >Oliver Bryk
> > >PS www.newlab.com is the leading pro color lab in San Francisco.
> >
> >
> > Like T400CN, BW400CN has a huge latitude. Kodak states ASA 50 thru
800
> can
> > be used with confidence with normal processing. Of course, what you
> take
> > your light meter reading of (its reflectance) will make the biggest
> > difference in your results regardless of the ASA you use.
> >
> > Even though it is called "400", most folks find it marvelous at 200.
> As you
> > probably do. I have used it at both ends, 50 to 800, and have not
been
> > disappointed.
> >
> > JB
> >
> > PS... www.calypsoinc.com (Calypso Imaging) is the leading pro
> color/B&W lab
> > in the south bay.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] Re: Kodak BW400CN)