Im interested in canded photography and ive been suggested to use Chromogenic film. This is due to the fact that (a) You can get them developed at a lab for the same price/time of a colour film (b) The images produced are generally richer/deeper than comparative B+W images. Whats your opinion on this, the film that has been recommended is the KodakProfessional T400CN. Any experances with this film? Comments?

Thanks for your opinions

Jason ps. Thank you very much all the guys that responded to my previous question.

-- Jason Vicinanza (jcvicinanza@btinternet.com), January 16, 2001

Answers

Jason,

Black and white really comes into it own when you control the entire process. I am speaking of a traditional "wet' darkroom... I haven't gone digital yet. The demand for B&W is such (low) that quality processing is not as readily available compared to color. You can go to a pro lab (expensive) or do it yourself. The basics are easy to learn, but the ability to repetitiously turn out good work is not something that will happen without a lot of effort and good note keeping. There are so many controls... dodging, burning, chemical manipulation, but if you are a control freak, you can't beat it. You also can't blame anyone else for shoddy results. There are many darkroom people that have developed a great reputation that don't even take pictures... the science is involved enough that you can live in the darkroom for a long time "playing" with just a few negatives. An acceptable print is fairly easy... a stunning print takes work. It is a personality thing... what are YOU satisfied with?

I've used T400CN film and it is quite good. Be aware that while it can be developed and printed at any one hour lab, it is still printed on color paper so there may be some tint if the lab isn't experienced with it. The best thing is, use the one hour lab as a "proof" and then use the negatives in your own darkroom with real B&W paper... or take it to a pro-lab. For the speed, it is quite smooth as far as the grain.

As a beginner, I recommend that you pick something and go with it for a while. Your speed of acquiring a new skill will be accelerated if you limit your variances. One lens, one camera and one film... you will get good rather quickly compared to the guy with a bag full of options... trying to decide what to use.

Good luck!

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 16, 2001.

I haven't been overly pleased with the results done on color paper, but they do make good inexpensive proofs, and there is less chance of a developing screw up than when sending B&W film out to a consumer lab for developing. Al is right, you can then take your best shots and get them printed on conventional B&W papers and the results will be nice if the exposures are good. I don't know about the "richer deeper" part. I use T400CN when I want to do B&W these days because I no longer have a B&W darkroom at my disposal, and that really is the only way I found I could get good consistant B&W images with regular B&W films (unless you plan to dump tons of money each month into a custom B&W lab).

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 16, 2001.

Try it, you'll like it, although I personally prefer the other Chromogenic film, Ilford XP-2. These are the perfect films for Candid/Street Photography -- high speed, fine grain with excellent detail, and a huge exposure latitude if you don't have time to meter. Plus you don't have to f**k with it yourself in the darkroom.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), January 16, 2001.

Jason,

I personally like the Ilford Delta 100 and 400 B&W films as well as their Pan-F and HP5 films. I'm not too sure about these C-41 process films (except if you're NOT planning on developing yourself) because you have limited control of the manipulation of the images. Personally, I go from the Film Developing CookBook by Anchell and Troop for developer formulations and I like the ability to experiment (within bounds) with different formulations AND save a whack of $$$$$$ by buying my own starting chemicals (and not the bulk they sell you). You'll be suprised at how simple some developers are chemically!!! If you're going to shoot alot then I think non-chromogenic B&W is better as it could be cheaper for you in the long run and you end up with a more comprehensive appreciation of the art.

Of course this is all IMHO.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 16, 2001.

Jason, a few points. The general consensus among most working pros is that the C-41 films will give you better result compared to conventional B&W only if they are both processed comercially. Most labs run a 'tighter ship' so to speak when it comes to C-41, which is their bread and butter. If you have your own darkroom, or take you conventional film to B&W to a custom lab, the favour will turn to the conventional films. Witness the current B&W masters, no matter what the format or subject. Whether it be Sebastio Salgado (photojounalism), John Sexton (nature) or Richard Avedon (portraiture).....they all use conventional films. If something out there gave them better quality, they'd use it. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to spend the money we do on Leica gear and then give it to the local Wal-Mart or corner one hour lab to process. As much of your final image quality depends on what happens after you press the shutter as does your camera choice. But if you are going to use the C-41 films there is one thing to be aware of. Many people wonder why the Kodak film has the typical (to C-41) orange cast and Ilford does not. The Kodak film is primarily designed for someone who wants a B&W image quickly, taking it to a minilab and having it printed on color paper. They build in the orange masking layer so it can be easily printed this way and gives fairly good results. The Ilford on the other hand, doesn't have the masking layer and is designed for someone who takes their film to the minilab to have processed only, but then prints the negs themselves on conventional paper. They'll both work either way, but, the Ilford is much easier to work with in your own darkroom, especially in regards to contrast control.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 16, 2001.

Ilford XP2 is great. I am not altogether convinced that the masters mentioned don't use it because it is inferior. In my experience most phtographers stick with what they like and know and many photographers grew up with the Tri-Xs of this world and have got used to using them and know what they are capable of and what they are not. Changing to a new film is often a big change. I also am not all that convinced that negative processing is such a big deal in terms of Al saying that most want to control it themselves. The whole point of chromogenic film is that you do not have to do this - a good C41 line will have excellent control and reproducibility. Easily as good as what you can manage at home - in fact if you use dip and dunk then you might say better. However, it is also true to say that XP2 cannot be pushed above 800 and so you will need a conventional halide film if you suddenly need to shoot at 1600 or 3200. This is useful! It might also be true that the chromos are not quite so sharp - not that I have noticed really, but it might well be true. Also of course if you like grain then the chromos are altogether different. Also chromos are probably not as archival.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 17, 2001.

Robin, a lot of what you say has merit.........but. I think most would agree that unless you really hate darkroom work, you can get a better print doing it yourself rather than having someone else do it. I find that dodging, burning, etc. are very personal, and of the moment. I may look at a contact sheet, decide what needs to be done, then get in the darkroom and do something entirely different. My main point above was for people not to think that by taking their C-41 chromo to anything but a custom lab will give them the results they may be looking for. On another note however, I deal with working pros on a daily basis, mostly photojournalists and commercial shooters. They are always the first to try new products (in part because Kodak, Fuji, Agfa etc. are always giving them free samples). Todays pro works in a far too competitive field to not use what will give the best result.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), January 17, 2001.

Bob

Interesting, my experience of the average pro is often the same as you, but many of the "name" photogs often seem to be "antique" in their methods. I agree with you about printing, b & w, of course, what I was referring to was processing the negs, which is really a chore I must say - and in this the chromos are as good as you can do yourself and might even be better via dip and dunk. Custom b & w and minilab black and white printing, I agree, usually stinks.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 17, 2001.

Robin,

Traditional negative developing is not that hard. I prefer it to letting a lab do it because most of my film needs to be processed differently, and rather than explaining all of the variations to some guy that really couldn't care less... I do it myself. I like to shoot my 400 ISO film at ISO 250 (over exposing the film) and then cutting the development time by 20% (under processing) which gives negatives that are very easy to print... tons of shadow detail, no burned out highlights. I can also under expose the film and over develop the negative for enhancing contrast in week lighting... enhancing apparent sharpness.

This goes back to my point of keeping good notes. I have this down to a science now, based on my mistakes from the past followed by a learning curve that I can count on for tweaking the process for specific needs. I use a light tight tank, inversion agitation, a good timer and thermometer. My 100th roll looks just like my first roll. I agree, not everyone has the temperament, but I guess I'm anal enough to pull this off. Now if I could just cook I wouldn't have to let restaurant cooks do all of my food preparation.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 17, 2001.

Chromogenic films lack a traditional grain appearance. When enlarged enough, they look like crap. I can't enlarge XP2 beyond 5x7 without thinking it looks lousy. I can get to 11x14 with Tri-X. (This is with a 35mm negative.) I use XP2 for snapshots in an old rangefinder (Olympus 35RC) but I can't imagine using it for anything serious.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 17, 2001.

Thanks, Jeff. The way the thread was going I thought I was the only one who thinks this film is less than ideal. I tried it. Never again. :)

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), January 17, 2001.

Al

My point is that negative developing is a chore - not like printing which is fun and interesting. Film developing is not that difficult, but it is rather uninteresting, this is what I meant about the chromos removing the chore bit and making room for one to go immediately to the more interesting bits of the process.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 23, 2001.