>ANY black and white film printed on color paper will yield
>poor results.
Absolutely! It is nearly impossible for any lab to get the
tonal balance even. Prints will always have some screwy color
to them. They are rarely sharp either. A well-done hand-made
B&W print will make a one-hour lab print look like used chewing
gum that's been stuck on your shoe for a couple of days.
Frankly, there is little reason to shoot B&W unless you are
doing your own printing. B&W is all about interpretation and
control of the tonalities. No two people will ever interpret a
negative the same way. I go for a look that is different than
what other people go for. In reality, I rarely make two prints
of the same negative the same. Every time I revisit a negative
I modify the interpretation somewhat. Each one is unique--a
one-off.
>Kodak T400CN is a non-traditional b&w film developed in C-41
>chemicals to produce a more or less normal black and white
>negative. It is reportedly difficult to print on conventional
>paper unless you use some specialized technique (two exposures
>with different polycontarast filters on polycontrast paper,
>according to Ag Schnozz). It scans quite well and
>I use it a lot.
It does scan very well. I'm in the process of scanning and
editing several pictures which I can't do anything with in the
darkroom. I can at least fix some of the curves in my
photoeditor. Output will be on my new printer. Bit depth is
always a battle, though.
T400CN is gut-wrenching in the darkroom. The only way I can use
it is with "split-contrast" filtering. Using
polycontrast/multigrade paper (Ilford Multigrade is the best for
this), you do one exposure with Grade 0 filtering and a second
exposure with Grade 5 filtering. The Grade 0 exposure takes
care of the mid to high level tones and the Grade 5 exposure
builds in the bottom end. Varying the two exposures gives you
excellent "gamma" control. Only problem with split-contrast
filtering is that the picture will not be quite as sharp since
most enlarger lenses don't handle chromatic aberations very
well. I'm not sure which is best, but I typically focus with
"white" light to split the focusing difference.
My current B&W film of choice is the Ilford Delta films with DDX
developer. It is a nicely matched system and allows push/pull
processing with ease. I really like TMAX 100 in TMAX developer,
but can't get consistant results. Delta/DDX is an easy system
to use but forces you to be relatively accurate with your
temperatures and agitation cycles. (NEVER REUSE DDX)
I find that the modern B&W films such as Ilford Delta and Kodak
TMAX render very smooth tonalities and have a nice "edgyness" to
them which raises the apparent sharpness. Traditional films,
such as TMAX, Plus-X, FP4, HP5 and Neopan produce more beautiful
blacks, but grain is part of the composition. Grain is
sometimes appropriate, but either you like the "look" or you
don't. Rarely do I like grain. I prefer the almost translucent
property that TMAX 100 or Delta 100 gives to the pictures.
TMAX 400 is by far the worse B&W film ever manufactured. <puke>
Oh, a side-note... I'm in the process of editing a B&W picture
on the computer which may turn out to be one of my finer B&W
pictures. It's scanned from a Kodachrome 25 slide. The color
was slightly off (way too bluish), but once I desaturated the
picture (after some serious color manipulations) it has that
"something extra" which makes it stand out and grab you by the
tonsils. But it will be a LONG work in progress.
So, in summary: If you are NOT going to build your own
darkroom, shoot a C41 process B&W film. All are excellent
choices and they scan exceptionally well.
Speaking of digitizing: If it wasn't the love for the darkroom
and the "process", I'd be digital in my editing/printing. But
there is a romantic or poetic aspect to the darkroom process.
In the darkroom you are trying to caress that something special
from the print. In "real-time" you are making hundreds of
judgement calls, interpretations and adjustments. A dodge here,
a burn there... It is extremely difficult to do natural looking
dodges and burns in an editor. I can do in three seconds what
it would take me a half-hour to do in an editor. When one of my
normal prints may have 10-15 different dodge and burns I just
can't accomplish the same thing, comfortably, with an editor.
Developing the paper is another area where further adjustments
are made--if you want to increase the contrast of a small area
just rub that spot with your fingers during the development.
The contrast increase is minor (almost all changes are made
during exposure), and subtle enough to add just a hint of oomph
without being noticable.
Best part of having your own darkroom for B&W: The consumable
are cheaper than digital inkjet printing! Huge expanses of
solid blacks don't toast your ink supply.
Yet, there are days when I wonder if I should chuck it all and
go 100 0igital. But I'm an artist--as such I must do what
artists do and forge my own trail.
So much for the summary.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|