Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] B&W 400 film, need suggestions

Subject: Re: [OM] B&W 400 film, need suggestions
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
>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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz