![]() Most stores will not ship a good portion of chemicals to NZ, but these are some of the options I see that I can perhaps get hold of via 'slow boat' shipping. The complicating factor is that I live in New Zealand and will have to import my chemical kits. I'm looking to begin processing 8x10" and 4x5" film in expert drums, and I'm wondering if there is a quality and reliability difference between the different brands of chemicals? I know C41 is a standard process, but I have heard anecdotally that some brands are more prone to streaking and other defects and considering the cost and preciousness of 8x10" film I don't want to take any chances. ICE does not work with conventional B&W films.I'm new to C41 processing having just bought a Jobo CPP3. There is always a bit of dust here and there. Compatibility with ICE is a good thing no matter what. Planning to scan the negatives? Pick one, both are high quality products and will not disappoint. It prints beautifully onto conventional silver B&W papers of normal contrast grades. If printing onto conventional B&W papers is part of the plan, then Ilford's XP2 Super is the better choice. It does not play nicely with conventional B&W papers. It is designed to print neutral gray tones onto RA-4 (color print) papers with little difficulty. Planning to have the negatives printed at a commercial lab? Then Kodak's offering might be the better choice. Which you should choose depends on what you plan to do with the negatives. I have used both Kodak's BW400CN and Ilford's XP2 Super, and they are both very good films. I'm not too crazy about monochrome C-41 films, but that's because I process all my own film, do precious little scanning, and pring conventionally in a darkroom. I do plan to try the Ilford at some point to see if its look is much different from the Kodak and also because it doesn't contain any masking and thus should be easier to print. ![]() Aside from that, I find the Kodak film can produce some really lovely portraits when printed on traditional B&W paper, but I am not fond of it for landscapes. Having seen it several times now, I kinda question whether the film really has a sharpness problem. Not sure if the lab's all had focus issues, but one lab did finally concede their equipment's focus wasn't adjusted properly after being shown the results and then checking their equipment (results after that were much improved). However, I've also seen several cases now and had direct hands-on experience with it where the lab prints just weren't very sharp, but when scanned the images were quite sharp (and prints from the scans blew away the lab prints in sharpness). ![]() I'm not a big shooter of the C-41 B&W films, so I make no claim to being an expert about them, but regarding the sharpness issue, I've seen several references to the Kodak C-41 film not being a sharp film. If this path isn't for you then I think the suggestion to shoot color film and change it to monochrome in photoshop is the best advice. I still shoot a few rolls of Velvia from time to time but mostly I'm very happy to develop and print in black & white. Enlarging & B&W printing is a very enjoyable past time. Shooting b&w films set me on a path to an enlarger and a darkroom and I'm very pleased that I did. I like the Ilford films but Kodak Tri X at 400 ASA is fine too. After a few early disasters and learning how to load the film reels easily I began shooting a variety of "real" black & white films. When I complained to the photo lab the guy at the counter suggested that I might have bettter luck to just do it myself, so I did. My color slides, on the other hand, were terrific. It seemed ok at first but I really wasn't getting satisfactory prints back from the photo lab, certainly the photos didn't meet the expectations I had when I took the picture. Steve, I started b&w with the Kodak C-41. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |