[LRflex] Re: Kodak BW400CN film
- From: Walter Kramer <walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:11:06 +1000
Hi Jeff,
I have tried both the Kodak C41 and the Illford. I prefer the Ilford as
it seems more like B&W and indeed the negs look B&W whereas the Kodak
negs look redish. Anyway try both and experiment. It is nice to have the
lab develop B&W at colour prices. I like B&W film but too lazy to
develop myself and both the C41 offerings are decent.
I have read on the net suggestions of shooting the Ilford at 200 for
better detail in shadow but have not tried myself. I can't say I am
disappointed with results, so go for it. Mind you I am not that fussy,
but the results look like film and not digital. If you want I would be
happy to post some captures from both films but on the web and
processing it may not present a significant degree of separation.
They both scan well I think but the Ilford I have heard is more
sensitive to correct exposure.
Regards
Walter
On 10/07/11 05:18, "Dr. Jeffrey L. T. von Glück" wrote:
> I'm curious as to what anyone's experience has been with Kodak
> Professional BW400CN chromogenic b&w negative film. I no longer have the
> space, time or inclination to develop and print Tri-X like I did 30-40
> years ago. I'm thinking BW400CN might be the lazy way out. I can get it
> developed and printed at any local C-41 minilab.
>
> Jeff Glück
>
>>
>>
> ------
> Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
> Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
--
Walter Krämer
walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
walter.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bus: 03 9854 2463
Mob: 0414 884 965
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
