Nei1 Posted February 16, 2009 Share #1 Posted February 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) this is from my first attempt with c41 black and white film,kodak 400cn,before this Ive always processed my own,mainly tri x. the film came back covered in watermarks and a few scratches,recoiled and put back into the plastic tub,no plastic sleeve. This is the best available local dealer,sells leica et`c. Now Im not happy with the above and Im wondering if my anger at the processing is affecting how I feel about the results.I seem to have lost space in the image ,it looks flatter somehow than I expected it to look,I dont mean contrast,I think I mean naturalness,(my head is conditioned to see in tri x). Im wondering how others have felt about such a transition as I dont think Im going to risk this again....................Neil. M6 50mm f2 boxing day 2008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Hi Nei1, Take a look here Tri X to C41. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Michael Hiles Posted February 16, 2009 Share #2 Posted February 16, 2009 this is from my first attempt with c41 black and white film,kodak 400cn,before this Ive always processed my own,mainly tri x. the film came back covered in watermarks and a few scratches,recoiled and put back into the plastic tub,no plastic sleeve. This is the best available local dealer,sells leica et`c. Now Im not happy with the above and Im wondering if my anger at the processing is affecting how I feel about the results.I seem to have lost space in the image ,it looks flatter somehow than I expected it to look,I dont mean contrast,I think I mean naturalness,(my head is conditioned to see in tri x). Im wondering how others have felt about such a transition as I dont think Im going to risk this again....................Neil. M6 50mm f2 boxing day 2008 Sorry to hear of your processing problems. Inexcusable. Try telling them you know where they live, and your friends are tough as nails. Rarely works but it sound good. I like your picture and had the impertenence to monkey around with it for 1 minute. There is more there than I think you extracted. I use XP2 almost exclusively. It looks, in my view, somewhat like Tri-X in HC110 - but more like 120 than 35mm. It is much smoother than Tri-X at least in my experience, and that is what I am looking for. Not to everyone's taste, but it suits me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted February 16, 2009 Share #3 Posted February 16, 2009 Give it one more try, this time with Ilford XP2+ and perhaps a different shop if you feel they don't know what they are doing. I prefer XP2+ over the Kodak alternative. I'm really a Tri-X fan, but hate the time I spend in Photoshop spot cleaning the scans of dust and scratches. I very much like the look of my XP2+ scans when compared to my Tri-X scans, and with Digital ICE I spend a fraction of the time in PS. It's more expensive than developing in my bathroom, but it's worth it to me not to have to sit in front of the computer for so long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted February 16, 2009 Share #4 Posted February 16, 2009 I don't quite understand what you're saying, but I like the image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nei1 Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted February 16, 2009 Michael thanks for that ,I think my monitor needs adjusting as my attempt has become too soft and yours too contrasty,lost in the translation. MPJMP,I have bought a cassette of xp2 so Ill try that.Its not contrast thats missing its a sense of depth,of scale.A little subjective maybe.Am going to try and find a better processor. Could the base colour be having an effect? NB23,glad you like the photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhulbert Posted February 16, 2009 Share #6 Posted February 16, 2009 Will the dealer not do non C41 processing? (Which likely means they only have a machine I think.). Why not just shoot your TriX and send it out mail order somewhere. Or maybe give a tab film a shot -- TMax or Delta (although your dealer man will not be able to do those either)? Different from TriX but better than Chromo I think, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.M Posted February 16, 2009 Share #7 Posted February 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I like your photo very much. I used Kodak 400cn quite a lot and I love it. But I always rate it at 200 iso, which gives better results. The last photos in my website are done like that. Etienne Michiels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 16, 2009 Share #8 Posted February 16, 2009 I still dont understand why you wouldnt shoot normal colour c41. I know people like to shoot this stuff but other than getting a mini lab to do your printing direct from the neg and without your post processing input, no ones ever been able to show me any advantage. Genuinely baffled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 16, 2009 Share #9 Posted February 16, 2009 I know people like to shoot this stuff but other than getting a mini lab to do your printing direct from the neg and without your post processing input, no ones ever been able to show me any advantage.Genuinely baffled. You can print XP2 easily on b&w paper using an enlarger as there's no orange mask in the developed negatives. Most b&w films aren't equally sensitive to all colours equally, it's part of what gives the individual films their 'look'. Colour negative film on the other hand has to be equally sensitive in order to prevent colour casts. I imagine XP2 is sensitive to some colours more than others. Personally I've never liked C41 b&w films very much, it's probably the lack of grain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted February 16, 2009 Share #10 Posted February 16, 2009 Personally I've never liked C41 b&w films very much, it's probably the lack of grain. Well different strokes - that is exactly why I do like them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 16, 2009 Share #11 Posted February 16, 2009 Michael, it would be a boring world if we all thought the same way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted February 16, 2009 Share #12 Posted February 16, 2009 Dont know anyone that throws c41 in the enlarger. Not saying its a bad thing, I just dont think it happens. Scanning and post processing routines have more effect on the outcome than film types. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted February 16, 2009 Share #13 Posted February 16, 2009 Michael, it would be a boring world if we all thought the same way. Not if you all thought MY way! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted February 17, 2009 Share #14 Posted February 17, 2009 Dont know anyone that throws c41 in the enlarger. Please allow me to introduce myself...... Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.