Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Opinions: b/w film w/color chemical processing
Old 03-22-2006   #1
sirius
Registered User
 
sirius is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 991
Opinions: b/w film w/color chemical processing

Hi,

I'm not sure of the term for black and white film that uses dyes and color chemicals for processing. What do people think of it compared to the traditional silver based processing?

I have heard that it has a little warmer tone to it. The prints are probably not as archival as the silver-based (but I have had silver-based prints go brown because the chemicals used by the developer were old). It is easier for me to get dye-based processing done. Traditional printing has to be mailed out from where I live.

I know there ther are many people here with a lot of experience with film. Thanks for your advice.
__________________
Leica fan
12 Best or Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2006   #2
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirius
Hi,

I'm not sure of the term for black and white film that uses dyes and color chemicals for processing.
Chromogenic.

Quote:
What do people think of it compared to the traditional silver based processing?
Everyone seems to have a different opinion. There is no advantage for me, since I process my own B&W at very low cost. I could process my own color film (or chromogenic B&W) but do not desire to do so.

Quote:
I have heard that it has a little warmer tone to it.
I am not sure that that term means in the context of the negatives themselves.

Quote:
The prints are probably not as archival as the silver-based (but I have had silver-based prints go brown because the chemicals used by the developer were old). It is easier for me to get dye-based processing done. Traditional printing has to be mailed out from where I live.
I don't do traditional enlargement at all. I scan my negs/slides, no matter if they are color, B&W, or chromogenic B&W.

Quote:
I know there ther are many people here with a lot of experience with film. Thanks for your advice.
I think if you find that the chromogenic B&W films fit your needs, you should use them and enjoy them. Nothing inherently wrong with them. For me, they are not economical, and I do find that I prefer the characteristics of traditional B&W film, such as grain structure. But that's a personal preference, everyone will have different thoughts, I'm sure.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2006   #3
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
 
Wayne R. Scott's Avatar
 
Wayne R. Scott is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Iowa
Age: 67
Posts: 1,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirius

I have heard that it has a little warmer tone to it. The prints are probably not as archival as the silver-based (but I have had silver-based prints go brown because the chemicals used by the developer were old). It is easier for me to get dye-based processing done. Traditional printing has to be mailed out from where I live.

If your prints are made in a wet dark room onto the same paper as traditional b&w negatives they will have equal archival qualities. I would guess that the traditional prints you have that are stained are due to improper fixing and washing of the print.

Wayne
__________________
One's skill is never complete, one's knowledge is forever lacking, one's taste is invariably altered, one's opinion ever subject to controversy. There is a complete and constant urge toward improvement...
-Andrew Loomis.

"Good Judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2006   #4
John Camp
Registered User
 
John Camp is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 649
I've heard that chromogenic films scan better with high-res scanners, because there's no silver grain structure to interfere with the scan. (That is, that a high-res scan is finer than the grain structure of traditional film, and that the grains may actually scatter light from the scanner.) Is this true?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2006   #5
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Camp
I've heard that chromogenic films scan better with high-res scanners, because there's no silver grain structure to interfere with the scan. (That is, that a high-res scan is finer than the grain structure of traditional film, and that the grains may actually scatter light from the scanner.) Is this true?
News to me, but that does not mean it isn't true. Interesting, if so.

As far as scattering light goes, some of it is unavoidable. When a photograph is taken, the anti-halation coating goes to work to keep light from going sideways inside the suspension (improperly called emulsion) and plastic substrate, or from shining completely through the film and bouncing back from the back of the camera, but when the film is processed, that coating is removed. Subsequent shining of light through the film (by optical enlarger or scanner or even slide projector) is going to experience some level of halation. Visible? Dunno. I haven't seen it to be true with a KM SD IV, but that's hardly state of the art these days.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
__________________
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-22-2006   #6
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 68
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
I've heard that chromogenic films scan better with high-res scanners, because there's no silver grain structure to interfere with the scan. (That is, that a high-res scan is finer than the grain structure of traditional film, and that the grains may actually scatter light from the scanner.) Is this true?
Hi John
This explaines something Iíve noticed where did you hear it?
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



Youíre only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Argh! Photo Processing Frustration bmattock Rangefinder Photography Discussion 32 05-15-2006 05:25
Somewhat OT: A warning... peterc Rangefinder Photography Discussion 17 01-30-2006 06:09
Film processing/ scanning Todd.Hanz Rangefinder Photography Discussion 25 07-30-2004 10:59
C-41 film choice for push processing (800 pushed to 1600 or more) NoTx Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film 6 07-20-2004 19:31
Film Processing Chart MP Guy Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film 1 02-08-2004 20:06



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:54.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.