John Edwin Mason wrote:
>
> Interesting article by Frank van Riper on Ilford and
> Kodak chromogenic B&W films.
>
> My experience with Kodak's T400CN is pretty much the
> same as his as far as shadow and highlight detail
> (superb), exposure latitude (immense), and printing
> (start with a 3 1/2 contrast filter and go up from
> there) is concerned. He likes it. So do I.
Good link, I didn't knowthe Post had a photo column.
I like the way the chromogenic looks for some things, but I never use
it.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the negs deteriorate even faster then
regular color negs. This has been suggested by Mike Johnston, as well as
a couple of the labs I deal with. It's certainly not going to last as
long as regular b+w.
Also, the grain of chromogenic looks like color film...it reminds me of
looking at a color scan that's been desaturated, rather than a b+w
print.
I do find it tempting for weddings, as it would save me about 16 hours
per gig of printing proofs. However, lately I've had prospective clients
asking me if I use 'real' b+w film. I don't think they'd let me get away
with chromogenic.
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
