--- Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all. I'm wondering what everyone's opinion is on this.
Is it worth
> using? It is certainly much easier to acquire, but would I be
happy with the
> results? Also, are filters needed like with real b&w film?
It is "real" B&W film. It simply utilizes emulsion technology
derived from color negative film and C41 processing rather than
traditional B&W emulsion technology and processing. The concept
was pioneered by Agfa about 25 years ago, it's hardly something
new or unusual.
C41 process B&W films tend to have more exposure latitude and
smoother, finer grain characteristics compared to traditional
process ASA 400 films. Tonal rendering can be anywhere from
slightly flat if over exposed to very contrasty if underexposed.
Ilford's XP2 Super has a standard, nearly clear to purplish base
color and is best for printing in a home darkroom on traditional
B&W papers. Kodak's various C41 B&W films all have some amount
of orange mask built into the base color to enable high quality
printing with traditional color printing setups on color
photofinishing machines.
C41 B&W films scan very well and, since the negative image is
formed with dye blobs after processing, higher-end film scanners
with infrared-based dust and scratch removal automation can be
used to full advantage.
In my last years of shooting 35mm and subminiature film, I'd
pretty much replaced all use of film emulsions faster than ASA
100 with C41 process films because they simply returned better
results for me most of the time.
Godfrey
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
