3 ms·

In what way is it easier to scan? Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg. Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a h

In what way is it easier to scan? Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg. Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a host of issues into post-processing.

klodolph 7y ago
C-41 is easier to scan because you can use IR cleaning with C-41. This technique is impossible with traditional B&W film. > Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg. The fact that your scanner “has a setting” just means that people want to use the scanner for this purpose. It does not inform you which alternative you should choose. > Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a host of issues into post-processing. I can't imagine even one issue in post-processing. Once you scan it the film, you get a monochrome image. With C-41, the post-processing is easier because you don't have to do as much manual cleanup (due to IR cleaning, above). Speaking as someone who has an entire shelf dedicated to binders of film—B&W is much worse to scan than C-41. I personally shoot mostly traditional B&W but I recognize that my use case is different from most.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  Suffice it to say I disagree, but even if what you're saying is true, I don't really see it as a good enough reason to shoot black and white on C-41 film.
  - klodolph 7y ago
    Ok, I guess it's okay for you to disagree but it would be nice if you articulated the reasons for your disagreement, if you’re going to bother replying. Personally I prefer to shoot B&W over monochrome C-41, but if you are not sure how much effort you want to spend on film and are going to scan, then it makes sense to go C-41.
    - staticautomatic 7y ago
      Looking back over this I'm actually not sure we're talking about the same film. I like SFX a lot. It's a traditional black and white film (in terms of development chemistry, there's no mention of C-41 chemistry on the technical sheet). Did you mean XP2? Anyway, here's my take on "black and white" C-41 films: I just don't see the point. Traditional black and white film is a beautiful thing. From an aesthetic and technical standpoint it's far and away better than C-41. The only advantage C-41 has is the ability to drop it off at a corner lab, and those are becoming more rare by the day. I'd much rather just shoot a high quality true color negative film and convert it. I don't do that very often but I'd be kind of surprised if you couldn't get a better looking image from converting, say, Portra, than shooting a "black and white" color negative film. Every time I've tried films like XP2 an whatever the Kodak equivalent was, the results have been resoundingly underwhelming.

In what way is it easier to scan? Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg. Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a host of issues into post-processing.

klodolph 7y ago

C-41 is easier to scan because you can use IR cleaning with C-41. This technique is impossible with traditional B&W film. > Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg. The fact that your scanner “has a setting” just means that people want to use the scanner for this purpose. It does not inform you which alternative you should choose. > Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a host of issues into post-processing. I can't imagine even one issue in post-processing. Once you scan it the film, you get a monochrome image. With C-41, the post-processing is easier because you don't have to do as much manual cleanup (due to IR cleaning, above). Speaking as someone who has an entire shelf dedicated to binders of film—B&W is much worse to scan than C-41. I personally shoot mostly traditional B&W but I recognize that my use case is different from most.

staticautomatic 7y ago
Suffice it to say I disagree, but even if what you're saying is true, I don't really see it as a good enough reason to shoot black and white on C-41 film.
- klodolph 7y ago
  Ok, I guess it's okay for you to disagree but it would be nice if you articulated the reasons for your disagreement, if you’re going to bother replying. Personally I prefer to shoot B&W over monochrome C-41, but if you are not sure how much effort you want to spend on film and are going to scan, then it makes sense to go C-41.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    Looking back over this I'm actually not sure we're talking about the same film. I like SFX a lot. It's a traditional black and white film (in terms of development chemistry, there's no mention of C-41 chemistry on the technical sheet). Did you mean XP2? Anyway, here's my take on "black and white" C-41 films: I just don't see the point. Traditional black and white film is a beautiful thing. From an aesthetic and technical standpoint it's far and away better than C-41. The only advantage C-41 has is the ability to drop it off at a corner lab, and those are becoming more rare by the day. I'd much rather just shoot a high quality true color negative film and convert it. I don't do that very often but I'd be kind of surprised if you couldn't get a better looking image from converting, say, Portra, than shooting a "black and white" color negative film. Every time I've tried films like XP2 an whatever the Kodak equivalent was, the results have been resoundingly underwhelming.