3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoOk, 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 agoLooking 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.