Digital BW, The Print

Sanders writes:

> (1) Is there any benefit to be had from taking
> Portra 400BW to a professional lab?

That depends entirely on the kind of labs to which you have access in your
area.

In my area, I find that a pro lab does slightly better work on C-41 in
general, including Portra 400BW.  The development is fine even at the
one-hour labs, but the work from the pro labs is spotless, whereas negatives
from the one-hour labs occasionally show specks of dust or (much more
rarely) tiny scratches.

For 135, I take everyday stuff to the one-hour lab.  For important work for
clients, I take it to the pro lab, just to be safe.  For 120, I always take
it to the pro lab, because I haven't found any one-hour labs that can do
express development on 120 in-house.  The one-hour labs tell me that this
isn't because they can't do it--they have the same machines as the pro labs,
after all--but it's just that they run 135 all day long through the
minilabs, and 120 film tends to pick up the junk that accumulates outside
the 135 path if they run it through the machine.  Pro labs run a lot more
120 and keep their machines cleaner (hopefully), so they don't have this
problem.

> A Kodak one-hour shop just opened up on my block,
> and they seem to be using new machines, and their
> prices are cheaper than Duggal and the other professional
> labs in Manhattan.

Try a couple of rolls and see.

They all use the same equipment.  If the one-hour lab is conscientious, it
can easily match the pro lab.  But it can be hard to find that when you are
paying five times less at the one-hour lab; pro labs can afford to be
meticulous.

> (2) How well does Portra 400BW handle pushing and
> pulling?

I've never tried it.  The Kodak data sheet says nothing about pushing or
pulling, which is perhaps ominous.

However, Portra 400BW has an exposure range of about 9.5 stops, and it's
very linear, so if you are dealing with, say, a seven-stop range in your
scene, you still have over two stops of latitude, so you may not need to
pull or push in many situations.  Controlled lighting situations give you
even more flexibility.  Like I said, I was surprised at how well it did on
very contrasty night scenes.

> (3) Is there a way to minimize the "flatness"
> that Anthony suggests is a problem with the film,
> when used in daylight exposures?

Filters should do it, although they slow the film down.  I haven't tried it
myself.

> BTW Anthony, very nice work on your site!

Thanks!

> It is a testament to the enduring value of Tri-X, yes?

I never tire of Tri-X.  I don't care for the grain much, but it sure is nice
in other respects.  In MF, the grain is pretty discreet, too, so I like it
even more when I shoot MF.  And Tri-X is a breeze to develop, and very
forgiving.  I'm kind of sloppy in development and I still get nice results.

Photo 134 in my street scenes was shot on MF Tri-X Pan Professional.  About
half of it is cropped away, and it still looks smooth.

> It also makes me realize how many photographic
> opportunities I let slip past me every day here
> on the streets of New York.

New York must be a gold mine for photos, as long as people aren't too
paranoid.  Any big city is like that, I think.