W00T! I developed my first roll of B&W film in over 10 years.

[280plus]

Well. I picked up the only roll of 400CN on the shelf as well as a three pack of B&W 400. Both claim fine grain, supposedly are good for enlargements and can be developed by the machines. What is the difference between them, any idea? Neither can be developed using regular chemicals according to the packages. Too bad it's such a gray day. Plus I got work to do anyhow. Soon though, very soon.

OK, here's some more technical stuff I've been wondering about though. How big CAN I blow up a 35 MM B&W before it's too grainy? I'm thinking nature shots in B&W with the best ones enlarged and framed and in a little booth at the flea market now and then.

I also have in my plans to do a survey of local stone walls as time goes on including pix. Possibly to compile into a book just so it's all together. Is it still possible to go from film straight to printed format or will the prints end up on a scanner first?

[mtnbkr]

The 400CN is developed just like standard color film.  Just drop it off at the local minilab and you're done.  Not knowing what the B&W 400 is, I can't comment on it, but if it's standard B&W film, WM will have to send it out, though some labs can handle it in house.  What was the exact name of the 3pack?

How big an enlargement?  That depends on the film, the camera (specifically the lens), the development, the enlarger, skill, etc.  Also, depending on the subject matter and personal preference, grain isn't necessarily a bad thing.  8x10 should be easy, maybe 16x20 if everything's "right".  It also depends on intended viewing distance.  A slightly grainy 16x20 would look good viewed at a distance than a slightly less grainy print viewed closely.  

Chris

[garrettwc]

B&W400

I think this is what he means.

Just curious, why 400 speed films. It's been a while, but wouldn't you get better results with 100ISO or ISO50 Ilford if you're wanting to make some big art prints?

[mtnbkr]

Ahhh.  It's basically the same as 400CN.

I'd go with a slower film as well, but the C41 B&W films are only available in 400 speed.  

Chris

[280plus]

Ahhh, I see. I remember when the new 400 iso Color films first came out. They were touted to be a faster film with small grain. I used to use the 400 color all the time. I'm just guessing this holds true for the B&W too?

I used to have the first Pentax ME. It was a smaller body 35 mm slr with auto shutter speed. You set the aperture, it set the shutter. I had a few really good lenses and some other stuff for it. My "girlfriend" at the time hocked it all on me while I was out to sea as far as I know. That ended my photography days. And that particular relationship too!

[garrettwc]

280plus I used to use a lot of 400 color too. I was shooting cars at speed and had "read" that's what you are supposed to do. Met up with a real pro at a race track and he introduced me to Ektachrome Pro 64. It opened up a whole new world. You have to shoot at much slower speeds if the light isn't good, but you pick up so much more detail.

I used to have the first Pentax ME. It was a smaller body 35 mm slr with auto shutter speed. You set the aperture, it set the shutter. I had a few really good lenses and some other stuff for it.

That's what is known as aperature priority. I had an ME super which was shutter priority the opposite of yours. The funny thing now that I think of it, for the most part, I took better shots with the Pentax than the auto everything Nikon that followed.  It was just a simple design that let you take photos, without the distraction of all those cool gadgets.

Anybody remember Kodak Tri-x?

[280plus]

sniff sniff,,,I loved that Pentax. I bought the Japanese brand of Vivitar lenses (IIRC Tokino?)  for it. 28 mm and 80 - 200 zoom, in Hong Kong. I bought the camera in Japan, it was at the cutting edge of the technology at the time. It took beautiful pictures and it was pretty much fool proof. Heh, this Leica has an attachable light meter. Built in range finder, what else do you need?

I got a Coolpix 950 in '99. I love that camera too. 13 lense element from macro all the way to digital telephoto x4. Tricky to learn at first. I'm still no expert. I have yet to see a print I like from digital. It's good for posting to the web though. Pictures come out great on screen. Most of the time...  

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If that Leica is too much for you, you could give it to one of us...

Just a thought.

[garrettwc]

The thing with digital is cost vs. return. You can get very close to film quality. If you don't mind spending $3-4 grand on the body and then another $1500 on software to make it look right. I can remember when you could build a whole B&W studio for that kind of $$$ and have money left.

I have a little Canon A60 that is growing on me. Great for email and web stuff. I finally figured out how to use the macro thing on it.

I think mine had the Sigma lens. Don't remember now. Had a 300mm zoom for it that was dirt cheap compared to what some of the big name 300mm lenses go for now. They were pretty much idiot proof. Make sure your film was in and winding. Compose, focus, twist aperature until the litte meter needle was straight, press shutter, hit film advance with thumb, and repeat.

[280plus]

If that Leica is too much for you, you could give it to one of us...

LOL...

Well, considering I just loaded it up, figured out how to put the light meter on it, figured a couple other things out, took the very first pic with it AND the sound of the shutter is too sweet for words to describe, I'd have to sayyyy,,,,,NOT!

[280plus]

Cool thing I found out about the Leica. When you attach the light meter it mechanically interlocks with the shutter speed dial. So as you spin the dial on the meter to calculate your settings it sets the shutter speed automatically.

 

[garrettwc]

took the very first pic with it AND the sound of the shutter is too sweet for words to describe

The Leica does have one of those "special" sounds doesn't it. Like a '57 Les Paul, or a vintage Austin Healey.