Originally Posted by calicojack 
For B&W I suggest sticking with traditional B&W film and processing. In my opinion, the C-41 process films were developed for people that couldn't handle the real thing. The results from traditional processed film are much better with more range.
(God, I haven't done B&W in a long time!)
Well, the first chromogenic film, XP1, was originally actually kind of billed as a sort of wonder-film for serious photographers who might take advantage of all the minilabs springing up. It didn't live up to the grandiose promises of exposure latitude, never mind actually being very good. There was one fun thing, though. I worked at a place with a really overqualified printing machine guy, he could 'tone' the stuff however you wanted. (This man was a genius. Color-corrected near every print that went through the machine by eye, with barely a discernible pause) Only time I ever saw the stuff look *good,* and it still was hardly the same as true B&W.
I have a friend who has actually gotten some pleasing results out of the Kodak CN400... the big issue there is that you don't get a conventionally-printable negative, but they seem to scan OK. Still... Not the same thing. Real B&W is basically the way to go if at all possible, especially when the choice to shoot film is about other things than the most convenience, for the most part.
It's also not difficult to learn to do your own negs... It's like cooking, ...You can get as involved with it as you like, or do a perfectly competent job just by following simple directions.
