What B&W film beats XP2 ?

mfogiel

mfogiel

Veteran
Local time
10:02 PM
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
4,671
I'd like to ask for advice those experienced B&W shooters who have been looking for the holy grail of an "ideal" film. I have come back to photography after a long absence, because of the possibility of digital printing, so my question relates strictly to the hybrid workflow. Here's the point:

IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, WHAT B&W FILM (PLUS DEVELOPER) CAN CONVINCINGLY BETTER THE RESULTS YOU CAN GET WITH XP2 ?

I repeat, my question relates ONLY to a scanning workflow, and I am curious to find out both the options in the 25-100 ISO range, and those from 200 ISO up ( I rate XP2 at 200 ISO normally)

Just to give you a glimpse of "MY BENCHMARK", here are some links to my recent shots that exhibit "satisfactory" characteristics of the film I use currently:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=769947061&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=866008975&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019034753&size=l

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1031580767&size=l
 
Last edited:
Ilford hp5+ rated at 200 ISO works well.

Plus - in my experience it is more archivally stable. I have just been scanning some negatives going back thirty years and it is only the XP-2 (and its forerunner XP-1) negatives that have deteriorated to the extent that they are unusable. The hp5 and hp5+ is perfect (once the bit of fungus - due a few months in a damp house in Co. Leitrim Ireland - was cleaned off).

This may not be important to you if you are scanning straight away.

Cheers,

Sean.
 
I used to shoot XP2 exclusively -- until I realized how expensive it was compared with shooting straight B&W. Processing 400TX at home allowed me to shave my costs by around 30%-40%.

But scanning-wise, there's nothing like scanning C41 since you can easily turn on ICE or other similar dust/scratch removing technology. A breeze.
 
I rather like BW40OCN. I still can't work out if I prefer it to XP2 - "for some subjects" is as close as I can get. But I need to start developing my own. Delta 400! And Neopan, and Tri-X and...

...Mike
 
I have experimented with a wide range of traditional b&w film, prefer the new Tri X, but found the C-41 b&w films, both XP-2 and the Kodaks, are easier to scan on the Epson 3170 I use. In 120 I can't tell it from the more traditional films. Plus I don't have to keep chemicals around long after they expire.
The biggest difference between the Ilford and Kodak I can tell is the underlying base, Ilford is blue-gray and the Kodaks tend to be brownish-orange. Both easily adjusted for in the software.:)
 
I m working as well with hybrid workflow (film, scanning, inkjet printing). Most of recent B&W work is based on XP2, main reason is as already mentioned the easy of scan. Since a few weeks I have a new 4000 dpi film scanner, excellent with xp2, but not yet tried film as HP5 (I have many at 400-800-1600 iso) or Fuji Across 100. I'll try in the next weeks.
rob
 
I am not a fan of XP2, as I cannot seem to get the highlights under control.

My favorite film right now is Acros 100, which is also the best scanning traditional black and white film I have used. I develop in either Rodinal or HC-110. I find that the tonality is really creamy w/ HC-110, and I like it. If you develop at home, you will be able to get the dust under control and post-processing will be minimal.

Check "Balance" in my rff gallery, and also this one:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1030328194&size=o
 
I like XP2 for many things but mostly prefer the look of more traditional B&W films. Yours are nice, very nice. But they almost look too smooth, and too digital to me.
 
For ease of scanning, C41 is the best option, but if you're only going to work in a hybrid environment, why not shoot colour and convert to B&W with software. I only shoot with traditional silver based film becasue I process at home and like to make wet prints as well. There are many colour films that are less expensive than XP-2 and if you aren't going to print from them traditionally, then why even bother with B&W film and you'll end up with twice the options at the printing stage. The last film wedding I shot I used colour only and converted in PS6 (it was a while ago). The client didn't know the difference and there are some very good C41 colour films around.
That is IMHO, cheers Andrew.
 
I have some XP-1 negs that are 25+ years old and look just as good as my old HP5 and Tri-X negs. I think I've posted this on another thread but here's a recent scan I did of an old XP-1 neg:

XP1.jpg
 
Several of my Plus-X negatives from 1981 were scanned last year. They haven't faded, but many are badly scratched. Digital ICE does not work with silver based film.
 
Never Satisfied

I do use occasionally the Portra 400NC or 160NC, but my impression has been, that with the 400NC the graininess is worse than XP2 and with both the tonality after conversion is not as good as XP2. Maybe my conversion workflow (channel mixer) is not very efficient - if you have any tips, please give me a hint. I know shooting in colour would let me eliminate the filters, but I am ok with this, what I am after is better sharpness and tonality.
 
I don't really like XP2. I like the grain of real B/W film better. But for scanning, C-41 film has the advantage that you can use infrared dust correction which doesn't work with real B/W film. For what it's worth, I like Delta 100 but why change if XP2 works for you. Nice pics BTW.
 
Hi, unfortunately what I know about photo shop can be written in large writing on the back of a postage stamp. which is not much. I've just loaded CS3 and it has a neat B&W conversion that is an extension of the channel mixer from the previous versions and given the time, and a good neg, you can get things to look very snappy on the screen.
When I scan my traditional B&W, I use a Minolta Dimage 5400 and Vue scan soft ware. I tell the program that it is colour film and the scans turn out with a very strange colour cast, but with much better tonality. The colour cast is quickly removed in PS, any version. I struggle to get the tonality from real B&W negs once scanned, that I can get from colour that has been converted.

One advantage that traditional B&W film has over C41 is the variance in the processing. Scanning tends to produce quite contrasty images, so if you decide on real B&W, you can set up for a lower contrast output to give you great looking results once scanned.

Don't get me wrong, XP-2 Super is a great film, just too dear for my tastes. There are pleanty of readily available C41 colour films that scan perfectly and produce grain free results giving you a perfect canvas for your hybrid workflow.
Cheers Andrew.
 
I like the look of XP2 quite a lot. It would probably be my favorite 35mm film if it wasn`t for the C41 processing. I prefer to develop BW film at home rather than beeing dependent on a lab. Haven`t found a true BW film though that would give a look similar to XP2. If somebody has experience with a "XP2-like" (in terms of look) silver halide emulsion, please let us know. As to scanning, I guess no matter what true BW film you use it will always be more tricky to scan compared to the C41 dye emulsions.
 
I find that XP2 doesn't scan well above iso 400- the shadows take on a 'salt and pepper look'. Delta 400 scans well on my Nikon 8000 even when pushed to iso 800.
 
XP2 Super is my favorite B&W film, for the wet darkroom, even disregarding scanning. I like the smooth look and rich tonality available with generous exposure. I think EI 400 is on the edge of underexposure, and this film does not take kindly to underexposure! It's also entirely reasonable to soup C41 process in the home darkroom, the main challenge being maintaining consistent 100-degF and the short developer time. I wish Ilford could produce it in 220 size.
 
Since you are scanning, XP2 in very hard to beat
But if you were doing real darkroom almost any film can do it.

For scanning the Deltas and Fuji Acros can give XP2 a good run for the money, however digidrain will always appear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom