C-41 Mono vs Regular Processing

boojum

boojum

Ignoble Miscreant
Local time
10:55 PM
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
4,414
Location
NW Oregon, USA
View My Gallery
OK, I made a huge error. When a kind member sent me a "Shelf Queen" Contax II I went and got Oleg to CLA it and the lens. Now this means that I am sort of obliged to run film through it if only to hear that gorgeous shutter sound. That sound does ring my bells. So having seen some mention of Ilford and their one type, XP-2, I sent off for some. Reasoning on my part is that everybody can process color film C-41.

But if you have six camera nerds you will have twelve opinions on any topic. Lomography posted that the grays are not as good with C-41 film. But it looked like they had either expired film, lousy processing or both. So I ask, who here has the mono experience with both processes and what are their conclusions.

Thanks.
 
Lomography are idiots.

XP2 is a solid film. You can develop it in standard black and white developers - I use Rodinal - and still get great results, but C41-processed XP2 is perfectly fine. The catch, of course, is that your lab has to be decent. Same with any commercial development - you have to find somewhere you can trust.

The only negative I can really say for XP2 - whether developed in proper black and white chemicals or in C41 - is that it's a pain to print in the darkroom. Exposure times are long, and I often find the contrast needs a huge boost. If you're only scanning (or getting commercial scans)? Not a problem.

I think you can even use infrared dust removal when scanning with C41-developed XP2, but I may be wrong. It's about 15 years since I last had any developed in C41.

Here's a sample of XP2 in Rodinal with a 21mm Color Skopar:

Leotax T2L - Roll 13 - XP2 (5).jpg

This printed really nicely (with a bit of work). I'd rather have Pan F+ but for a 400-speed film, it's not too shabby.
 
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but XP-2 in C-41 will give a dye-based image. However, if it is processed in regular B&W chemistry, I believe it will give you a silver-based image. This might be of importance if you're concerned about ultimate long-term archival storage.
And oh, yes, Coldkennels is correct. Lomography are idiots.
 
I choose the film based on light conditions. C41 films do better under harsh light. I shoot E6 and Tmax, HP5 in lower contrast conditions like dusk and dawn. XP2 makes a great reportage film when you have no control over the light. C41 does a great job taming contrast. I printed those in the darkroom. It take longer and need to play with multigrade paper filter but prints fine. They look better on Ilford paper than on the screen. I posted these from my phone which I think messes with the contrast.IMG_0258.jpeg

These were from 30 years ago at the SF Folsom Street Fair.IMG_0260.jpeg
 
I developed XP-2 in HC-110 as per Chris Moss's timing, and quite pleased with the result.

53918011138_61156a17b8_o.jpg


53918439314_fcb3efe045_o.jpg

Leica M6/Summar 5cm.
 
Oh, Sheiss mit Reis. have I tumbled down a crater that was a rabbit hole or opened the Gates of Hell and set the Harpies free?? LOL Wow! You guys know your stuff. OK, XP-2 can go either way in processing. It's bi-chemical. LMAO I am a hack, fooling with film, mono, the first time in about 70 years. The last time it was with my meme at the left, a Vito II. I bought 100' rolls of Plus-X or Tri-X when it came out. We thought Tri-X was space science. But then I had access to a darkroom the size of a tennis court with all the gear, all the gear. All I needed was the developing tank and chemicals and a Saturday to squander. Yeah, I felt like Daedalus even though I was really Icarus.

So now out of the water I climb for another shot. But I want to use the KISS principle. I will shoot, send out for developing and scanning retrieving the scanned JPG's. No enlargers and afternoons of dodging and burning, that's back in '55. With the scanned JPG's I can manipulate what I want on-line.

So the question is, hopefully, C-41 or B&W processing or another mono film. I am trying to avoid the maelstrom of chemicals, tanks, enlargers, paper and so on. It's bad enough that I am buying film. Sheesh!! LOL

Stop me before I go completely off the rails. ;o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom