BW film that with C41 process method

[haagen_dazs]

hi
have a question
is there any difference between using BW film for C41 (colour) process method VS the normal traditional type of BW film?

 

[Richard Black]

Yes there is. C-41 film, color and B7W can be processed by your local mini photo lab at W-M, Walgreens or what have you in N.J. Traditional silver based b&w film requires either you do it yourself or send it to a professional lab. Developing C-41 at home is possible but it is much more difficult due to the demands of consistant water temp. It is much easier to drop it off at a one hour lab and pick it up later with proof sheet or cd.

 

[haagen_dazs]

thanks

actually i re-read my question and forgot to add.

what i wanted to know was if there is a quality difference in the final processed negative if it undergoes the C41 mtd VS the traditional method.

 

[venchka]

They look different too

They look different too

C-41 film, that is. The Kodak variety, BW400CN, is quite smooth and very nearly grain free. It performs very well at ASA 200 to 400. My experience has been that it is quite nice at 320. Ilford XP2 Super has grain. It looks more like traditional B&W film. The grain is somewhere between Plus-X and Tri-X. I have used it at ASA 400 with good results. Also, the Ilford film will print correctly in an enlarger on traditional B&W paper. The Kodak film has an orange base and may drive you crazy trying to print traditionally.

All of that said, if a minilab is all you have, both are good and simple to process. However, you may have to hunt for a lab with proper quality control. All minilabs are NOT! equal.

 

[Xmas]

A query ...

The chromogenics have much more exposure latitude and quality does not drop off as you reduce exposure?

Noel

 

[haagen_dazs]

C-41 film, that is.

the Kodak film has an orange base and may drive you crazy trying to print traditionally.

vencha
thanks
i just wanted to clarify.
the word "quality" in my question is defined by you as "amount of grain"
ie grain free is good quality?

i am new the bw stuff
so what do you mean by the kodak film having an orange base?
prints are black and white and shades of grey right? how does the colour orange come into play? (newbie here)

 

[Xmas]

If you look at colour negative film most have a mask and are not complemetary in colour, kodak film was orange, 30 years ago.

The printer balance compensates for the mask and the prints come out near to the origonal scene.

The balance for the B&W should produce a black and white print on the colour paper.

The B&W film should be much higher in resolution than the colour film.

Noel

 

[joachim]

There are plenty differences

• The C41 variety tends to scan like a piece of cake, in particular you can use ICE for scratch/dust removal.
• Traditional Silver Films are typically higher resolving
• C41 films react with smoother grain on over exposure, traditional Silver Films react more grainy when overexposed
• Both loose resolution on overexposure
• C41 is a well standartised process, B&W processing is not. In my experience most labs charge a lot for proper B&W processing and the negs still suck
• Silver Films are more archival when processed properly.
• C41 is not easy to do at home, traditional processing is very easy but time consuming.
• I guess the are 5 million things I missed

In the end, my advise, if you have to give them away, I would use the C41. If you do your own processing, I would choose the Silver ones. Sometime life is so easy If the contrast/density are in a mess non of the above advantages count.

 

[mich8261]

Mark, I am also a newbie here, but I will add what I have found as I research more or less the same subject. Ilford claims that you can shoot their XP2 Super from 50 to 800 ISO without altering the processing (no push/pull). Which I take to mean that you can change the EI on a single roll. The caveat is that you must print on B&W paper for this to work. Their documentation mentions that if you are printing on colour paper (which mini-labs would), then you should stick to 400 ISO. I intend to test this 50-800 range soon.

Cheers.

 

[ARCHIVIST]

As a photographic archivist and having worked for Ilford I have had an interest in the C-41 processed b/w films since the introduction of Ilford's XP-1.

My definition of quality encompasses the longevity of the image. XP-1 negatives started to turn brown, in some cases, after 10 years - enter XP-2, problem solved.

Remember that essentially all C-41 b/w will have only the longevity of colour negative film and not that of traditional b/w film.

Peter

 

[40oz]

The Kodak BW400CN looks great, IMHO. It doesn't look like traditional B&W, really, but that isn't a bad thing, any more than different traditional B&W films looking different from each other is a bad thing. I haven't tried the Ilford version, but I have no reason to believe it is anything less than great, as well.

C41 B&W is certainly convenient. The only drawback really is there are only two choices AFAIK, both ISO400. That certainly isn't a reason not to use it. If you have no interest in developing and printing your own film, either C41 film is fine.

If you were going to print them yourself from the negatives, you might as well develop it yourself as well, at which point traditional B&W films would be a better choice, because you have much more freedom with the whole process, and can acheive better results than any lab can deliver.

 

[venchka]

Explanation.

Explanation.

C-41 film, that is. The Kodak variety, BW400CN, is quite smooth and very nearly grain free. It performs very well at ASA 200 to 400. My experience has been that it is quite nice at 320. Ilford XP2 Super has grain. It looks more like traditional B&W film. The grain is somewhere between Plus-X and Tri-X. I have used it at ASA 400 with good results. Also, the Ilford film will print correctly in an enlarger on traditional B&W paper. The Kodak film has an orange base and may drive you crazy trying to print traditionally.

All of that said, if a minilab is all you have, both are good and simple to process. However, you may have to hunt for a lab with proper quality control. All minilabs are NOT! equal.

What everyone else said. I should elaborate.

Kodak BW400CN when mildly overexposed (200-250-320) produces very smooth, creamy skin tones. There is almost no grain showing. This is a good thing. This is a bad thing. It all depends on what you want from a film.

Ilford XP2 Super shows more grain. This is a good thing. This is a bad thing. It all depends on what you want from a film.

If I were photographing on the street or in a pub, I would choose the Ilford film. I would go for a gritty, earthy look. If I were photograping my granddaughters, I would choose the Kodak film. I would want them to look like the little angels that they are.

The orange mask in the Kodak film will alter the color of the light in an enlarger and play heck with variable contrast filters and paper. The Ilford film will not do this.

Many of my scans from the minilabs are GREEN. I have to correct this in Adobe Lightroom. This is a lab problem, not a film problem. Some labs get it right. Others do not. Shop around for a lab that knows what they are doing.

Both are good. Shoot them! Share your results.

 

[Xmas]

Cant you get the little girls to look like urchins then?

Noel

 

[amateriat]

I can't disagree too much with what's been said thus far. Between the two films, I use Ilford XP2 more, since it's "signature" sits better with my eye overall, and it leaves me with the option to print in the wet darkroom, although I mostly scan my negs. This isn't to knock Kodak's chromo film, though – I use it from time to time, and I think it's a good film overall. The best thing is to try a handful of rolls of both to get an idea of which works best (and there's nothing stopping you from using both, of course!).

(First image: XP-2 Super. Second image: BW400CN)


- Barrett

 

[mich8261]

Barrett,

I have seen many of your posts, but it wasn't until now that I realized the you state Brooklyn as your location. When I saw the second image, I immediatly recognized the Gowanus Canal bridge under the elevated F train. Small world. Okay, maybe not that small if you consider there are 8 million New Yorkers, but it is still cool to be surprised by a neighborhood picture on the net.

Cheers,

 

[haagen_dazs]

thank you all! you guys helped me out alot!

 

[amateriat]

Barrett,

I have seen many of your posts, but it wasn't until now that I realized the you state Brooklyn as your location. When I saw the second image, I immediatly recognized the Gowanus Canal bridge under the elevated F train. Small world. Okay, maybe not that small if you consider there are 8 million New Yorkers, but it is still cool to be surprised by a neighborhood picture on the net.

Cheers,

Michel: Thanks.

Hey, Brooklyn's a big world on a small planet...or at least it seems that way sometimes (sez this born-in-Manhattan expatriate). And a most fascinating place to walk about at night with camera in hand.


- Barrett

 

[venchka]

Cant you get the little girls to look like urchins then?

Noel

They do look like urchins on occasion. Angelic urchins!

 

[dspeltz]

Here is a XP2 exposed at 200. I think it provides for better shadow detail than at 400. Not as nice as Trix at 200 however.

 

[David Murphy]

Yes there is. C-41 film, color and B7W can be processed by your local mini photo lab at W-M, Walgreens or what have you in N.J. Traditional silver based b&w film requires either you do it yourself or send it to a professional lab. Developing C-41 at home is possible but it is much more difficult due to the demands of consistant water temp. It is much easier to drop it off at a one hour lab and pick it up later with proof sheet or cd.

Walmart says they will do real black and white. I am about to try it.