B&W - C41....School me.

[bucks11]

Evening all,
I'm just making the transition into the film lifestyle, getting bored with the digital age.
Next quarter I'm taking a Classic B&W/Darkroom course for basics of developing and wet prints. Until then I'd like to get familiar with some of my equipment and find a cheap B&W film to shoot with. Until I start my course, I'm going to take my film to get developed, so what's a relatively cheap B&W I can process at a 1-hr (C-41 I'm guessing) like Wally-World? I'm going to do scans from the negs, but I don't need anything astounding...just learning the ropes.

Looking forward to the input...

 

[kshapero]

Kodak BW CN400 and Ilford XP2 are your only choices and neither are that cheap.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Most walmart stores no longer do one hour film processing, its digital prints only now.

Walgreens still does 1 hr film.

As kshapero said, C-41 films are not cheap. Not costly really, just a little more than regular BW film. They're priced like color films. They're capable of good results, though the minilabs don't make the greatest prints. Here's some I did from the kodak C41 film, 35mm size, scanned in my Nikon scanner.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I like XP2 pretty well. The nice thing about it, for me, is that I can go out shooting with a roll of it and a roll of color film and soup them both together with my C41 press kit. So I always keep a few rolls in the fridge.

If you don't have one-hour processing in your town, though, and don't develop C41 at home, it's not worth the extra expense.

 

[89rzweig]

What you intend to do seems to be natural path -- I did the same myself except that I did not get that far and do not make wet prints. I just scan the negatives and then print them on ink jet printer.

There are three "B&W" films for C-41 process AFAIK: Kodak BW400CN, Ilford XP2 Super a Fuji Neopan 400CN. All of them cost more or less the same and in general are quite expensive.

Of the three Ilford XP2 Super and Fuji 400CN look almost quite the same to me and are somewhat grainier than Kodak BW400CN. Fuji and Ilford negatives are normal grey looking, while the Kodak is actually brown and white. Of the three I liked most the Kodak look (desaturated, of course). The results got better, when I set the film speed on the camera on ISO 320 rather than ISO 400, ie 1/3 stop overexposure.

After shooting and developing nomal siver halide B&W films for some time I wouldn't even think about using these films again...

 

[tritiated]

I like XP2, have been using that mostly and having found a good mailing lab which returns great scans it suits me fine in terms of quality control and economy. Unfortunately the supplier of XP2 bulk packs seems to be perpetually out of stock..

Don't Fuji do a c41 version of Neopan?

have had HP5 developed by a lab but they messed it up royally with scratches etc. + was expensive.
Having learnt from this- I'm going to dev my own Agfapan soon hopefully, I have a backlog ready for me! A scanner is the next expensive thing I may get....

 

[OurManInTangier]

Personally I find the Kodak CN400 to be a great film. I dev my own using Tri X these days but used it as you plan to before I went back to processing my own films. The biggest trick is to utterly ignore the resulting prints and look at the negs for detail etc. It's very tolerant and nearly grainless meaning big crops are possible, useful if you're starting out.

I'm typing this on my phone so can't link to any pictures but I have one as the album cover ( album is called Coast ) in my gallery which shows how good the Kodak stuff can be.

Well worth the extra expense while you wait to get all the processing kit IMHO

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I use the Fuji C 41 B&W from time to time.

Does all I need, and it gets processed in a standard machine.

 

[venchka]

The Kodak and Ilford films are nice. the Ilford is on a clear base and is more wet print friendly than the Kodak. Minilabs have a tendency to return green prints and scans if the operator is clueless.

Both films prefer overexposure to underexposure. E.I. 250 worked best for me.

 

[Avotius]

I am really fond of Xp2, it is my most used film. I find that I can get really great scans from it too. Many of my bw photos are xp2 and I have been able to get wonderful tonality out of it. I very much dislike the kodak c41 film. Try shooting xp2 at iso 320 if you are using a lower contrast lens and watch it glow.

 

[capitalK]

What's the best way to print wet from the BW 400CN?

 

[shadowfox]

Want cheaper, get expired batches. ASA 250 and go.

 

[shadowfox]

What's the best way to print wet from the BW 400CN?

Hope this helps:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=910820&postcount=16

 

[funkaoshi]

I also like XP2 more than the Kodak equivalent. I'm pretty sure the negatives from XP2 are easier to print in a darkroom as well.

 

[venchka]

Kodak BW400CN and available light is very nice for ladies. The Kodak film has increased red sensitivity to make skin look very nice.

 

[capitalK]

That is helpful, thanks.

Hope this helps:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=910820&postcount=16

 

[rbiemer]

i use Kodak BW400CN quiye a lot and like it. I generally rate it at 320 and as has been said, ignore--or don't get--the prints.
When I see silver BW films locally they are always much more expensive. I do buy most of my film on-line and the C-41 bW films are a bit more. Locally, they are the same as the few color films available, typically 9.99 for a three pack of 24 exp rolls.
I haven't used XP2 enough to really learn it but if I were in a similar situation: soon to have darkroom access I would shoot more of it since it is not on the orange film base that the Kodak is. XP2 should be much easier to print because of that.
Rob

 

[Leighgion]

I'm a minority among chromogenic B&W shooters in that I really don't like the look of XP2. I don't wet print, so that's not an issue for me but even if I did, I wouldn't want to wet print negs that I didn't like.

Really like results I've gotten from Kodak 400CN though. It was a roll of this that got me back into film.

 

[st3ph3nm]

Another thumbs up for Kodak BW400CN. I've had some great results, and I have to agree with the comments regarding skin tones. Really nice. My latest scans really don't do the stuff justice, compared to the prints I have at home. Still getting the hang of neg. scanning, I guess. All the B&W stuff on my gallery is Kodak C41. Fortunately, my local developer is very keen to get good results for me - so I don't get the sepia or green tones anymore.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[januaryman]

XP-2 is WAY too expensive lately. I use BW400CN and rate it at 200. When I'm pinching pennies, I shoot Fuji Superia 400 or 200 and convert to BW in PS Elements. This actually gives me more control over the tones by tweaking the colors prior to converting. BTW, I use Superia 400 and rate it at 200 also. It seems to help the quality, for some odd reason. Since I Sunny-16 for a meter, it makes my job easier.