JonR
Well-known
Friends
A question about the C41 B&W films...
I have allways used TriX, PlusX and other classical B&W films when shooting B&W and it of course made sense when I developped on my own many years ago. Lately I have been dissapointed several times when sending the films to the lab and it does not seem as if they take enough care of the odd B&W films. I bought a Kodak BW400CN-film just to test it and was pleasantly satisfied.... so, my questions:
1. Is it your experience that it is better to use C41 B&W-film when sending it to a lab for processing and scanning ?
2. Are there any good 100 ASA B&W C41-films out there
3. Other comments about C41 B&W film compared with non-c41
Appreciate you commnets..... /Jon
A question about the C41 B&W films...
I have allways used TriX, PlusX and other classical B&W films when shooting B&W and it of course made sense when I developped on my own many years ago. Lately I have been dissapointed several times when sending the films to the lab and it does not seem as if they take enough care of the odd B&W films. I bought a Kodak BW400CN-film just to test it and was pleasantly satisfied.... so, my questions:
1. Is it your experience that it is better to use C41 B&W-film when sending it to a lab for processing and scanning ?
2. Are there any good 100 ASA B&W C41-films out there
3. Other comments about C41 B&W film compared with non-c41
Appreciate you commnets..... /Jon
mfogiel
Veteran
Jon,
In my experience the C-41 B&W films are specialist films for low acutance, lowish contrast scenes, in particular for portraits:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1019034753/in/set-72157601234693316/
You will find that XP2 is sharper, while BW400CN is smoother,
XP2:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1031580767/in/set-72157600129466148/
BW400CN:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/466500137/in/set-72157600129466148/
Their true speed is 200 ISO, but you can expose anywhere between 50 and 1600 ISO, but below 200 ISO the sharpness takes a hit, and above 200 ISO the grain eats up the shadows, this is BW400CN in 6x6 at 1600 ISO:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1159277149/in/set-72157601175708450/
I have been shooting with XP2 for much of the year, but then I tried some traditional B&W, and it is more laborious but better suited for general shooting. In particular Fuji Acros is a fantastic all around slow film, while the jury is still out on which 400 ISO is better: Delta 400 or Neopan 400 ( I have excluded the "old" films like HP5+ or Tri-X, because are more difficult to scan and the grain is not acceptable to me in 35mm). I believe, if you cannot find a pro lab for traditional B&W processing, either develop yourself, or stick to the chromogenics - my preference would be XP2 at ISO 200.
In my experience the C-41 B&W films are specialist films for low acutance, lowish contrast scenes, in particular for portraits:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1019034753/in/set-72157601234693316/
You will find that XP2 is sharper, while BW400CN is smoother,
XP2:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1031580767/in/set-72157600129466148/
BW400CN:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/466500137/in/set-72157600129466148/
Their true speed is 200 ISO, but you can expose anywhere between 50 and 1600 ISO, but below 200 ISO the sharpness takes a hit, and above 200 ISO the grain eats up the shadows, this is BW400CN in 6x6 at 1600 ISO:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1159277149/in/set-72157601175708450/
I have been shooting with XP2 for much of the year, but then I tried some traditional B&W, and it is more laborious but better suited for general shooting. In particular Fuji Acros is a fantastic all around slow film, while the jury is still out on which 400 ISO is better: Delta 400 or Neopan 400 ( I have excluded the "old" films like HP5+ or Tri-X, because are more difficult to scan and the grain is not acceptable to me in 35mm). I believe, if you cannot find a pro lab for traditional B&W processing, either develop yourself, or stick to the chromogenics - my preference would be XP2 at ISO 200.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I have used Fuji Neopan 400 CN Professional with pleasing results. Look in my Gallery (or my site) at the Mono album; all photos there are with this film.
It's available only in Britain and Japan, so you may need to order online.
It's made in Britain by Ilford, and is said to be a tweaked version of Ilford's own XP2.
It's available only in Britain and Japan, so you may need to order online.
It's made in Britain by Ilford, and is said to be a tweaked version of Ilford's own XP2.
nrb
Nuno Borges
I wasn't pleased was the results of lab care both of c41 and b&w negatives. Fingertips and dust were the hallmark of their work together with some cutting the film in the wrong places. I'm talking about some of the best high street labs of Lisbon...
This was the reason I decided to process my remaining color films in b&w chemistry.
This was the reason I decided to process my remaining color films in b&w chemistry.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jon,
I'd pretty much disagree with everything mfogiel said. That doesn't mean that either of us is right, but it does indicate that there's no substitute for trying the films for yoursef.
All chromogenics are a nominal ISO 400, but as there is strictly no ISO standard for mono chromogenics this is by analogy with conventional films. Needless to say the true ISO speed is very close to the quoted figure (though XP2 is a little faster); equally needless to say, many people prefer the tonality with a little extra exposure, though a lot depends on metering. I use the nominal speed when spot metering, or EI (not ISO, of course) 250 with a broad-area reflected light meter on a sunny day.
I would agree that XP2 is sharper than the Kodak competitors, but Kodak is finer-grained. Both scan equally well but I much prefer the tonality of XP2. More exposure always means less sharpness, but with chromogenics, more exposure also means reduced grain.
Again unlike the previous poster I've found it very suitable for bright sunlight -- there are examples on my web-site -- and I've used it successfully for weddings too. Then again, I think that Acros is a bloody awful film, barely describable as ISO 100 in most developers (nearer 80) and tonally horrible.
As I say, none of this makes either of us right, but it does show the relevance of opinion and different experience. Incidentally, I've been using chromogenics for over 20 years, alongside 'real' films, but I almost always print B+W wet; I just don't like the tonality or colour of most mono ink-jets, and most of them fade too; from where I'm sitting I can see an 8x10 portrait that has faded almost to nothing (though the effect is quite attractive).
Edit: Neopan 400CN. Personally I don't believe that this is any different from XP2 Super. Why would it be? Ilford certainly wouldn't make a better version of their own film for a competitor, and equally, the competitor wouldn't want a worse version. Ilford is understandably reluctant to comment publicly on this.
Cheers,
Roger
I'd pretty much disagree with everything mfogiel said. That doesn't mean that either of us is right, but it does indicate that there's no substitute for trying the films for yoursef.
All chromogenics are a nominal ISO 400, but as there is strictly no ISO standard for mono chromogenics this is by analogy with conventional films. Needless to say the true ISO speed is very close to the quoted figure (though XP2 is a little faster); equally needless to say, many people prefer the tonality with a little extra exposure, though a lot depends on metering. I use the nominal speed when spot metering, or EI (not ISO, of course) 250 with a broad-area reflected light meter on a sunny day.
I would agree that XP2 is sharper than the Kodak competitors, but Kodak is finer-grained. Both scan equally well but I much prefer the tonality of XP2. More exposure always means less sharpness, but with chromogenics, more exposure also means reduced grain.
Again unlike the previous poster I've found it very suitable for bright sunlight -- there are examples on my web-site -- and I've used it successfully for weddings too. Then again, I think that Acros is a bloody awful film, barely describable as ISO 100 in most developers (nearer 80) and tonally horrible.
As I say, none of this makes either of us right, but it does show the relevance of opinion and different experience. Incidentally, I've been using chromogenics for over 20 years, alongside 'real' films, but I almost always print B+W wet; I just don't like the tonality or colour of most mono ink-jets, and most of them fade too; from where I'm sitting I can see an 8x10 portrait that has faded almost to nothing (though the effect is quite attractive).
Edit: Neopan 400CN. Personally I don't believe that this is any different from XP2 Super. Why would it be? Ilford certainly wouldn't make a better version of their own film for a competitor, and equally, the competitor wouldn't want a worse version. Ilford is understandably reluctant to comment publicly on this.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Here's a couple of extra things to think about:
2. The advantage where C41 B&W films really shine is the ability to drop them anywhere for reproducible results. Here in Uzbekistan I've taken only XP2 with me, because I can go to any one-hour lab and get my film processed and scanned, while with B&W film it's even impossible to get the chemicals unless you order them from Moscow. This is of course a somewhat special situation, but one where C41 films are worth every penny. I've started bulk loading XP2 for exactly this reason. (Bulk rolls are available relatively cheap, in effect I end up paying about 1.50 EUR per film canister.)
Philipp
Depends on the lab, but if it's a large lab that does mass processing, it is probably better to use C41 film, because for ordinary B&W film they are likely to use a standard process for all films which may eat up the one advantage that B&W film has, the ability to customize the development process. C41 is a standard process with predictable results, B&W processes are in no way standardized and you depend on whether the lab has reasonable procedures.JonR said:
1. I prefer Ilford's XP2, because it has a violet base - Kodak's CN films have an orange base that is very difficult to print through in the darkroom. With VC papers you have a hard time getting good contrast, and with single-gradet paper the paper is likely to be not particularly sensitive to the orange hue of the light that comes through the negative.JonR said:
2. The advantage where C41 B&W films really shine is the ability to drop them anywhere for reproducible results. Here in Uzbekistan I've taken only XP2 with me, because I can go to any one-hour lab and get my film processed and scanned, while with B&W film it's even impossible to get the chemicals unless you order them from Moscow. This is of course a somewhat special situation, but one where C41 films are worth every penny. I've started bulk loading XP2 for exactly this reason. (Bulk rolls are available relatively cheap, in effect I end up paying about 1.50 EUR per film canister.)
Philipp
JonR
Well-known
Thanks for comments... I am a little bit puzzeled by the comments on the ISO though...... when "mfogiel" says that you can expose the film anywhere between 50 and 1600 ISO do you ask for special processing then or is the film that flexible ??? I thought the BW400CN was to be exposed at 400 ISO to get the best results??
Also - to expand on this ISO thing.... The Kodak BW400CN and the Ilford XP2 are both 400 ISO.... is there B&W C41-films corresponding to more of 100 ISO with even lower grain or is the 400 ISO what you get with B&W C41 films ??
/jon
Also - to expand on this ISO thing.... The Kodak BW400CN and the Ilford XP2 are both 400 ISO.... is there B&W C41-films corresponding to more of 100 ISO with even lower grain or is the 400 ISO what you get with B&W C41 films ??
/jon
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
The Kodak, the Ilford, and the Fuji all say ISO 400 on the box.
There are no others.
The films have very wide exposure latitude and can be exposed from about ISO 100 to ISO 1600.
There is no special processing required if you were not using ISO 400 exposure, and no need to say anything to the minilab people. (Not that they would understand anyway. They think it's weird to be using B&W film in the first place!)
Try some and see.
Although it's probably easier to use color C41 and then Photoshop it to B&W on your own screen.
There are no others.
The films have very wide exposure latitude and can be exposed from about ISO 100 to ISO 1600.
There is no special processing required if you were not using ISO 400 exposure, and no need to say anything to the minilab people. (Not that they would understand anyway. They think it's weird to be using B&W film in the first place!)
Try some and see.
Although it's probably easier to use color C41 and then Photoshop it to B&W on your own screen.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Using C41 colour film and converting it in PS is an option that I would suggest at least trying out. If the results satisfy you it greatly simplifies things when you are traveling.
Bob
Bob
JonR
Well-known
Thanks.... Photoshop is for sure an alternative (allthough I like taking photos more than editing photos) - and, I have 20 rolls of Kodak BW400 CN in my freezer that I picked very cheap at a "close-out sale" in a local photo shop....
/jon
/jon
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
JonR said:
In that case shoot it at 200, use what ever B&W filter you like (compensate for the filter if necessary) and develop with no special instructions to the mini lab. You should like the results.
Bob
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
in short:
1: YES!
2: no...
3: you lose almost all control over the film. Fixed iso at 400 (ok...possible to use from iso 50 to iso 800 with acceptable results), fixed development parameters.
1: YES!
2: no...
3: you lose almost all control over the film. Fixed iso at 400 (ok...possible to use from iso 50 to iso 800 with acceptable results), fixed development parameters.
JonR
Well-known
OK - maybe I am a slow thinker but why do several of you suggest ISO 200 when the film is labelled 400.... How come that users here at RFF have a different view than Kodak since I guess the named the film 400 so that people should set the ISO at 400.... what do I misshere ??
Jon
Jon
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
C41 has tons of latitude.
Use it at box speed and see if you like it, then adjust if needed.
Use it at box speed and see if you like it, then adjust if needed.
Pablito
coco frío
I personally dislike these films very much because of the grainy shadows and pasty tonal scale, but that's just taste and other will disagree, HOWEVER, bear in mind that long term the negatives do not have anywhere near the stability of traditional black and whte film. If you are concerned about archival keeping qualities, forget these films. OTOH, if you like the look, then make archival prints now because the negs are likely to fade.
juno_lau
Established
ClaremontPhoto said:
so even if the box said the film is iso400
and i use it as a iso200 film
i dont even have to tell the shop about this?
no need to ask them to "push" / "pull"?
is it the same for color films?
Pablito
coco frío
JonR said:
If you use at ISO 400 with matrix or average metering in a situation where there is a lot of inherent contrast, your shadows will be grainy/milky - they will have that underexposed c41 look. You can use at ISO 400 as long as there are no deep dark tones in the photo.
Pablito
coco frío
juno_lau said:
Yes, that's correct
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Nikon Bob said:
This is where I've come out, provisionally, after trying the Kodak product. I'm doing the same when shooting digital raw, too. My experiences with Kodak were that it was much better at 320 than 400 and when I shoot what's left in the fridge I'll probably downrate it by at least another 1/3 stop.
OldNick
Well-known
One word of caution. I have used silver B&W film well after its expiration date and got good results. I recently tried some out of date Kodak C41 that was 4 yrs beyond the expiration and got serious haze in the negatives. Another roll that was 1 yr out of date came out fine. Just remember that C41 is not as forgiving as old Plus-X or Tri-X.