B&w C41

JonR: The consensus is that Kodak BW400CN is "best" exposed @ 200 or so ... I use 250, but that's a very small difference and is accounted for by my meter(s), the way I meter, etc.

Olympus XA, EI 250, bright day w/ lots of contrast:

1806795226_12a2e70d34.jpg


1806791546_6c442c29e7.jpg


Same day, different light conditions:

1805943207_22456159d9.jpg


Olympus 35SP ... Flat, low interior lighting, long shutter speed:

1864986513_84411c3e63.jpg
 
juno_lau 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?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and recommended. You don't have to tell the lab anything. It sometimes even helps compensate for labs that may be inadvertantly "underprocessing" due to not replenishing chemicals as often as they should. A little bit of overexposure in C41 always helps in avoidance of thin negatives. Underexposing C41 you really suffer in the shadows.
 
Pablito said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with Pablito about the archival issue. This is a point that many forget when shooting these b&w c41 films.
 
OK -many thanks for feedback, learnt a lot as allways when psoting questions here at RFF!
/jon
 
saxshooter said:
I agree with Pablito about the archival issue. This is a point that many forget when shooting these b&w c41 films.
Click to expand...

My old Ilford XP negs have held up pretty well. Here's a image from a 26 year old neg.

XP1.jpg
 
nrb said:
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...
Click to expand...
If you ask the lab to give the film back to you uncut you can avoid a lot of problems. I've only recently started this and I've found it's made a huge difference in my use of the PS healing brush. I use XP2 and rate it at 250 for some unknown reason but I'm happy with the results. It's a bit of an expensive film so I buy it in bulk from B&H and cut the price in 1/2 that way.

The discussion above about XP2 and NP400CN: Noted wedding photographer Jeff Ascough always used NP400CN and reckoned that it was preferable for his line of work. Given his eye I would say there's a difference between the films.
 
peter_n said:
I use XP2 and rate it at 250 for some unknown reason but I'm happy with the results. It's a bit of an expensive film so I buy it in bulk from B&H and cut the price in 1/2 that way.
Click to expand...

I do same.

Gotta be honest. I find XP2 Super so good, that it's become my standard black and white film in 135. "Jen" - lil sweety (who also knows what she's doin') at the lab down the street does a nice job printing them. 6x4's in an hour on matte paper for $7.45 US (a slight "see what you get when you're cordial to/compliment someone" discount) on matte paper. They're better than "acceptable" to be honest and would defy any purist to point out any meaningful difference between properly printed (a key) C41 stuff and traditional 400 speed black and white.

It's taken me a while to accept how good these films are, but I've reached a point that it's really hard to justify by-hand processing and frankly as a hobbiest there's a processing/printing backlog when I use traditional that used to prohibit me from shooting black and white.

I do hand process for higher speed - Tri-X/Diafine@1200 and all medium format black and white. But for casual 35mm shooting - rolls and rolls? Bulk XP2 Super, processed at a lab in walking distance on matte for $7.45 with negligible if any quality differences? Gotta go wit dat.

Otherwise, I would have rolls lying around begging to be processed, me feeling guilty for not processing/printing them, and opting for color not because that's what I want to shoot but because I'm backlogged...
 
Last edited:
I have used XP for years and shoot it @320. Does anyone remember they used to have an XP Kit for developing at home. Supurb film.
 
NickTrop said:
I do same.

Gotta be honest. I find XP2 Super so good, that it's become my standard black and white film in 135. "Jen" - lil sweety (who also knows what she's doin') at the lab down the street does a nice job printing them. 6x4's in an hour on matte paper for $7.45 US (a slight "see what you get when you're cordial to/compliment someone" discount) on matte paper. They're better than "acceptable" to be honest and would defy any purist to point out any meaningful difference between properly printed (a key) C41 stuff and traditional 400 speed black and white.

It's taken me a while to accept how good these films are, but I've reached a point that it's really hard to justify by-hand processing and frankly as a hobbiest there's a processing/printing backlog when I use traditional that used to prohibit me from shooting black and white.

I do hand process for higher speed - Tri-X/Diafine@1200 and all medium format black and white. But for casual 35mm shooting - rolls and rolls? Bulk XP2 Super, processed at a lab in walking distance on matte for $7.45 with negligible if any quality differences? Gotta go wit dat.

Otherwise, I would have rolls lying around begging to be processed, me feeling guilty for not processing/printing them, and opting for color not because that's what I want to shoot but because I'm backlogged...
Click to expand...

NickTrop, I gotta say that I love the practicality of your approach. We on this forum seem to get so caught up in the technicalities that sometimes such issues as practicality get lost in the shuffle.

My only comment about these films is that I find the Kodak flavor a bit less contrasty than the XP2 flavor and for that reason prefer it. This difference has been discussed on this forum if anyone cares to do a search.

-Randy
 
You know these same questions about C41 B&W keep coming up with some frequency and it might be a good time to have a sticky on this subject. Just a thought.

Bob
 
Looks very good! But alas, it depends on how it was processed and if it was blixed and washed properly. If it still scans well in 26 years, then it was probably done right. In my experience, mostly in Southeast Asia, one hour lab film processing machines weren't even hooked up to running water. Very strong smelling film!

wray said:
My old Ilford XP negs have held up pretty well. Here's a image from a 26 year old neg.

XP1.jpg
Click to expand...
 
I must agree with the poster saying XP2 is best in contrasty situations, in fact I mostly grab it when I know I'll be shooting in bright sun. It handles the contrast well with good detail retained in the shadows while highlights under control. It often seems a bit too smooth for me which prevents my using it more often. Attached are two examples of mine, and a load more can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=38698047@N00&q=XP2&m=tags
 

Attachments

  • 65758295_ca8750ed40_o.jpg
    65758295_ca8750ed40_o.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 441308728_775d7ec418_o.jpg
    441308728_775d7ec418_o.jpg
    115.8 KB · Views: 0
I have used a lot of BW400 simply because I have had a stash I got cheaply. But when it runs out, I'll likely turn to XP2 Super as my standard C41 b&w.
 
The only thing I can add is that as a wet darkroom printer, the Kodak stuff is a nightmare. It has the same thick orange mask as color film, since it's basically the same type of film. It's a total PITA to pull a print with decent contrast; print exposure times routinely stretch into minutes.

The Ilford XP2 is much better in this regard- it comes out of the C41 chem looking not unlike traditional b&w film, and you can print it much like other black and white. This feature alone makes me much prefer the Ilford product for those times when I want to use a C41 b&w film.
 
My experience with C41 BW

My experience with C41 BW

Hey Jon,

I am a really big fan of Kodak 400CN and i use it every weekend at every wedding i shoot.

Here's my take on your questions

1. Yes, I find C41 better if you want a lab to develope and scan. There's not many labs left that hand develop traditional black and white and would cater to the specifications of whiny photographer like me. Develop D76 at xyz temperature, blah blah blah, forget it, they'll just toss it in with the rest of them. Furthermore, I find C41 film scans less grainy.

2. Nope hav enot come across any 100iso C41 films although Kodak 400cn can easily be pulled.

3. I really like the versatality of C41 films being easily pulled and pushed, the ease of being able to scan it at just aobut any photo developer. The ability at the same time to also print it in a traditional darkroom. To me it's a go everywhere, do everything film.

In case you're interested, Kodak recently did a write up on me using their film and it can be read here.
 
Last edited:
Ya know, once or twice I gave a roll of home-processed traditional negs to a lab to print. Theoretically, it should work the same as XP2 Super. This was FP4 processed in Rodinal. Prints came out fantastic. However, they charged me something like $0.40 a print. I asked the lab why it cost so much more to make 6x4 prints from a negative, when they only charge me 7-8 bucks when they process it? They just looked and said, "dunno". But since I'm a regular customer - and I know these folks, they said they'd think about giving me a discount. Haven't taken them up on their offer.

However, the prints came out awsome. Very sharp, good tonality.
 
I've been experimenting with the Fuji 400 CN film @400 and @1600
it has a certain look that i like especially for back-lit subjects, grain is very high but i can see a potential use for it but would agree with Pablo that for archival work i'll be sticking to TX400

First image F4 @1600
other two @F5.6 @400
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom