best black and white c41 film?

[Juan Valdenebro]

I prefer Kodak BWCN 400 simply because it is available locally and is much cheaper than XP2. I usually shoot it rated at 200 or 100 if using a yellow filter and then scan the negs. I get what I want from the Kodak film so see no need to try others but YMMV. Yes you can shoot it at 100 through 800, either Kodak or XP2, on the same roll even and process it normally. No magic just a lot of exposure latitude with these films. The results vary so you can experiment to see which speed you like the look of best.

Bob

Interesting... Latitude refers -usually- to the ability of a film to retain detail in highlights... I would guess those films can and should be pushed for duller scenes. Just guessing: if it's C41, some more time in the pool for the film could be better...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[kermaier]

Interesting... Latitude refers -usually- to the ability of a film to retain detail in highlights... I would guess those films can and should be pushed for duller scenes. Just guessing: if it's C41, some more time in the pool for the film could be better...

Cheers,

Juan

XP2 has much better overexposure latitude than underexposure tolerance, in my experience.

::Ari

 

[RayPA]

For C41 b&w, I use color c41 film and convert to b&w. For me it's way more versatile and interesting. I don't mess with the c41 b&w films. I've never been satisfied with the results.

/

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Do you rate it at 100, 200, 400 and 800, and all of them developed just the same?

What's this, film or magic? 🙂

Cheers,

Juan

Yep. I didn't believe it either until I just jumped off and did it. The slower you rate it, the more contrast it gives you, plus it seems to get more black rather than brown too. Here are three shots using the metering in my Canonet QL17 exposed at 200, 400, and 800 all on the same roll of film, and developed at a local Target lab.

 

[lorenzo1910]

a shop in town wanted £7.50 per roll which is ruinous, so i thought trying on line etc.

What? Way too much!
Here in Italy I pay 4.50 € for Kodak BW400CN or Ilford XP2...

Here's a photo taken with Ilford XP2 (Olympus OM10+Zuiko 50mm f/1.8)

 

[jan normandale]

FWIW, I prefer the look of Kodak, I think XP2 has a better range in the mid tones and might be a more accurate overall representation of the subject however I like the punch I get out of the Kodak. The darks are dark and the lights are light. I prefer that narrower range when shooting BW using C41 BW.

It’s all subjective anyway. Shoot some of both I’m sure there are conditions that favour the characteristics of each in any given situation. You’re not getting married and it’s not an “I’m a GM Guy or I’m a Ford Guy” thing. It’s just photography.

Post some pix when you can

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Yep. I didn't believe it either until I just jumped off and did it. The slower you rate it, the more contrast it gives you, plus it seems to get more black rather than brown too. Here are three shots using the metering in my Canonet QL17 exposed at 200, 400, and 800 all on the same roll of film, and developed at a local Target lab.
View attachment 74595
View attachment 74596
View attachment 74597

Are those new images that a scanner made from your negatives after its own levels/contrast settings (yours or from a lab) or are they real enlargements?

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

XP2 has much better overexposure latitude than underexposure tolerance, in my experience.

::Ari

That makes sense because that's how all C41 color film behaves...

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Are those new images that a scanner made from your negatives after its own levels/contrast settings (yours or from a lab) or are they real enlargements?

Cheers,

Juan

The are lab developed and scanned, and I honestly don't remember if it was before my "no corrections" phase with the lab or not. I will say that I've shot a fair amount of this film and always found it very forgiving with exposure. I have a lot of 120 and 620 format cameras that have little to no exposure control, and this film was great for these cameras.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I see the film is giving you VERY different results depending on the rating. Best exposure was 200, then by 400 you lose shadow detail on trees, and by 800 all values below middle gray become the blues master: Muddy Waters... So, it's a normal C41 negative behaving normally, and after a lab scan with autolevels, people get whatever, "an image". Forgiving film? With all respect, forgiving shooters. As other C41 films, the lights don't get blown easily as with slide film or even B&W...

I accept that in the modern world it isn't necessary to have the best tonal range always, but for sure the film behaves differently when rated differently. I guess at 200 it can handle nice negatives for real printing, and that can be really helpful sometimes in some places... I'll shoot one roll soon...

Thanks!

 

[Roger Hicks]

And of course metering matters.

EI 320 broad area may well give the same results as EI 650 spot metered shadows (with shadow compensation, of course: IRE 1).

Cheers,

R.

 

[rjbuzzclick]

I see the film is giving you VERY different results depending on the rating. Best exposure was 200, then by 400 you lose shadow detail on trees, and by 800 all values below middle gray become the blues master: Muddy Waters... So, it's a normal C41 negative behaving normally, and after a lab scan with autolevels, people get whatever, "an image". Forgiving film? With all respect, forgiving shooters. As other C41 films, the lights don't get blown easily as with slide film or even B&W...

I accept that in the modern world it isn't necessary to have the best tonal range always, but for sure the film behaves differently when rated differently. I guess at 200 it can handle nice negatives for real printing, and that can be really helpful sometimes in some places... I'll shoot one roll soon...

Thanks!

You're welcome. Forgiving shooters...maybe. I'm not a pro, but I shoot a fair amount. I like taking pictures using a variety of restored old cameras, so I'm already taking a "technical quality" hit at the outset. At the time I was shooting XP2, it gave me what I wanted, and at the effort level I wanted, from my photography. Now that I've switched to true B&W film and developing it myself, my expectations from my own work have changed. Your mileage will most certainly vary, and you're right, really the best thing you can do is go shoot a roll and see for yourself. I would love to hear what you think of the film.

 

[peterm1]

I find the Kodak product and XP2 to be pretty similar. When I first started using these films I tended to stick with XP2 but tend to find the Kodak more available. But I always shoot at ASA 200 where I think both produce much better results than at 400. If there is plenty of light I will even shoot at 100 ASA but the difference is less noticeable than that between 400 and 200. They both incidentally produce nice tonal gradations when shot well. I often find color shifts when shooting either. But this seems to be the problem of the film labs not knowing how to process these properly. Setting up the color channels properly on the developing equipment is essential. Most labs do not know how to do this or do not care. Also if you can find a lab that will print on black and white film paper you will get better results. Costs a few bucks more. But if you are transferring to digital it may not matter as you should be able to correct in Post Processing.

 

[TWoK]

What C-41 B&W does Fuji make?

 

[Roger Hicks]

What C-41 B&W does Fuji make?

None. Ilford makes it for 'em.

Some say it is different but this conflicts with two questions:

First, why would Ilford make a better product for someone else?

Second, why would the other party settle for an inferior product?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

rjbuzzclick,

I didn't mean to call you forgiving in any way: you're here, you worry, you expose at different ASA values, you scan, discuss and share, learn and teach... I was talking about the bigger mass NEVER going to do anything different in B&W than receiving small chromogenic digital prints from the lab scans and who don't care about quality at all: that mass move an important money too...

I already think some things of the film, before using it: as Roger said, and as visible on MPerson's kind crop posted, the grain is very small and unobtrusive, and there's an attractive sharpness sensation, as the paper read by the child shows... And being a scan and a monitor, I can imagine there's a lot of potential there on those negatives... A few years ago I heard an experienced LA pro (magazine covers and that, I don't remember his name...) saying he was shooting only Tri-X and XP2 Super, and I was surprised... That's why I'm interested, so I'll test it soon... Thank you all for your words and examples!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[rjbuzzclick]

rjbuzzclick,

I didn't mean to call you forgiving in any way: you're here, you worry, you expose at different ASA values, you scan, discuss and share, learn and teach... I was talking about the bigger mass NEVER going to do anything different in B&W than receiving small chromogenic digital prints from the lab scans and who don't care about quality at all: that mass move an important money too...

I already think some things of the film, before using it: as Roger said, and as visible on MPerson's kind crop posted, the grain is very small and unobtrusive, and there's an attractive sharpness sensation, as the paper read by the child shows... And being a scan and a monitor, I can imagine there's a lot of potential there on those negatives... A few years ago I heard an experienced LA pro (magazine covers and that, I don't remember his name...) saying he was shooting only Tri-X and XP2 Super, and I was surprised... That's why I'm interested, so I'll test it soon... Thank you all for your words and examples!

Cheers,

Juan

Juan,

No offense taken, but to call me forgiving would have been spot on nonetheless. I've shot with a Chicco Smile Camera for gosh sakes, if that's not forgiving I don't know what is (check my flickr page to see a photo of one)! If I get results I like, I stick with it for awhile until ongoing research (like here) turns up something that makes me want to try something else. Oh, I forgot to mention that I usually shoot Sunny 16, and the latitude that XP2 gave me worked really well in that respects. Take care.

Reid

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . you're here, you worry, you expose at different ASA values, you scan, discuss and share, learn and teach...

Dear Juan,

Great post. Learning is at least as important as teaching! And as the old saying goes, "You teach best what you most need to learn."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks for your kind words, Roger...

Apart from sharpness and easy development just anywhere anytime, I guess being that covered about not blocked highlights can be one of the best reasons for great shooters using those films. Nice information thread, thanks again!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[not_in_good_order]

Kodak's offering has very fine grain. Here is a shot on BW400CN exposed at ISO 320 and scanned using a Nikon Coolscan 5000: