lukaz85
Member
I prefer the XP2 Super for it's tonality. The Kodak BW400CN has more contrast, but is much cheaper (here in Germany).
best black and white c41 film?
- Thread starter TennesseJones
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 68
- Views 17K
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Roger, thanks for all the great info...!
kermaier
Well-known
The Kodak film has an amber tinted base like a color negative, that makes for nice minilab prints. The XP2 has a nearly clear film base like a silver-halide negative, which makes it much easier to print in the darkroom on traditional b&w materials.
Ari
Edit: Didn't see Roger's answer - sorry for the redundancy.
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
This is a scan of an 8x10 print on Kentmere VC RC pearl paper.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/4075278224/
Leica M4-P, Ilford XP2, CV 28/3.5.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/4075278224/
Leica M4-P, Ilford XP2, CV 28/3.5.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thank you, kermaier...
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
This is a scan of some Kentmere VC pearl paper.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/4075278224/
Leica M4-P, Ilford XP2, CV 28/3.5.
It looks fine... Don't know if the bite in contrast is on negative or on printing (or scanning?)... Anyway it's really punchy for being on the shadows... Do you ask your lab for different development for sunny or overcast scenes?
Cheers,
Juan
dfoo
Well-known
The scan is a very good representation of the print. I printed it grade 2. The contrast could be lowered by using a lower grade contrast filter. I didn't ask the lab to do any special processing. I would have shot this image at ISO 320.
ferider
Veteran
Consider price, too. I got a great deal on BW400CN, so that's what I use. Since I scan, it doesn't matter, really. I like the tolerance to over-exposure.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Being grade 2 and if scan looks like the print, the negative is of high contrast... I wonder what happens under direct sun...
So people using that film get the same development no matter the scene's contrast range?
Cheers,
Juan
So people using that film get the same development no matter the scene's contrast range?
Cheers,
Juan
kermaier
Well-known
Here's one on XP2 (35mm) rated at ISO 320. This is a lab scan from the negative. I've printed this successfully at 11x14" on Ilford Galerie grade 2 paper, and the grain looks good.
Canon F-1, 50mm f/1.2 L, Ilford XP2 Super
(I like the graded paper for this, because I can skip burning in the bright sunlight spot on the upper right of the sweater around the fingers, and do a less obvious burn-in on the lower right of the sweater, and then I just let the paper cook in the developer to bring up the highlights without risking blocking up the shadows.)
::Ari
Canon F-1, 50mm f/1.2 L, Ilford XP2 Super
(I like the graded paper for this, because I can skip burning in the bright sunlight spot on the upper right of the sweater around the fingers, and do a less obvious burn-in on the lower right of the sweater, and then I just let the paper cook in the developer to bring up the highlights without risking blocking up the shadows.)
::Ari
kermaier
Well-known
Here's another lab scan from a 35mm XP2 negative (I cropped it square) that I've printed 11x14" on Ilford Galerie grade 2 paper (also cropped square).
Canon F-1, 50mm f/1.2 L, Ilford XP2 Super
The graded paper really saved my butt here: Because so much of the background is overexposed, print exposure times and VC filtration became hard for me to nail -- much better to expose for the foreground subjects and let it cook in dev to bring up the background. (Note: My darkroom skills are quite lame, so a better printer than I probably has more tools in his box than using graded paper.)
::Ari
Canon F-1, 50mm f/1.2 L, Ilford XP2 Super
The graded paper really saved my butt here: Because so much of the background is overexposed, print exposure times and VC filtration became hard for me to nail -- much better to expose for the foreground subjects and let it cook in dev to bring up the background. (Note: My darkroom skills are quite lame, so a better printer than I probably has more tools in his box than using graded paper.)
::Ari
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
kermaier,
Your two shots show (being also grade 2) a more normal contrast...
Any idea on why dfoo's one shows a lot more contrast?
Cheers,
Juan
Your two shots show (being also grade 2) a more normal contrast...
Any idea on why dfoo's one shows a lot more contrast?
Cheers,
Juan
kermaier
Well-known
Juan, the pictures I posted are scans of the negatives, not of my grade 2 prints, so the contrast should be considered in that context. I just posted them as examples of what the film results look like, and how I dealt with fixing my crappy film exposure technique in the darkroom. 🙂
On my monitor, at least, dfoo's picture shows too much contrast IMO -- maybe due simply to more exposure of the print than I would like, maybe due to vagaries of scanning.
::Ari
dfoo
Well-known
This is a scan of the film, not of a print.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/4070463586/
I'll see if I can locate the film from that print later and post a scan of the negative.
Looking at the print itself I can still see detail in the shadows, such as the brand name of the beer inside the shop, detail on the sweater on the guy on the left and so on.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/4070463586/
I'll see if I can locate the film from that print later and post a scan of the negative.
Looking at the print itself I can still see detail in the shadows, such as the brand name of the beer inside the shop, detail on the sweater on the guy on the left and so on.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thanks but with scanning as a second process that so easily comes with results far from originals, it's very hard to split hairs... Anyway no different developments for different contrast scenes is a bit strange...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
rjbuzzclick
Well-known
I prefer XP2 Super over the Kodak variant. XP2 Super has great exposure latitude, I've rated it anywhere from 100-800 with good results, but I prefer it shot at 200. I've not used it much in the last year however as I've switched to developing my own B&W.
dfoo
Well-known
Its C41 film, what do you want? 😉 Perhaps if you used a more professional lab than I did you could ask for pull/push processing. However, to me, if I want that type of control then I don't use C-41 film. For example, those shots were shot during a 4 month stay in Shanghai earlier this year. I mostly used Tri-X. However, I also shot some XP2 for some instant feedback, and to ensure my cameras were functioning as expected.
MPerson
Established
Another vote for XP2. Recently I started developing it myself in Diafine.
MP | Summicron 35/2 ASPH | XP2 @ 400 | Diafine 5+5 | Coolscan V Ed
100% crop
MP | Summicron 35/2 ASPH | XP2 @ 400 | Diafine 5+5 | Coolscan V Ed
100% crop
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
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
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
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
Bob
