Black and white film for the non-developer (Kodak BW 400CN)

[pukupi]

Our home in Japan is far too small to set up a darkroom without risking the ire of my better half but I want to work more with black and white film. My local lab usually takes one week to process black and white film so I'm thinking about using Kodak BW 400CN instead and would appreciate your opinions of this film.

 

[Natalia]

I use it and love it///I got some samples in my RFF galley.

 

[back alley]

i prefer ilford xp2.
try as many kinds as are available to you and then decide which you prefer.

joe

 

[joeyjoe]

I'll second a vote for Ilford XP2 Super. In the last 6 months, I've probably shot 25 rolls of the stuff. I love it and plan to keep shooting the stuff. You can even push/pull the exposure on it for different effects; sharper grain or higher film speed. All the shots in my gallery are shot with the stuff, check it out if you'd like.

 

[Rob]

I would like to know where people get their xp2 processed and printed...
Everywhere I have tried to have it printed its gray or green colored...

 

[back alley]

i use a western canadian chain store called 'london drugs'.
it's a new store and the lab is in a seperate area that is glass walled and has a decent air filtration system. i have had no problems with dust or scratches. my negs & scans look like b&w negs and photos. i don't get prints made.

joe

 

[peter_n]

I really liked the predecessor to Kodak BW 400CN which was Kodak T400CN. I also like Ilford XP2 but I found the developing lab made quite a difference. Is Fuji Neopan 400CN available in Japan? That is another very high quality chromogenic film - it is reputed to have been produced with co-operation from Ilford.

I would shoot a roll of each and then submit them to your lab of choice for developing in their regular C-41 soup and see which one you like best.

 

[alansoon]

Another vote for Ilford's XP2. 90% of the pictures on my website are done on XP2.

 

[JohnM]

I have the best luck having XP2 processed at a local Ritz Camera chain store - they tend to avoid the almost sepia-tone I get from a quicky Walgreens or CVS processing. The Portra 400BW definitely fares better on the Kodak paper.

Doesn't really bother me either way; as long as the negs aren't scratched so I can get a nice scan, I'm happy.

I do prefer XP2, but I'll use Portra and I'm impressed with it.

 

[Peter]

My personal favourite in XP2 followed by Kodak BW 400CN if the former is not in stock. XP2 has more contrast and sharper IMHO. Like Alan, most of my work is done with XP2.

 

[RayPA]

I'll add a vote for XP2, as well. Besides it being better looking IMHO, it looks like real b&w film, no orange mask. You really should not give up on processing B&W on your own. It takes very little space, time and investment and is well worth it. I understand the issues, but if there is any way to do it, you should (again, IMHO). 😉

 

[pukupi]

Is Fuji Neopan 400CN available in Japan?

I've also heard good things about this film but it is not available in Japan. Neither is Fuji NPZ which seems strange considering all the photography that goes on here 🙁

 

[pukupi]

From Ilford:

Push processing is not recommended as, unlike
conventional ISO 400/27° films, no practical
increase in film speed is achieved when XP2
SUPER film is push processed. But XP2 SUPER film
can be exposed at EI 800/30 and given standard
processing.

Excuse my ignorance but does this mean if I shoot the film at ISO 800, I should not tell the lab to push the film to 800?

 

[Doug]

Excuse my ignorance but does this mean if I shoot the film at ISO 800, I should not tell the lab to push the film to 800?

Right, best not to confuse the lab girls with ANY info on how you exposed the film. To them, it should be just another roll of C41 film to run. By all means test a roll using different ISO ratings (say, 200, 400, 800) for each picture on the roll, and then see the result for yourself.

Personally, I think XP2, like virtually all other C41 films, has almost no underexposure latitude, but plenty of capacity to absorb overexposure. A generous exposure assures rich shadow detail, unblocked highlights, and a generally good looking pic. So I set the camera to EI 250. But don't tell the lab! Hush.....

 

[peter_n]

I agree with Doug, except that I rated the C-41 films at 320. Now I've switched back to conventional B&W and I'm using Neopan 400. But the same thing, rating it at 320 but telling the lab 400. A little bit of overexposure never did anyone any harm... 😉

 

[Canon Junkie]

Anyone care to comment on Kodak Portra 400bw. Its pretty convenient, but I haven't had much experience with it.

I look forward to your input

 

[Richard Black]

I've use the Portra and found it acceptable. I like the new Kodak c-41 black and white but as of now the Ilford XP2 Super is processed better in the labs I use. Walgreens will scan them to a CD if you ask. About $2.00 a roll.

 

[blakley]

Another vote for XP2 Super

Another vote for XP2 Super

Most of my B&W stuff these days is done with XP2 Super. I like it a lot better than BW400CN.

If you plan to print optically on B&W paper, XP2 Super is MUCH better than BW400CN because of the base color (but XP2 still isn't as good as "real" B&W film.)

My local minilabs do a very good job of developing and a decent job of printing using this film, though there's often a weird "split-toning" (blue & sepia) effect on prints sometimes.

 

[sockeyed]

Another vote for XP-2 from me. I really don't like the look of the BW400; I find it mushy.

A good lab should be able to print XP2 in B&W on colour paper without strange colour casts, especially if they're using a Fuji Frontier printer. Just ask for B&W or monochrome prints when you drop the film off.

 

[JCdeR]

Use Kodak at 250 and XP-2 at 320.
If you want kodak printed, ask to print it on B/W paper.
Kodak, I find is better for scanning...