C41 BW film...what's your favorite?

[rovnguy]

I've used them all with fairly good results, but what I have discovered is that Fuji's Reala also gives me respectable results... plus I've got color to boot. For "real" B&W, I'm staying with Tri-X, Plus-X and Pan-F.

 

[Jamie123]

Since we're discussing c41 bw film, can anyone tell me if the effects of bw filters (red, orange, etc.) are the same when using "regular" bw film anc c41?

 

[bmicklea]

Cool - I'd never heard about the push/pull mid-roll. I generally use Tri-X for B&W work and have only shot a couple of rolls of BW400CN so I'm definitely still figuring out its foibles. I'm not completely sold, but we'll see...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

These are all from the same roll. It seems that if the pictures are not taken under even light/overcast skyes, XP2 has a problem managing contrast.

I still say that it's the handling of the film, not the film itself. Did you have these scanned for you or did you scan these yourself? If you're seeing differences in each frame, then it can only mean that each frame has had custom adjustments (i.e. perhaps by an "auto adjustment" setting).

It is not the film. It is the printing/scanning/handling of it.

I really think it's like blaming the car for the potholes on the road; because Car A drove over potholes in road 1 and Car B didn't drive over potholes on road 2, it doesn't mean that Car A is pothole-prone.

By the same token, if one photo was adjusted with different contrast settings than another one, giving different results, it is hardly the film's fault, but the printer's (or scanner's -- meaning the person that is doing the action, not the device)

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Since we're discussing c41 bw film, can anyone tell me if the effects of bw filters (red, orange, etc.) are the same when using "regular" bw film anc c41?

Yes; it depends whether it is also panchromatic or orthochromatic then you have different responses to different colors. XP2 is panchromatic, not sure about Kodak's.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Now I'm confused (but still a noob so no surprise there) - on one hand some are saying that you can't/shouldn't push C41 B&W a stop to 800, while in this case the print looks fine. Is it just a case of "you shouldn't shoot at 800 unless your lab will develop it at 800?"

I understand your confusion. It's the confused confusing the confused when they state as fact things they're confusing

It's like somebody stating that all C41 B&W film has an orange mask. Not true; but also not true that there isn't C41 B&W film without an orange mask. Confusing, eh?

Read Ilford's literature on XP2. It may not be the same as Kodak's. Not all C41 B&W film is made the same.

 

[venchka]

I can't speak for Kodak's chromogenic, but according to Ilford (and somewhat borne out by my own experience) one of the other virtues of XP2 is that you can push or pull exposure with no required change in processing time. The advantages here are (1) no need to request a push by your lab – a real plus when dealing with minilabs who wouldn't know the first thing about it; and (2) you can decide to push and/or pull exposure even in the middle of a roll, if necessary (fancy that...I was doing this well before digital came along!). For all I know, increasing development time might improve things a bit for a roll pushed a stop, but I'm not sure...I might shoot a roll at 800 and drop it off at my go-to pro lab to find out.


- Barrett

So, in 25 words or less, for the push/pull challenged, you're saying that I can:

1. Load a camera with Ilford XP2 Super.

2. Set my meters anywhere between 200 & 800 for any given frame.

3. Grin when I see the negatives.

Ilford is saying that the film has +1 to -1 exposure latitude. That's cool.

I'm going to try this with my next roll. The 800 part should work nicely with my 2.5 to 2.8 lenses for pub shooting.

Cheers!

 

[ARCHIVIST]

I used and liked Ilford's c41 film in the past, but XP2 seems to be excessively contrasty now. I remembered c41 bw films having huge latitute, but what I keep getting lately are impossibly dark shadows and blown out highlights with little middle grey.

------------------------------------------------

I workef for Ilford for over 10 years and it depends on who processes the XP2 and if they keep their chemicals refreshed etc.
The Fuji Fronteir machine would be the best minilab processor for the XP2. The local one in my town does a fantastic job with XP2 with a good neutral b/w iamge with a long tonal range.

Peter

 

[amateriat]

So, in 25 words or less, for the push/pull challenged, you're saying that I can:

1. Load a camera with Ilford XP2 Super.

2. Set my meters anywhere between 200 & 800 for any given frame.

3. Grin when I see the negatives.

Ilford is saying that the film has +1 to -1 exposure latitude. That's cool.

I'm going to try this with my next roll. The 800 part should work nicely with my 2.5 to 2.8 lenses for pub shooting.

Cheers!

More or less, yes.

However...your best post-shoot results will come about if:

- you do all the post-shoot stuff yourself (either wet darkroom or digitally), or

- you have a lab you really know and trust handle everything

This is important. Most labs, even the decent ones, are set up to deal with color neg film. If you're expecting a given lab to do the printing as well as the film developing, you must communicate, in no uncertain terms, what you're expecting in those prints, and not assume they'll "figure it out". If I had a $10 bill for every time I've handed over a roll of XP2 to a small or non-pro lab, only to have it handed back with the comment "we only handle color neg film here, we'd ruin the chemicals running this", I'd have the down-payment on an M8 (almost). This is why I have labs just run the film (any neg film, not just chromogenic) through the machine and hand it straight back to me, uncut abd unprinted...I won't trust them an inch more than that. As long as the machine is kept clean and running reasonably within spec, I'm safe (and you should be, too).


- Barrett

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

2. Set my meters anywhere between 200 & 800 for any given frame.

My brain hurts. No. No. You *could*, but if you process normally (i.e. for ISO 400), then if there is a huge tonality range in your shots taken at ISO 200 and then at ISO 800, then you're going to be very disappointed with your shots shot at ISO 800 (you're really underexposing here and not pushing accordingly) more than your shots at ISO 200 (there is more lattitude for XP2 to overexpose rather than underexpose at ISO 400).

Is math no longer in curriculae? Sorry for my frustration, but I really don't understand what the confusion over something very simple is.

 

[amateriat]

My brain hurts. No. No. You *could*, but if you process normally (i.e. for ISO 400), then if there is a huge tonality range in your shots taken at ISO 200 and then at ISO 800, then you're going to be very disappointed with your shots shot at ISO 800 (you're really underexposing here and not pushing accordingly) more than your shots at ISO 200 (there is more lattitude for XP2 to overexpose rather than underexpose at ISO 400).

Is math no longer in curriculae? Sorry for my frustration, but I really don't understand what the confusion over something very simple is.

Point taken, with a footnote to my last post: the idea behind mid-roll push-/pull-ability is that, in a pinch, you can get better-than-okay images by tweaking rated film speed on-the-fly. Ideally, if you decide to shoot an entire roll at EI 800, for example, it might be a good idea to take it to a lab that will provide a "proper" 1-stop push, if you want the absolute best from the film. XP2 is somewhat more forgiving than other films, but it's not a miracle worker. For me, it comes closer than anything else.

Addendum: EI 320 is my personal nexus of speed and image quality with this film.


- Barrett

 

[venchka]

My brain hurts. No. No. You *could*, but if you process normally (i.e. for ISO 400), then if there is a huge tonality range in your shots taken at ISO 200 and then at ISO 800, then you're going to be very disappointed with your shots shot at ISO 800 (you're really underexposing here and not pushing accordingly) more than your shots at ISO 200 (there is more lattitude for XP2 to overexpose rather than underexpose at ISO 400).

Is math no longer in curriculae? Sorry for my frustration, but I really don't understand what the confusion over something very simple is.

GRINNING! No worries, mate! I know exactly what might happen with the +1 to -1 stop over/under exposure. However, it's worth ONE roll to see what really happens with XP2. There is ample anecdotal evidence to support shooting XP2 or BW400CN CONSISTENTLY at ASA 200 to 400. I myself am pleased with the early results at 320. I'm heading toward 200. I have a roll of XP2 waiting for a controlled experiment: an equal number of frames at 200-400-800. All I really have to do is a 3 stop bracket (+1, 0, -1 stop) of each subject and I will make sure that the lighting, lens, etc. is consistent. We shall see if Ilfords latitude claims are justified. I'm with you. I have never seen a color negative film that could tolerate much, if any, underexposure. Maybe that's why I've been halving the ASA setting on my Canon EF since 1975.

This ain't pushing nor pulling. Wally-World don't allow no variation on their Fuji Frontier.

 

[markinlondon]

I have done the 200-800 on one roll of XP2 thing. I can only describe the results as variable. The shots at 200 were dense but very nice when scanned or printed, the 400 lacked a little for shadow detail and the 800 was just plain underexposed with that grainy look of underexposed C41 but was OK scanned with a bit of PS adjustment. It survives the ill treatment but it is a compromise.

Is anyone up for 3 stops over (EI 50) as Ilford claim this is within the latitude of the film?

Mark

 

[froyd]

Gabriel-

I see your poit, but as I mentioned from the beginnig my negs on a lightbox exhibit the same contrast caracteristics as the scan. I can only attribute the results to XP's inability to handle scenes with wide light/shadow ranges.

 

[Dougg]

Hi Froyd... Seems to me your experience is different from most. I can't explain that away; I can only suggest either your analysis is flawed or the processing/scanning is flawed. I've used chromogenic B&W, mostly Ilford's, for over 20 years. When I shoot B&W that's my preferred variety of film because of the lovely tonal qualities I see.

Not that the following examples are the ultimates in quality or anything, just a few picked due to the hight-contrast lighting involved... (the mountain lake differs from the rest in being Kodak chromogenic and APS film format)