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

[zuikologist]

I use Ilford's film because I print in a wet darkroom. Kodak's film won't work for B+W printing due to its orange mask.
So this Fuji stuff, is it available in 120? Does it have an orange mask, or no? Didn't know about it.

-Bryce

Bryce

Neopan 400CN is available in 120 (at least in the UK). It was apparently codeveloped with Ilford, which is surprising to me - it seems to be closer to Kodak the Ilford.

You might be interested int hese:

Fuji data sheet:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:...0cn.html+fuji+neopan+400cn&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8


Pnet discussion:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006n5n


Some images:

http://www.leica-gallery.net/graksi/image-90352.html


http://www.leica-gallery.net/graksi/image-90365.html

 

[Dougg]

I agree the lab is the major factor in problems with chromogenic B&W films, and it's mostly evident in the prints rather than the scans. I like Ilford's XP2, but have had good results from Kodak T400CN (discontinued) and long ago with AgfaPan Vario XL. Over the past year I've used some Fuji Neopan 400CN bought through Robert White Ltd. As far as I can tell it's the same as XP2 Super. The fine print on the box says "Made in EU for Fuji Photo Film (UK) Ltd. London NW3 6HY"

 

[froyd]

I would like to clarify, for those who did not read through the whole thread that I do not have a problem with the prints. After much looking I found two competent labs that turn out C-41 print that are truly BW, and not tinged green/purple/yellow.

However, the prints are REALLY contrasty (as in grade 4 paper) because the NEGATIVE are very contrasty, with little middle tones.

I'm thinking that part of the problem might be that I've been shooting in full sunshine metering manaually. I don't remember having similar problems with XP2 when I used it years ago.

I'll upload a few scans if I have a chance.

 

[Dougg]

XP2 Super negs tend to be a little flat except in very contrasty light... So if your negs are generally very contrasty, I'd wonder if the lab "pushed" them in processing for some reason, maybe in error... I have asked for push processing a couple times and this does tend to block up the otherwise bullet-proof highlights.

 

[Bryce]

Zuikologist-
I don't find the Fuji material for sale in the states. Sounds like it may be rebadged XP-2 anyway... Thanks for the information!

 

[Stephanie Brim]

This thread is interesting to me because I've never once used C41 black and white film. It has made me curious enough that I might try some Kodak and Ilford the next time I buy new film.

 

[SCOTFORTHLAD]

I use a Fuji Minilab to process XP2 Super. The lab is situated within my local Sainsburys Supermarket,and it also handles dry cleaning and keycutting in the same franchise,so as you can see they have more on their plate than just photo processing.However they usually produce acceptable prints and Cd scans.On one occasion the prints had a green cast,I complained and they happily reprinted with the correct balance.
I guess that I am lucky,until they have some staff turnover?

Brian.

 

[Will]

I use a Fuji Minilab to process XP2 Super. The lab is situated within my local Sainsburys Supermarket,and it also handles dry cleaning and keycutting in the same franchise,so as you can see they have more on their plate than just photo processing.However they usually produce acceptable prints and Cd scans.On one occasion the prints had a green cast,I complained and they happily reprinted with the correct balance.
I guess that I am lucky,until they have some staff turnover?

Brian.

Brain, Fuji Minilab do seems to do a good job on those C41 B&W, I use them to process Kodak BW400, came out without any colour cast..

I use it @ISO 200.

 

[SCOTFORTHLAD]

Thanks Will,I will give it a try,🙂
Cheers,
Brian.

 

[steamer]

I'm in Japan but I second Will, I've never had any problem with developing or printing C-41 black and white at the Fuji shops
Steamer

 

[froyd]

02 31 10

Sorry for resurecting the thread, but I finally got around to uploading shots that describe the problem I'm having with XP2.

Picture 02 shows XP2 behaving well, with acceptable highlight and shadow detail. Picture 31 shows average results, with less than perfect mid-grays. Finally Picture 10 shows what looks to me as unaceptable contrast, even making allowances for the strong sun/shadows in the picture.

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.

 

[Goodyear]

I shot a roll last week, and the scans I got back from the lab are a bit much for me (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/marramgrass/250091128/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/marramgrass/250091126/ ). My scanner is currently packed away, so I can't rescan myself, but in the past I've been very happy scanning it myself (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/marramgrass/9572408/ which was also through contrasty lens, with an orange filter, and I boosted it a litle in PS).

 

[markinlondon]

What EI are you using for your XP2, Froyd?

I'd suggest using 200-250. It looks a lot better to me than EI400.

Mark

 

[Graham Line]

Mark's experience rating XP2 Super at about 250 matches my own; that seems to be what it takes to get a nice, full exposure with good tonality.
Fuji Neopan 400CN seems to be an honest ISO 400 but as far as I know, it isn't sold in the US. Friends get periodic supplies from the UK, and I believe it's also marketed in Japan.

 

[markinlondon]

I had heard it suggested that Fuji 400CN was rebadged XP2 as they look so alike. I doubt it as Ilford no longer rebadge their films.

Mark

 

[dazedgonebye]

Sorry if I'm out to lunch here....

Are you scanning the negs or having the lab scan them for you?
If scanning is part of your workflow, vs. wet prints, why shoot the chromo b&w at all? I tried Ilford and Kodak chromogenics and didn't like either one as well as color film scanned and converted to b&w in photoshop.

I like the results of conversion from color, and I have a color file, if the image calls for it.

 

[froyd]

Mark-

I rate XP2 at the recommended 400 speed. I'll try 250, but won't that give me even more blown out highlights? Thanks for the tip.


Steve-

My wet darkroom equipment is still packed away, waiting for a darkroom to be built in my new home. In the interim, I've been using XP because it is supposed to be easier to print from than Kodak's C41 BW film. My goal is to soon be able to go back through my XP negs and pick a few frames to enlarge. I'll then switch back to a rotation of HP5, FP4 and Tri-X.

The picture I've attached above were scanned by Costco's 1h lab.

 

[amateriat]

Jorge - which Kodak? I think they actually have two versions out now from what I see on BH Photo's web page. Nice tones in your example, BTW.

Kodak had two versions (T400CN and 400BW); now there's just one, BW400CN, essentially just a tweaked version of T400CN. The discontinued film was similar to Ilford XP2 Super in that it didn't have an oramge mask.

My preference, as mentioned in past threads on the matter, is XP2, since it allows me the option of wet-darkroom printing without a lot crazy maneuvers (I scan the film most of the time). I like XP2's contrast, for pretty much the same reason I like Kodak's Portra 160NC: tons of range, and a high degree of control. And, both happen to be highly scanner- and Photoshop-friendly. But I'll certainly shoot with BW400CN in a pinch – it scans nicely too, albeit differently (and that orange mask changes up my scanning workflow, too).


- Barrett

 

[bmicklea]

Yes; this is a shot from a roll of XP2 I rated and pushed to ISO 800. My lab grudgingly humoured me and pushed the film (they don't do that anymore, I have to find a new lab)

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 use a pro lab here in Toronto for my colour work and they're always willing to push/pull C41 and E6 so I'm assuming I'd be okay having them push my roll of BW400CN shot at 800. Or am I missing something?

 

[amateriat]

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 use a pro lab here in Toronto for my colour work and they're always willing to push/pull C41 and E6 so I'm assuming I'd be okay having them push my roll of BW400CN shot at 800. Or am I missing something?

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