c41 bw vs normal bw negative..which do you prefer?

[faris]

and more importantly why?

if i am going to have the bw developed and scanned by a pro lab, which film would you folks advise?

for scotland, in march, which bw film would you recommend and at what iso would
you rate that film? if not c41, and rated other than box speed, what does the
lab need to know?

do i have to tell the lab to use rollers/jabo..i have had nasty experience with c41
and rollers.

i shall print the scans myself after pp, but i do like high contrast bw images.

Thanks for the help, and i know this is the place that could answer my queries.

regards. ( sorry if it seems boring,simple etc. i am new to film )

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

Both C41 BW and traditional BW serve different purposes.

C41 films have an edge in convinience if the user doesnt feel like developing film. They are also reported to have finer grain than its silver counterpart. Ive shot with Kodak and Ilford versions and from my experience I can say its true. They also say the C41 films can be pushed and pulled to some degree but Ive never tried that.

For traditional BW films development will vary wildly depending on who develops it, technique, and chemicals used. Its something that very difficult to answer and as frustrating as it sounds, the best answer will usually amount to something along the lines of 'just try it'. If you are going to have a lab develop traditional BW film be sure to talk to who will developing your film tell them what you want. The ideal way to ensure the best outcome if to process the film yourself, this way the results can be tailored to exactly what appeals to you.

Maybe someone closer to you would have a better idea of the weather conditions of March. My best guess for ideal film speed would be to start with a ISO 400 film. The classic traditional favorites are Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HP5+, they are versitle films which can be pushed and pulled with ease. (Be sure to let the lab know if you pushed or pulled the film, and how many stops too)
There are more iso 400 speed films so theres lots to choose from.

Personally I use traditional BW films because there are many to choose from, each with thier own characteristics. It is also easy to process and the best way to ensure I get exactly what I want. Not to mention its cheap compared to C41 film when bulk rolled.

The best way to find out is to spend a few pounds, pick up a few rolls and experiment. When you get them back from the lab see which film appeals to you best.

 

[pfoto]

Of course the C-41 films for convenience, I use Ilford XP2 which I think is excellent. Beware 1-hr. labs, they can be very variable. Chromogenic film doesn't seem to do well in flat light and the last batch I got back were very grainy and tough to work with. I'm going to England soon and will be trying the new TMax400 which is called TMY-2. I settled on this film because a pro lab I trust uses TMax developer exclusively to soup B&W film. However I will shoot 2 test rolls and get them developed at the lab to make sure everything looks good before I leave.

 

[cmedin]

pfoto: try shooting XP2 at 200 or even slower ISO and you might get rid of some of the grainy look in flat light.

Around here, I found BW400CN to be a better bet than XP2 for the minilabs. However, if I plan on wet printing it's XP2 all the way.

PS: that's for chromogenics, most of my stuff is traditional B/W but since I don't like developing 35mm I tend to shoot C41 there...

 

[dazedgonebye]

I'd shoot color.
Scottland is so green and the light can be beautiful.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I'm sorry, I just realized you were asking about chromogenic black and white.

Still, I stand by my earlier post. I'd shoot color and convert after scanning if I wanted b&w.

 

[bigdog]

C-41 for convenience and a bias to using it for portraits because of the creamy skin tones it can yeild. For everything else it just depends on the look I want and the available light and light conditions. For shooting on tripod with low contrast lightling EFKE 25 rated @25, for less available higher contrast and varied contrast light APX 100 rated @ 50, next speed Tri-x rated @250, then finally TMAX 3200 @ 1250.

So if you want to limit yourself to one film, I would take Tri-x since it is the most versatile, but why on earth would you want to do that. Take at least 2 film speeds. I would bring APX 100 and some Tri-x if u limited me to only 2. Tri-x pushes well up to 1600.

You don't have to tell the lab anything at these speeds, only let them know if you push the speeds above box speed.

C-41 is supposed to scan better, but I get great results scanning my own on a Minolta Dimage 5400. You can use digital ice to clean up your negatives with C-41 but you can't do that with traditional black and white film.

If you plan on scanning in the future, I would buy a used scanner on Ebay. If you get a good quality prosumer scanner, I doubt you will see any difference compared to the high prices you will pay your lab to scan.

I think the contrast you want can be bumped up after scanning in Photoshop and also with photographic paper/filters, inkjet paper and ink choices.

 

[back alley]

as i get more and more lazy i shoot more of the c41 stuff.
i like the xp2 rated at 200 and processed normally. i find the xp2 scans really nicely and works/looks great after a minimum of photoshopping.

i do the 1 hour thing but at a good lab, i get a cheap low res scan done and then re-scan myself if there is a shot i really like.

 

[mfunnell]

Pro lab: "real" black and white. They'll have a long turn-around anyway, whether C-41 or silver-based so, since I prefer the look of the "real" stuff (I'm rather partial to Delta 400), I'd go ahead and use it. Also, with the real stuff , you can rate it at what suits the occasion and have the lab push or pull accordingly.

Develop myself: the same, for the same reasons.

I only shoot C-41 b&w for convenience and fast turn-around. If I know the lab and know they'll print without nasty colour casts I'll have prints made as well as develop and scan. Otherwise, I'll skip the prints.

...Mike

 

[Leighgion]

I actually launched myself into film with Kodak BW400CN. Even among my blundering, that very first roll yielded me one of the finest photographs I ever produced. Have an affection for the film both for that sentimental reason and that it does turn in some very fine grain performance.

Tried out XP2 but found I really didn't like it compared to 400CN. Seemed to be very low contrast and cost more.

C41 B&W is very handy to have processed and scans up nicely, but it's comparatively quite expensive. I have now embarked on the silver halide B&W adventure with a fistful of Tri-X and a batch of chemicals to work it at home.
Soon, I'll pour the D-76 onto my first two rolls and we'll see which results I like better.

 

[panchro-press]

There might be one other aspect to consider: permanence. Conventional b&w film will outlast C-41 even its b&w product.

 

[faris]

Thank you,

Thank you,

and thank you for your responses. I knew I had come to the right place!

Best regards.

 

[Keith]

I think C41 black and white is good with reservations. I used it exclusively to start with but once I got away from it a whole new world was opened up in being able to select a particular film to suit an occasion where I knew the characteristics of that film would give me the look I wanted. I like the grain in Neopan400 and HP5 when shot in low light even pushed to 1600 ... but I don't like the grain you get with chromogenics ... well not the Kodak anyhow!

In favourable light it gives very clean and sharp medium contrast images which often look almost like digital to me. Also the orange mask of the Kodak makes it a little slow to scan but I've heard the Ilford is much better in this department. 🙂

 

[infrequent]

@keith - my first try with chromogenic film was with the bw400cn rolls that you kindly sent me. i actually didn't like the grain pushed to 800 at all and at 400 it was okay. i think most of the flat, digital look was prolly due to the ****ty scans from lab. the neg itself looks fine and might have been processed well. i look forward to getting a proper scanner as there are some definite keepers in the rolls.

i also picked up couple of rolls of ilford xp2 today. they sure are pricey from the brick/mortar stores but i wanted to try before bulk ordering online. folks rave about its exposure latitude. apparently it has different layers that are activated for different iso speeds, yet gives great results when processed at box speed. well worth a shot anyways. it seems the fuji frontier apparently gives better results with c41 b&w films.

 

[faris]

Two questions have been recurring in my mind:

1. Some folks have recommended carrying 2 different rated films, or bw/color. do you not have to expend one complete roll in the cam before loading the other one?

if not..how does one go about it?

2. pushing and pulling film in camera..can it be done on a shot by shot basis or does it generally apply to all the film. considering that some films seem to have a
lot of latitude?. In such a case what would the lab need to know?

Once again..my grateful thanks.

Best.

 

[bigdog]

The one big benefit in my mind of using C-41 is that you can crank the ISO/ASA range several stops on a single roll of film and not worry about the results so much after processing or have any special processing requirements. You would not want to do this with traditional black and white films.

This is why I picked up a brick of Kodak C-41 ...so on my Canonet if I use it for grab shots and leave it in the car for a shot here and there, I can adjust the ISO/ASA as required.

I also agree with the comment about the look of this film being more clinical or digital looking. I like it for skin tones since it can look "creamy". If you see some of Leica Toms' pin up girl images, you can see he gets amazing results with this film and his vintage gear. I prefer traditional b & w film for most applications.

 

[pfoto]

I agree that C-41 B&W is the nearest film gets to changing ISO on a digital. 🙂 I've done that successfully a number of times. XP2 is expensive, but if you buy in bulk rolls you cut the price by 1/2.

pfoto: try shooting XP2 at 200 or even slower ISO and you might get rid of some of the grainy look in flat light.

I rated at 250. For some frames I think I underexposed. 😱 Was using an M7 and being lazy. 🙁 Maybe that's why I paid the price.

 

[sepiareverb]

Talk to the lab techs and ask them what they prefer and why- every lab is different, then run some of the films you like and they like and see what you get. A few rolls as a test can really help both making up your mind and future shooting much easier. You might find two looks you like.

 

[faris]

ilford xp2 super developed and scanned ( 4 x 1meg files )

ilford xp2 super developed and scanned ( 4 x 1meg files )

by a lab today.

i rated the film at 320, m7, no exp. comp., 'cron 35 asph. m7 at auto. no pp, just resizing in ps.

I shall be grateful if you could look at these test images and comment as to
result. i am not looking for any composition critique, but whether this is the type
of result one expects re:grain,scan quality, iq etc.

thank you.

 

[sepiareverb]

They seem kinda dirty, but I'm not a digital worker. Contrast looks great though.