C41 vs. HP5 & Trix

M

mike goldberg

The Peaceful Pacific
Local time
12:13 PM
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,148
Hi... I've been trying out Kodak's 400 C41 process, with pleasing results.
So I ask, why develop 'real' B/W at home? Here's what I come up with:

Advantages of real B/W:

- It's the real thing.

- Develop at home.

- Economy!

Advantages of B/W in C41

- No need to fuss with chemicals and processing cycle at home.

- Film is developed and scanned to CD in 1 hour at Lab 20 minutes from home.

See recent Thumbnails on Kodak 400 C41.
Let's hear...
mike
 

Attachments

  • RealWood2_F1000006.jpg
    RealWood2_F1000006.jpg
    147.8 KB · Views: 0
  • SL_mobile_tension2_F1000005.jpg
    SL_mobile_tension2_F1000005.jpg
    58.1 KB · Views: 0
I've shot a lot of 400CN. For several years that's all I shot. It's advantages: It's easily scanned. Digital ICE works on it (no spotting!!!). It has a lot of latitude.

Lately I've switched over to lower speed B&W films: Delta 100, Acros, PanF Plus. The films seem sharper. Also, with the CN, if I needed to drag detail out of underexposed shadows, there were ugly noisy artifacts. The B&W films are much better for that, particularly Acros and PanF Plus.

So, I've given up a stop or so (I rated the CN at 200) and I've now got to do a fair amount of spotting. I like the pictures better, though.

Ed
 
Thanks Ed,

Yes, I'm remembering that Digital Ice will NOT work on silver based
films, because the IR in the machine can't read them.

So, it seems BOTH CN & 'real' B/W have their advantages.
Below is a photo from GeneW aka Harbourlight, in flickr. This pic
has a Rodinal 1:50 Tag.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdnphoto/421594992/

The sharpness and tonal range here are superb.

Re: Scanning: Since I live on a retirement income, I decided to
spend on a pair of Bessas & some good glass, rather than a scanner.

Further, since I haven't developed a roll of B/W in 12 years, Ruben
and I are meeting this week to review quality control basics :rolleyes:

Cheers, mike
 
Mike, when you upload photo files to flickr, it creates several versions (square, thumbnail, small, med and original size.... stop me if you know this already). The versions that aren't original size have a fairly aggressive sharpening applied to them. Since the medium version is the one folks see most often I find that when sending Delta 100 photos to flickr, I apply *no* sharpening to the original file. Here's an example of unsharpened Delta 100:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/408473946_1a1e6f4418_o.jpg
 
Zowie!... Thanks so much Ed.

Sometimes with this "aggressive digital sharpening," I wonder what happened?!? ... and I hate the look of it.

That shoe looks wonderful. Delta 100 is NOT an emulsion I'm familiar with.
I'm looking forward to BOTH silver based B/W and C41.

Thanks, mike
 
While we're on c41 vs. silver b/w... I remember reading somewhere here on RFF that the kodak C41 bw negatives could not be acurately printed with an enlarger, but that perhaps the Fuji XP 2 could? If this is so, one could use XP2 (assuming one likes the results), have the film developed and scanned at the one-hour lab, take the negs and print what you want on an enlarger?
 
ravinder_walia said:
One of the big things for me is the ability to play and experiment.

I bulk roll my own HP5 and can develop when I have time.

Bulk loading and developing at home really saves money allowing me to buy more film.

I'm always tempted to jump ship to try a new film but having two bulk rolls of HP5 in the freezer stops me from doing that.
Click to expand...
While I didn't mention it above, this is what I ordinarily do too. I've been doing construction in my house for the past several months (we're almost done) and part of that is rebuilding the darkroom, so I've been unable to develop or print for some time now. In a way it has been good for me because it has pushed me to try other films, particularly color and C41 black and white. Hence the curiousity and urge to experiment with these various negatives at some point. It will be a while though, because I have quite a backlog of exposed HP5 to develop once the darkroom is ready:eek:

Rolling your own film and developing at home is really a fun way to go. It's "therapeutic" and it saves money big time in the long run.
 
If I know I won't have any time to process, I shoot the CN400BW - I usually rate it at 250 to prevent underexposure (which gets ugly quickly).

That said. I still prefer to shoot TriX whenever possible.
 
The main practical problem with the Kodak C-41 is that it has an orange base, like a colour-neg flm. That makes it easier for the automated one-hour type machinery - but much, much more difficult (almost not do-able) to print in your own darkroom, especially with multigrade papers.

The alternate would be Ilford XP-2. That is the same C-41 process but has no orange mask. The scanning tricks will work the same and it will print happily on normal b+w paper at home. Perhaps the "best of both worlds" for many people.
 
My two big reasons for shooting silver film (such as Tri-X, FP4+, etc.) are:

- I get a "look" that I like
- Economy

If I was doing work where time and high-volume were the top priorities, that might tip the scale in favor of a C41 process film. But, then, I'd probably just use digital for sort of work anyway.

My $0.02,

Kam
 
I think MartinP has the answer for anyone who is just starting out and may want to get into developing and printing. Yes, the entire photo-taking process is fun for those of us who do it as a hobby, but the most rewarding part of taking these photos, at least for me, is seeing the end result. When that image begins to appear on the paper... So, for one just beginning, perhaps a way to "wade into the waters" may be to use XP2, have it photolab developed and scanned, take the negs home and print them yourself. This process gives you a digital image, a negative, and potentially a decent print to hold in your hands.
 
like2fiddle said:
While we're on c41 vs. silver b/w... I remember reading somewhere here on RFF that the kodak C41 bw negatives could not be acurately printed with an enlarger, but that perhaps the Fuji XP 2 could? If this is so, one could use XP2 (assuming one likes the results), have the film developed and scanned at the one-hour lab, take the negs and print what you want on an enlarger?
Click to expand...
Here's the deal: Kodak's BW400CN, like its color-neg counterparts, has an orange mask (which is why it's sometimes hard to differentiate BW400 from, say, Portra, when looking at the developed film with the naked eye), whereas Ilford's XP2 Super, the other C41 chromogenic, has no such mask.

The advantage of the orange mask is that it makes life a bit easier for lab operators to get a fix on making neutral (or at least close to neutral) machine prints, which has been a bit more of a prolblem for people getting their XP2 rolls developed and printed at a minilab. The downside – and it's something of a biggie for some people – is that BW400 is a bear to work with in the conventional b/w darkroom when trying to make prints, whereas XP2 is a breeze to wet-print by comparison (you do need to crank up the contrast somewhat, compared to conventional b/w film, but that's about the only adjustment). Both films are drop-dead simple to scan, and if your scanner has Digital ICE, you can kiss the tedium of post-scan spotting good-bye (for the most part, anyway...every once in a while I need to do additional touching-up, but it's minimal at worst).

I use a lot of XP2 in my work (buying the occasional pack of BW400 if my supply of the former runs out at a bad time), but I also shoot, and process, the regular stuff as well (mostly HP5, and one or two slower emulsions i happen to have around). It's not an either/or thing with me – both have their virtues, and I wouldn't want to be without either.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Barrett,
Thanks for the enlightenment on the difference in emulsions between the CW 400 and the XP2. I'm going to order some XP2 and try it out. I've not seen it for sale locally where I am. I enjoy playing around with the printing process so this could be an adventure. (I also don't have a scanner so labscanned negatives are about the only way I could ever post photos anywhere.)
 
like2fiddle said:
Barrett,
Thanks for the enlightenment on the difference in emulsions between the CW 400 and the XP2. I'm going to order some XP2 and try it out. I've not seen it for sale locally where I am. I enjoy playing around with the printing process so this could be an adventure. (I also don't have a scanner so labscanned negatives are about the only way I could ever post photos anywhere.)
Click to expand...

Just remember that it's Ilford XP2 not Fuji.;)
 
Since no one has said it, grain.

If you like grain, there's really no substitute for silver black and white films like Tri-X and Neopan. If it weren't for that, I'd probably skip the C-41 and go to de-saturated digital or at least de-saturated color film.

C-41 is probably a great boon to those who shoot super slow black and white film and develop high dilutions with minimal agitation for that ultimate grainless negative, but if you want the Ralph Gibson/Daido Moriyama/William Klein type of in your face coarseness, you need to shoot silver film (although apparently Moriyama is using a GR-D now with it's film like grain at higher ISOs).
 
I want to thank All above for the comments.

Remembering my own bulk loading and B/W development of a dozen years ago... there IS a special enjoyment in the process. Ruben and I are going to pow-wow today on film development, and I've hauled out 3 thermometers
and small graduates+syringe for measuring 25ml of liquid developer.

I want to note Barrett's comments on C41 chromogenics. Kodak's 400 C41 is indeed fine grained, and the tonal range is quite OK. Is it my imagination,or do I see a pinkish cast in the photo in the Link?

For sure, there are times when B/W via CN is the way to go, and maybe Ilford's XP2 is the answer.

As for now, methinks that HP5+Rodinal will be coming up very soon. The economy factor will be welcome as well.
SEE LINK BELOW.
mike
 
Last edited:
Ilford XP2

Ilford XP2

I dropped the BW400CN because it lacked uninformity. It lacked contrast and looked REALLY horrible when underexposed. Prints looked almost sepia colored. Scanning seemed to take more effort, IMO.

The nice thing about XP2 is the nearly clear base. I can "glass" my negs and see what I am getting. And it prints a fantastic netural B&W on paper. Scans great too, without the orange mask.

Forgot to add, if you like grain(I do) nothing beats Tri-x for useability, big pushable ISO range, although I haven't used the super ISO films yet. I've got to use up my stock before I try anything new. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again, Artorius & All...
I think this Thread has run its course.

Ruben and I met today. I showed him my recently arrived Bessa R; he showed me a beautiful Fed 2 that had been CLA'd by Oleg. And, we talked some about film development. The conclusions have already been mentioned above, and I'll repeat them in summary form:

- Silver based films like Tri-X, HP5, PanF, etc., are the real thing.

- Kodak's B/W CN has a pinkish cast to my eye, and it prints a bit greenish. XP2 is likely to be better, BUT :rolleyes:

- Bulk loading and developing at home is economical and part of a process.

Ruben did mention the need to do exposure-development tests, to fine-tune one's methodology. That's pretty much it. Thanks so much for being here.

Cheers, mike ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom