Favorite Chromogenic film

[visiondr]

Which chromogenic film are you most fond of?
I've been mulling over which to use as a primary "I'm being lazy and I want someone else to develop the film for me" film.

So, which is best for scanning or wet printing? Most or least contrast, grain, exposure latitude, tonal range? In short, your favorite chromogenic film.

 

[robbo]

I've tried all 3 in varying conditions and I think I prefer Kodak, rated at ASA 325ish. I scan using a KM Dimage and the Kodak consistently gives me smoother results than the other two. For me, the Fuji reacts worst to over/under exposure. The Ilford is very good, but I just prefer the Kodak.

 

[visiondr]

Which of these films has the clearer film base? I recall that one is quite dark purple.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Voted for Kodak as it is the only locally available type that is relatively cheap. As a bonus the results have been good enough not to feel any urge to try others.

Bob

 

[rxmd]

I use XP2 exclusively because with its purple base you can print it in the darkroom. With BW400CN I have had to jump through hoops to get contrast and even then it was unsatisfactory.

I also get very good latitude out of it. I normally shoot at 250, but I've got good results out of exposing it at anything between 100 and 800.

It's not cheap at 57 € per 100-feet roll but it's worth it.

I haven't tried the Fuji yet (never seen it here; what's the base colour?). I have tried Kodak Portra 400CN though, which should be #4 in the list; a very good film, but unfortunately on an orange base as well.

Philipp

 

[visiondr]

Why does the purple base make the film better to print with?

 

[rxmd]

Because of the way contrast control works.

Variable-contrast paper is sensitive to blue and green light. In practice you work with it using yellow and magenta filters. Yellow filters decrease contrast, magenta filters increase contrast. Because the orange film base blocks blue light, it's very difficult to get contrasty pictures out of BW400CN. You can't work around it very well using filters either, because filters only block light; the blue light is already gone after passing through the orange film base, though, so you don't get the contrast from anywhere no matter how you filter.

With fixed-contrast paper it's not fun either. Fixed-contrast paper isn't very sensitive in the green range at all, and the blue range gets blocked by the film base. So your exposure times end up getting really, really long and results are unsatisfactory.

For printing BW400CN in the darkroom the best is panchromatic paper, but there isn't a lot of that left either, it's a pain to work with (because it's sensitive to everything including the red darkroom safelight, you have to process it completely in the dark) and you don't get contrast control with it either, only through the choice of developer, and that's not easy to do in the dark either.

Philipp

 

[whitecat]

Been using the XP's for years. By far the best.

 

[BillP]

Kodak every time. I love the way it renders smooth metallic surfaces. Have a look at my IIIc gallery to see what I mean.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Graham Line]

To me, the XP2 Super seems the smoothest in tone (at around EI 250 in standard processing) and easiest to wet print. Fuji's version seems to be an honest 400 ISO and shows a little more contrast. Haven't really used the Kodak since they only had the orange base available -- it doesn't scan that well on the Scan Dual III, unless I've missed a step.
The frustrating thing about Neo is mailordering it from the UK. At least I can buy XP2 locally.

 

[back alley]

ilford xp2 or regular black & film.

the xp2 manipulated in photoshop can be stunning.

joe

 

[pfoto]

XP2. Tremendous latitude and scans well.

 

[visiondr]

Philipp,
Thanks for the information. That was a very good explanation.

 

[lshofstra]

XP2, scans well, prints well. Only if I'm too pressed for time to do the developing myself.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

The Fuji film is manufactured in Britain by Ilford and is said to be a very very close copy of the XP2. It's only officially available in Britain and Japan, but I've seen it for mail order on the internet.

All my 'Mono' album photos are with the Fuji.

 

[mfunnell]

Just as an aside, I've become quite a fan of the Kodak Gold 100 and 200 colour films when scanned as colour then converted to black and white in Photoshop. That seems to produce nice tones and grain. And the film is quite cheap (by Australian standards).

...Mike

 

[NickTrop]

XP2. Love that film. I get it in 100' reels and bulk load it. Keeps the cost down. Kodak is good too. Never tried the Fuji.

 

[Doug]

I've been using the Ilford XP since July 1981 shortly after its introduction, when it was XP1. I've come to like it a lot, and as Philipp described, it's easiest to print in the darkroom.

About a year later Agfa introduced a similarly clear-base chromogenic called AgfaPan Vario XL, but it didn't last very long on the market. I used it in 120 size.

At one point Kodak was offering three B&W chromogenic films, one of which had a nearly clear base with only the very faintest pink tinge.

As stated by Jon, the Fujipan appears to be the same as the Ilford film. I bought some from Robert White in the UK; perhaps its very limited market area is by agreement with Ilford... So I like the Fuji chromogenic as well as the XP2 as they seem interchangeable.

Interestingly, all the B&W chromogenics are ISO 400. As others have mentioned, I too have chosen EI 250 setting for the metering, for a smoother look and richer shadow detail.

 

[amateriat]

For me, Ilford XP2 is the standard, but Kodak's offering is very, very good. I'd say it's hard to really go wrong with either.


- Barrett

 

[infrequent]

As others have mentioned, I too have chosen EI 250 setting for the metering, for a smoother look and richer shadow detail.

but its still processed as iso 400?