Favorite Chromogenic film

Favorite Chromogenic film

  • Ilford XP2 Super

    Votes: 51 63.0%

  • Kodak BW400CN

    Votes: 27 33.3%

  • Fuji Neopan 400CN

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • Total voters
    81
I use Kodak Profoto400 BW becouse of it's cheap price.
XP2 here costs as much as classic films (like Delta 100) , so it isn't worth to pay more and get it screwed in the minilab
 
Doug said:
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.
Click to expand...
I shoot Profoto400 usually at 320 and found no problems. at 400 it is too gray-ish, low contrast. At 320 contrast is closer to normally expected. It's huge exposure latitude allows to shoot it as 200 or 800, too
 
When Ilford first brought out XP1 about 25 years ago they said we could use it at anything between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 (or similar figures) all on the same roll.

What they actually meant was that the exposure latitude was very very wide because C41 needs to be usable in simple cameras without exposure meters.

These C41 mono films have always had a box speed of ISO 400, but some people think that's a marketing box speed and that it sounds sexier than a true box speed of ISO 320.
 
Ilford states that XP2 can be used anywhere from EI 50 to 800 with at least decent results. I've never rated it above box speed; my speed of choice is EI 320, but I'm going to try it out at 250 for a small project. It scans and prints beautifully.


- Barrett
 
That is the beauty of XP2. You don't even have to be good with sunny 16 to get decent results with it. You can also change your ISO on the fly with the same roll of film and it doesn't seem to faze XP2 at all. Sort of like turning your film camera into a digital. :)
 
I find XP2 to be deliver more contrast.
But the BW400CN has smoother tone changes and less grain.

Love them all. Isn't the Neopan based on XP2 or share some formulation?
 
The first time I used XP2 I shot my uncle's wedding. The sales lady said that you could shoot it at any speed as long as you did the whole role at that speed. I've since learned that you can shoot at any speed on the same roll and that it responds best (with nicest and finest grain) when shot at 200 or 250. Here are some samples. I'm not especially proud of the photos, but the grain is not so bad for shooting at 1200 ISO. It's a rather amazing film to be so flexible.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=50257&ppuser=4252

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=50260&ppuser=4252

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=50254&ppuser=4252

Note, these photos were taken with a rather soft summitar.
 
Last edited:
Haven't used a C-film since the first Ilford version came out. I see lots of this stuff, run by students who don't read the supply list and buy it thinking since it's black & white they can run it in regular b&w chemistry. Never looks terribly good that way.

The latest Kodak version can produce some very nice prints if you have a bright enough bulb in the enlarger.
 
rxmd said:
Hi Jon,


what's the colour of the film base? I've never tried it, but if it's not orange I might.

Philipp
Click to expand...
If it's produced by Ilford then it's clear base, not the orange mask in Kodak's 400BW.
 
I chose 400CN although I use Kodak's 400CN and XP2 rather balanced. In the last month I prefered XP2 because of it clear base as I have pics enlarged in a friends lab who has specializen in BW. 400CN's advantage is ist low price and it's easy availability at least in Vienna. I also bought Kodaks "Profoto 400" in Bulgaria and I am wondering if it's just another name for 400 CN or something else I also used Konicas VX(?) quite long.
 
I don't want to get things too far off topic here, but what's the advantage of shooting B&W C41 film, over shooting color C41 film and converting to B&W in photoshop? I realize if you're making wet prints, there's an obvious advantage, but if your just scanning, the only difference I see is the time saved in making the conversion. But, doing the conversion gives you more control over how the tones come out.

Is there something better about B&W C41 films?...are they sharper or something?

Thanks,
Paul
 
Burlap Jacket said:
Here's a shot on XP2 exposed at EI 25... and it still looks good.
Click to expand...
Not bad, that's overexposure by four and half stops or so. Not bad at all.

I find it tolerates overexposure much better than underexposure, when the shadows tend to go blotchy and grainy very fast.

Philipp
 
I recall an explanation long ago by Ilford, saying that XP has three dye layers like most color C41 films, but instead of devoting each layer to a different color dye, they use them all with black dye.. and they are each sensitized differently to broaden the acceptable exposure range of the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom