Film questions ...

[dmchadderton]

Just a couple of questions re 35mm films;

1. I currently use XP2Super for convenience (plus I like the 'look' of the resulting negs) but wonder what people think of the other B&W C41 films. How do Ilford XP2, Kodak BW400CN and Fuji Neopan 400CN compare?

2. Does anyone have any experiences with Kodak Portra 800? I often use Fuji NPZ800 but the Kodak keeps tempting me - I'll buy and try some soon, but I was just curious to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for any comments.

__
Dave.

 

[pshinkaw]

I used the Ilford product once several years ago. It may have been the processing or it may have been an older film technology (it might have even been the photographer), but I didn't like the result. I had problems with shadow detail.

I stick to silver based films for B&W now.

-Paul

 

[Pherdinand]

I like the XP2. I used it in medium format too. It is indeed different from trad. BW films, but not worse in my experience. It responds very well to overexposure, i'm not afraid to use it as iso100 and iso400 on the same roll and have it processed normally. Theres' also a test around (posted here too) showing its behaviour from iso50 up to 800.

Lately, after the Ilford changes, it got scarce and terribly expensive - at least here in the Netherlands. My local C-41 lab does not have it anymore so they gave me the Kodak BW400CN to try it. In a few days i'll have the results so i can compare it then.

There's also the Konica C-41 black and white, VX400 i think is called. I got two rolls for free from RFF member fraley, still have to shoot it. The results I have seen on the Net are not noticeably different from XP2, but that's difficult to tell from a digital copy.

EDIT: the canonet link here below in my signature takes you to photos on xp2, 135-format, but the scans are off glossy 10x15 cm prints, not directly the negative.

 

[rover]

I have used both XP2 and BW400CN, I think I like the Kodak film better. The processors I use develop it better and I have found it scans better than XP2. I don't use C41 B&W much, but when I do it will be the BW400CN.

 

[dmchadderton]

Pherdinand,

www.7dayshop.co.uk have tons of XP2Super - I'm sure they'll ship to the Netherlands from the UK.

_
Dave

 

[Pherdinand]

Thanks, will check their prices.

 

[Doug]

I'm very fond of NPZ, and it's the film I use most for my environmental portraits project where the speed is necessary for medium-format cameras with f/4 lens! It's surprisingly good in 35mm too, but of course the grain is more evident. My local pro lab, which uses Agfa equipment, suggests better results from Fuji films... and then the Kodak pro films are more expensive too. I have never used Portra 800, so I can't make a comparison. But the Portra 400UC was wonderful stuff, now apparently renamed to Ultra Color 400.

I have used Ilford's chromogenic since 1981 when it was XP-1, and like you I've become very fond of the overall look of the tonality, especially when given a bit extra exposure. I set the meter to EI 250 for this film. The Kodak film I've used is the now-discontinued T400CN, and it had a bit more contrast than XP2 I think. BW400CN is different in having an orange mask like color neg films, to make it easier to print on an automated lab machine. But the orange mask is a pain to deal with in the home darkroom using multi-grade papers.

I have shot a couple of rolls of Neopan 400CN, expecting the processed film back this afternoon... But as far as I can find, this film is not imported to the US. I ordered mine from RFF sponsor Robert White in the UK.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Exact opposite of Rover: for my money, XP2 Super wipes the floor with Kodak; better tonality, more speed, sharper -- but admittedly coarser grained.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[RayPA]

Exact opposite of Rover: for my money, XP2 Super wipes the floor with Kodak; better tonality, more speed, sharper -- but admittedly coarser grained.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

and I'll toss in with XP2 as well, mostly for the same reasons, better tonality, speed and sharpness. XP2 got my vote (and I'm generally biased toward Kodak products).
😀

 

[phototone]

Have you guys considered the permanence of these C-41 dye based films? Won't they have fading issues in time, just like the color negative films have?

 

[jan normandale]

archival quality of C41 BW film

archival quality of C41 BW film

Have you guys considered the permanence of these C-41 dye based films? Won't they have fading issues in time, just like the color negative films have?

I would be interested in the information available on this topic. I have been shooting a lot of C41 BW lately and would like to find out about all the archival quality of commercially processed film. Additionally I would be interested in a comparison of private lab processing (ie professional photographers doing their own processing) and commercial/retail processing operations like 'Wally mart'.

I shoot Ilford XP2, Kodak Professional T400 CN (now replaced by Kodak Black & White) I have some of the issues that have been listed here however I use this primarily for fast images out of a commercial C41 shop. I like the convenience.

The comments listing the limitations are fair but I don't care too much as long as I get the feel I want I like the grittiness of Ilford for street shots. I like the Kodak for carefully composed shots with detail.

I don't know if my questions on archival quality should be a separate post but I'll leave them here for now.

Jan

 

[Doug]

Fair enough I think, Jan. I keep my negs in PrintFile pages in a three-ring binder. Well, a bunch of 3-ring binders! I just opened a binder for B&W and examined Ilford XP-1 negs shot at the end of 1983, home processed with Ilford's kit. It still looks great to me, normal densities just like recent lab-processed XP-2. The next roll in the binder is a Tri-X home developed in Edwal FG-7, and it has densities similar to the XP-1. So, though it's hard to tell without desitometer readings then and now, I don't see any degradation over the 21+ years.

 

[dmchadderton]

Seems that XP2 Super is winning over BW400CN by 2 to 1 ...

It doesn't prove anything really, just that 2/3 of the B&W C41 users prefer XP2.

 

[jan normandale]

Fair enough I think, Jan. I keep my negs in PrintFile pages in a three-ring binder. Well, a bunch of 3-ring binders! I just opened a binder for B&W and examined Ilford XP-1 negs shot at the end of 1983, home processed with Ilford's kit. It still looks great to me, normal densities just like recent lab-processed XP-2. The next roll in the binder is a Tri-X home developed in Edwal FG-7, and it has densities similar to the XP-1. So, though it's hard to tell without desitometer readings then and now, I don't see any degradation over the 21+ years.

thanks Doug

anecdotal info is always useful. I doubt any studies have been done along the line I asked but you always have to ask , just in case!

I'll be doing a very large update shortly at RFF, mostly C41 BW.

regards, Jan

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I always used the TC400N Kodak film. Then it was replaced by the BW (which I haven't used yet). I did like the Ilford, but availability never allowed me to use it more than once. Hence, my vote goes for Kodak, which, as I said above, I used to like.

 

[kiev4a]

I have Tri-X negatives dating back to the early 1960s. A lot of them were store in glassine sleeves for years -- an entire roll cut in six neg strips and stored together in one sleeve. I can't detect any fading or degredation. I have negs shot by my father in the 1920s and 30s. They have yellowed (probably celluloid base) but the images look quite good.
The worst film I have encountered for fading was Anscochrome from the late '50 and early '60s. Those images have faded to almost nothing although the slides have been stored in cool, dark places most of the time.

 

[Doug]

I just got my first roll of Fuji Neopan 400CN back from the lab. No orange mask. It has a purplish base tint exactly like XP-2 Super. Example below from Contax G2, 35mm Planar...

 

[GeneW]

I don't use C-41 B&W film often, but I've tried both the Kodak and Ilford versions. Of the two I greatly preferred XP2. The Kodak versions seem to have muddy mid-tones -- but that may be the way I scanned them. XP2 has, for my taste, a more natural tonal curve, or perhaps I should say closer to the halide films I use.

On the whole I'd rather shoot Tri-X or APX100.

Gene

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Fuji Neopan 400CN is reputed to be Ilford XP2, made by Ilford and packaged for Fuji.

 

[Avotius]

I love ilford xp2, I used to think these films were the devil but now that I dont have the time to develope my own film now. I think xp2 is very nice stuff, lots of tones. I shoot at 320, very smooth.