JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Works well for me, too. I have been shooting it at 320. The only thing I'd say is that the negs are a little on the low contrast side, but since these days most are destined to be scanned and printed after "digital" processing, that's more of an advantage than a limitation.
Spider67
Well-known
Actually I was beginning to worry if there wasn't a problem with the aging of 400CN & XP2. Will the those negatives degrade over the years? What kind of B/W paper is suited best for those of us who use an old fashioned darkroom?
Personally I use 400 CN because the cost for developing and prints in adrugstore is lower than that for contact prints done by a spcialized lab. I choose the best pic and have it enlarged the proper way by the specialized lab. Currently I am planning to cut costs by developing B/W film myself and scan it and choose from the scans.
Personally I use 400 CN because the cost for developing and prints in adrugstore is lower than that for contact prints done by a spcialized lab. I choose the best pic and have it enlarged the proper way by the specialized lab. Currently I am planning to cut costs by developing B/W film myself and scan it and choose from the scans.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Pepe, as the results shown here indicated, there's nothing wrong with the film itself in general. And considering you got the same problem with different labs, the only conclusion that I can draw is that maybe you have a bad batch.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I am very happy with this film ... I like the tones and the contrast but it needs a good lens to bring out it's best.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Although I love silver, another nice thing about the chromogenic B&Ws is that you can use scanner aids like digital ICE when scanning.
Spider67 said:
wray
Well-known
Spider67 said:
Well, here's an image from an XP-1 negative from 1980. Not much degradation going on here.
Pepe
Established
Must be just mine then. I do admit outdoor shots look ok, and the XP2 stuff I've seen is great too. The contrast problem mostly only happens indoors or with flash, perhaps it's the tungsten light or just lower latitude ? Doesn't matter. Perhaps I'm spoiled by Diafine as a developer and expect too much.
My problem with the dust is odd. I know. But It's there. Weird, because I dry my apx or TriX hanging from my curtain rails in my living room, as I watch TV (I don't smoke though), and there is no dust on them.
I bought it with a load of other film online. Idea was to sample a lot and see what I want to use. APX and TriX won out. Anyone want a lot of old AGFA VISTA 200 colour ? Because that sucks (grainy) and I have forty or so left, as well as AGFA PORTRAIT 160 (even worse, and the colours tend to be off, I'm going to run a roll through Diafine to see if it looks any better in BW)....
My problem with the dust is odd. I know. But It's there. Weird, because I dry my apx or TriX hanging from my curtain rails in my living room, as I watch TV (I don't smoke though), and there is no dust on them.
I bought it with a load of other film online. Idea was to sample a lot and see what I want to use. APX and TriX won out. Anyone want a lot of old AGFA VISTA 200 colour ? Because that sucks (grainy) and I have forty or so left, as well as AGFA PORTRAIT 160 (even worse, and the colours tend to be off, I'm going to run a roll through Diafine to see if it looks any better in BW)....
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Spider67 said:
XP2 expired since 2000 (shot with 200ASA):
Farace
Established
I just got a test roll of the Kodak CN400 back and all the prints have a sort of bluish-greenish cast. I don't see that on any of these posted photos. Is it just because I had it processed at CVS? I also see the negs have a orange-brown cast to them; I would imagine that a B&W film processed as C41, being printed on whatevercolor paper is in the machine, would print up any color in the negative, no? Should the negative have a colorless base? (I'd hate to hate this film, as Walgreen had it on clearance and I bought six more rolls.) Maybe I should get it processed at someplace other than where I pick up prescriptions and toothpaste.
markinlondon
Elmar user
Your lab has not adjusted their colour balance to produce a black and white image. I've had green, purple and almost sepia lab prints from chromogenic films. BW400CN has the same orange mask as colour film and is supposed to give neutral prints on colour paper as a result. XP2 has a similar base to other black and white film.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Bob, I scan my pictures myself, so I can get rid of the color casts before showing it online or print it. If you're not keen on scanning yourself, tell the minilab to burn a CD for you instead of printing it. Nowadays, they scan the negatives *then* print it anyway.
Farace
Established
Thanks! So it's just a printing issue and not a developing issue. That's somewhat reassuring (other than having misprints).
Cale Arthur
---- ------
I've never once had this film turn out in an appreciable way by having it processed at any drugstore-type place. That said, a friend of mine used this film exclusively to shoot the cover & booklet photos for a Chico Hamilton cd, and they look fantastic (and were not processed at a drugstore). I know this isn't much from which to draw a conclusion, but it's interesting just the same (and i'm in no way implying that he and i are working on the same level). My feeling is that this film is much like a cover band: it's intended to replicate something that it almost never fully achieves (though, as evidenced by photos in this thread, some people can make it work and it looks great!).Farace said:
I too am sitting on about 12 rolls that i picked up on sale (mostly to pass off to friends), but at the end of the day, this is the film that forced me to invest in the traditional B&W methodology.. it's certainly cheaper, more rewarding, flexible and forgiving, and best of all, i'm in charge of my own mistakes.
--c--
Farace
Established
I guess I knew I take a chance any time I bring film to the drugstore. Never know whether you'll get the operator that's been doing it for years, or the night-shift high-school kid. Or whether they've changed their chemistry in the recent past. It was a test roll, anyway, having pulled my Retina IIC out of dormancy and wanting to check it out. I intend to use more traditional B&W film and develop at home (and fill my bulk loader once I decide on a film), but it's nice to have this available, too. Now that I see that others can make it behave, maybe I can, too.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Chromogenic B&W films leave me cold. They do scan well, and have very fine grain, but they are just not as interesting to me as regular black and white films, and they discard the greatest strengths of traditional films- the huge variety of looks you can get by changing the variables of the whole process. With traditional films, you can really fine tune your results to suit your taste in terms of grain, sharpness, tonality, edge effects, contrast, etc. But with the C-41 films, the only variety a given film can offer is if you adjust your E.I. to get best results from your lab- and even this requires them to be more consistent than most labs take the time to get.
In the darkroom, the orange mask of the Kodak products especially is just horrendous. These negs are such a pain in the tail that I charge extra when clients want me to print from them. Ilford XP2 is better in this regard, but it's still more like printing through a color negative than a black and white one.
This said, I have seen prefectly good, even outstanding results from these films. I have shot plenty of Kodak and Ilford C-41 B&W stock over the past 10 or 15 years (I've never seen Fuji chromogenic B&W, though I guess they make it?), and had perfectly good results when I've given these films to a good commercial lab. If you can't do traditional black and white work yourself, or if scanning negs and working digitally from there is your preferred workflow, I guess the chromogenic films can be a good choice. But under any other circumstances, I can't see them making sense. For my own work, I've found that if I want the conveneince of C-41 processing, I'll shoot color and let the lab do it. It scans well and is easily converted digitally if I have to have a given shot in black and white. But really for black and white (which is easily 80% of what I shoot) I'd much rather shoot traditional films.
In the darkroom, the orange mask of the Kodak products especially is just horrendous. These negs are such a pain in the tail that I charge extra when clients want me to print from them. Ilford XP2 is better in this regard, but it's still more like printing through a color negative than a black and white one.
This said, I have seen prefectly good, even outstanding results from these films. I have shot plenty of Kodak and Ilford C-41 B&W stock over the past 10 or 15 years (I've never seen Fuji chromogenic B&W, though I guess they make it?), and had perfectly good results when I've given these films to a good commercial lab. If you can't do traditional black and white work yourself, or if scanning negs and working digitally from there is your preferred workflow, I guess the chromogenic films can be a good choice. But under any other circumstances, I can't see them making sense. For my own work, I've found that if I want the conveneince of C-41 processing, I'll shoot color and let the lab do it. It scans well and is easily converted digitally if I have to have a given shot in black and white. But really for black and white (which is easily 80% of what I shoot) I'd much rather shoot traditional films.
Cale Arthur
---- ------
I was going to mention that this seems like a fairly significant factor in all of this, as the few times i've approached success with BW400cn was after i had to wait for the chems to be changed. Of course, none of what i previously posted says anything about my skill level at the time i was using BW400cn, and it's entirely possible that i was asking something of the film that just wasn't possible..Farace said:
Still, the constant scratches, fingerprints, green prints, general employee apathy, and (to echo the very first post), the 'dust', sent me running for the hills. I see now that none of this has anything to do with the film itself, and that the constant operator errors are what made me re-evaluate the situation - the film just got caught in the crossfire.
--c--
Last edited:
Kent
Finally at home...
Hi!
I (also) think that it depends on the lab a lot.
Actually, this is my fav b&w film. I never had problems with it.
I (also) think that it depends on the lab a lot.
Actually, this is my fav b&w film. I never had problems with it.
wray
Well-known
I suppose it all comes down to personal taste and workflow. Since I no longer have a wet room and scan all my negs, chromagenic film suits me just fine. Here's one I scanned yesterday - done on a Nikon F100 before I bought my Bessa R3a.
Farace
Established
Farace said:
And now that I've had a chance to take a closer look at the prints, I find that besides being off-color they printed them way too dark. I was thinking my exposure was wrong (and it still might be; I can't tell from these prints), but I can see much more shadow detail in the negatives than on the prints. I'm not going to be bringing them anything to process that I care much about.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
I was interested to see a test of XP2, BW400CN and the new Rollei film in the latest LFI. They seem to favor the XP2, but the results are close.