Recommended film (C41)B&W & colour

[chenick]

Hi all,

Can you recommend 2 negative films for me? 🙂
Or just advise your favourites.!

Bear in mind that the photography stores here in Ireland aren't great, so nothing too rare. I've been to over 4 photography stores and none have ND filters, 100 ASA colour film etc.
Digital P&S are taking over!!

1. Colour, max 200 ASA.
I've been using Kodak Gold 200. It's not bad, sometimes a lot grainier than I'd expect.

2. C41 B&W. I've only seen Ilford XP2 here
400 would be Ok if it's not too grainy. Haven't tried, miatakenly bought some Tmax 100 thinking it would was C41.

Thanks!! 😀

Nick

 

[iMacfan]

I don't have a huge experience, but do have a few ideas:

Colour:

Fuji Superia 100/200. Now, the colours are 'consumer' (i.e. bright and appealing as opposed to 100%accurate), but the quality has always been good for me. And, if you shop around, you can get it VERY cheap. Here in London, I know a shop (Calumet), which sells 36exp rolls for only ~£1.20 a roll, so check the 'net.

Kodak High definition is more expensive, but really does what it says on the packet. Grain is finer than an ISO 200 film has any right to be.


As for C41 B&W, I've only used XP2, but it fits the bill for me, and the 400 speed is handy.

Hope this helps,

David

 

[DickS]

I have been shooting Ilford XP2 400 since they came out with it and before that I shot Ilford XP1 400. I like it and I never have had any problems with grain.

I normally shoot slide film, Agfa RSX, but if I want to shoot color negative I go with Agfa Vista. I like the colors, it is cheap to start with, and it is usually on sale.

Dick

 

[back alley]

just started to shoot xp2 and so far i like it.
i have been reluctant to go back into the darkroom (nice summer weather) and having one hour processing plus cd is just so damn handy.
as for colour, i have always liked the fuji line of chromes.

joe

 

[dougi]

C-41 B&Ws can be tricky to get processed correctly. I suggest you try a few different minilabs and stick with one that processes them reliably. Innaproriate channels at some minilabs will give you nasty brown or purple colour tints on C-41 B&W if they are not careful, and a lot aren't!

I generally use the Kodak "B&W 400" C-41 and stick with Kodak Minilabs. Thesedays though, I shoot colour and enlarge/print in mono at home if I want B&W prints.

 

[LionFlyer]

I have been using down some Kodak Portra 400 I have been keeping in the fridge. The lab I use processed it right. No color casts anyway. I can't add more to what has been said about C41 B&W. If mail order is alive and well in ireland, how about going online, ordering what you need and wait a few days for it to show up at your step? Less expensive too. Just buy a lot of it at once or the shipping eats up the savings.

 

[Doug]

I'll echo LionFlyer's mail-order suggestion; brings the whole world to your doorstep!

Like Dick, I've been using Ilford's XP for a long time, starting with XP1. I've settled on EI of 250 rather than 400 as giving better results, but then it's also my practice with all C41 films to "overexpose" by 2/3 stop.

I like XP2 Super a lot. Very nice smooth quality. I have limited experience with other chromogenics, but recall liking Agfa's until it was discontinued. Recently I've tried some Kodak T400CN, but not enough to form any solid opinion.

One thing to be aware of among the chromogenics is that some like Kodak Portra 400 BW employ the same orange mask as color films so that they can print more conveniently on the same automated 1-hr lab machinery.

Others, like XP2 and Kodak T400CN, have no mask, and so are intended for traditional B&W paper. But these still should print ok at the lab if they'll just pay attention and switch filter packs!

Partly to avoid silly mistakes with camera ISO settings, I just standardize on 400 speed C41 films, and leave the setting at 250. Conveniently, Kodak's Portra 400UC is possibly the best 400-speed color negative film ever made. I think they're calling it Ultra Color 400 now. Fuji's NPH 400 isn't too shabby either. 🙂

 

[chenick]

Cool, thanks for the suggestions folks!!

 

[Kris]

I will add one more: Fuji Reala. Despite its reputation as a portrait film, I think Reala is just as nice for landscape/nature shots. Colours produced by Reala is still pretty punchy.

As for C-41 B&W, I'm with the rest of the gang here: T400CN or XP2. I like T400CN more than XP2 because T400CN is more forgiving in exposure error. I used to guesstimate exposure to take photos with my RE-II (meter is dead), and 99.5% of the shots came out fine. Not so much luck with XP2.

 

[Laika]

>Can you recommend 2 negative films for me?
>
>1. Colour, max 200 ASA.
>
>2. C41 B&W.


1. Fuji Superia X-Tra 400 ISO rated @ 250 (+ 2/3rds stop). I use this as my standard travel film and used a lot of it in Europe a couple of years back, rated as mentioned you really have to look very close to see any grain, I have several shots blown up to 10x15 inch and you have to look up close and look hard to pick them from the same size Reala 100 prints (grain wise, Reala has a more creamy look overall IMO). The over exposure gives nice strong colours and good contrast. Use standard C41 processing btw. If you must have a true 200 ISO I'd again go for the Fuji Superia, but make sure you still overexpose it 1/2 to 2/3rds of a stop to really get the best out of it.

Note: Fuji Superia isn't great for portraits, if your shooting lots of people/skin use Fuji NPH pro film and expose as above.


2. XP-2 rated @ 200 ISO (+ 1 stop). My standard B&W film, rating at 200 gives a neg with better contrast and less grain (no grain?). The biggest problem I found was getting half decent prints in the UK without going for true B&W paper ($$), I had just about every colour tint you could think of thru Kodak labs but I'm sure I was just having bad luck. Here in Australia I get my stuff done on a Fuji Frontier lab and get "colourless" B&W prints on standard Fuji colour paper that look very nice, again I've blown them up to 10x15 inch with no problems. It’s also nice with XP-2 to be able to be able to change the ISO up to 800 mid roll and still get decent results indoors. Use standard C41 processing btw.

Hope that helps ..

 

[That Guy]

B&W
Another vote for the Ilford XP2 here. I've been using since it came out. It has a great tonal range and, like everybody else says, is very smooth. A few years back I shot a friend's wedding with it, 12-ish rolls. They turned out beautifully and to this day, my shots are the ones on her walls. 😀

As for the Kodak T400CN, I've used maybe less than a dozen rolls. The constrast isn't as good, IMHO.

Color
It just hasn't been the same for me since Kodak Royal Gold got discontinued. 🙁

 

[chenick]

Thanks again! If you overexpose your film do you need to tell the lab, or will the machine take care of it all?

-Nick

 

[iMacfan]

As for 'colourless' prints from C41 B&W here in the UK, I've found the Boots that I have tried to be good. I think that many of their labs run Fuji (possibly frontier) machines.

David

 

[Kris]

Nick, you don't have to tell the lab if you overexpose the film. Even if you did, they wouldn't do anything about it. Hardly any lab do push/pull processing of C-41.

I'm not sure if overexposing a good ISO100 film really improves the result but I've shot NPZ800 film at both ISO800 and ISO 500 for the same occasion and both developed at the same time. The later has deep black and smoother grain in the shadow area. At 800, the black area is more grainy muddy dark gray than deep black. I hope you understand what I meant.

 

[rover]

Thanks again! If you overexpose your film do you need to tell the lab, or will the machine take care of it all?

-Nick

This is the question I was going to ask. Thanks for the answer Kris. Sounds like I am going to have to go out and shoot some XP2 at 200.

 

[That Guy]

Hardly any lab do push/pull processing of C-41.

Mine does... 😕 Or at least they used to; I've never had it done.

Oh, and I got back a roll of T400CN yesterday. I forgot it was in one of my cameras. My wife says she likes the prints from it better than other B&W's I've used. It just looks a little too gray to me. Idunno. I'll post a few this evening (got them scanned at the shop 😀) and you tell me what you think.

 

[back alley]

lookin' forward to them chris!

joe

 

[That Guy]

Okay, I uploaded three to the Member Gallery. I only resized them before uploading, so no retouching here.

I'll have to get some better software before I do more of this. I feel like such a hack 🙁

 

[back alley]

chris, that first shot is great!
they could use a bit more contrast but as they are there is a glow to them i quite like.

joe

 

[Kris]

Chris, the grey looking photos can be altered to your liking easily with Photoshop by playing with curve.

I guess it's the reason why most B&W user insist on developing and printing their own photos: because the lab doesn't know exactly how contrasty/less contrasty we want it.

I'm against the majority here by liking T400CN more to XP2. I find T400CN has larger latitude. Dull looking photos from T400CN isn't caused by the negatives; more because of the lab operator I think.

I hope you don't mind me playing around with your photo a bit. Here's what I did.