peterc
Heretic
I like XP2 for its exposure latitude - you can pretty much put EI 50 to EI 800 on a single roll. However, I prefer FP4+ and Delta 100 (either one souped in Ilfosol-S). FP4+ has lovely tones and Delta has even finer grain.
Peter
Peter
Roma
Well-known
I say every traditional black and white film is better because you can control a traditional film/developer combination the way you like or want it to look.
R
rich815
Guest
titrisol said:
How so? Because you can use digital ICE? I find Acros, Delta 100, Plus-X, Tri-X...well, pretty much ANY B&W film, as easy to scan when they are exposed properly...
keithwms
Established
The scope of the question is very broad!
If you want a high-res chromogenic then xp2 is pretty much your only choice. The bw400CN is not so good. Not awful but not as good as xp2.
If you want smoothness and are shooting in a smaller format, then the deltas and acros 100 are great; there are some smoother options as well. I actually prefer fp4+ to those, I like some grain and some bite. But you may want to spend more time researching development techniques rather than debating acros vs. delta 100 or the more exotic options.
I sometimes like xp2, but I generally don't care much for the almost flat, HDR look it gives, and I generally find it too smooth to give good edge definition. I also don't care for the highlight transitions. But of course in the hybrid process you can always curve in more contrast. Anyway when I used the slower deltas I had the reaction: where's my grain?! But obviously for scanning and the hybrid workflow, smoother, flatter capture may be wise. Xp2 is much better suited to digital workflow than traditional printing, in my opinion.
If you want high res and low grain then you might consider agfa scala (while stocks still exist) and/or dr5 processing. B&w slides are nicely scannable and super sharp, but also have that bit of contrast that I think lacks in xp2. B&W slides are a very good starting point if you want to do b&w contact printing, that's how I got into them.
Of course, who says you have to shoot b&w to get a b&w hybrid image? If you want smoothness and high resolution and you wnat to scan, why not shoot E6- e.g. astia or provia, make a benefit of the sharpness, and convert to b&w. The only slide film I don't particularly care to scan is velvia 50. But I have done b&w conversions from astia, provia 100F, provia 400x, and 64T, and they are super sharp and smooth- a good combo for digital enlargements.
P.S. Rich, xp2 is easier to scan because the range of density is low compared to traditional b&w films.
If you want a high-res chromogenic then xp2 is pretty much your only choice. The bw400CN is not so good. Not awful but not as good as xp2.
If you want smoothness and are shooting in a smaller format, then the deltas and acros 100 are great; there are some smoother options as well. I actually prefer fp4+ to those, I like some grain and some bite. But you may want to spend more time researching development techniques rather than debating acros vs. delta 100 or the more exotic options.
I sometimes like xp2, but I generally don't care much for the almost flat, HDR look it gives, and I generally find it too smooth to give good edge definition. I also don't care for the highlight transitions. But of course in the hybrid process you can always curve in more contrast. Anyway when I used the slower deltas I had the reaction: where's my grain?! But obviously for scanning and the hybrid workflow, smoother, flatter capture may be wise. Xp2 is much better suited to digital workflow than traditional printing, in my opinion.
If you want high res and low grain then you might consider agfa scala (while stocks still exist) and/or dr5 processing. B&w slides are nicely scannable and super sharp, but also have that bit of contrast that I think lacks in xp2. B&W slides are a very good starting point if you want to do b&w contact printing, that's how I got into them.
Of course, who says you have to shoot b&w to get a b&w hybrid image? If you want smoothness and high resolution and you wnat to scan, why not shoot E6- e.g. astia or provia, make a benefit of the sharpness, and convert to b&w. The only slide film I don't particularly care to scan is velvia 50. But I have done b&w conversions from astia, provia 100F, provia 400x, and 64T, and they are super sharp and smooth- a good combo for digital enlargements.
P.S. Rich, xp2 is easier to scan because the range of density is low compared to traditional b&w films.
Last edited:
keithwms
Established
keithwms said:
P.P.S. And of course there is also the issue of grain "enhancement" by the scanner, which was previously mentioned. Maybe that could be reduced somewhat by wet scanning.
amateriat
We're all light!
Never Satisfied said:
The kicker for me is that, even though I largely scan my XP-2 negs, the film allows me to reserve the option of wet-printing, should I so desire. And, as others have mentioned, XP-2 is all but drop-dead easy to scan, and not just because I can utilize Digital ICE (although that's a nice plus). Psychologically, I like the fact that I'm not trying to make one type of film (color) behave like another. Yeah, you can argue that chromogenics are just color films minus the dyes, but I've never heard the reverse (ouch, pun) argument regarding Kodachrome (or Technicolor!). Call it a mind-trick thing, but when I load XP-2 in a camera, I'm thinking black-and-white and nothng else.keithwms said:
I also shoot conventional b/w film as well (largely HP-5 and FP-4, but I have a roll of Acros to soup, eventually).
- Barrett
Last edited:
keithwms
Established
Barrett, I used to think similarly, but some pleasant surprises happened to me. I'll show you one. The subject is a moonflower. I have been told a few times that this is my best b&w abstract; guess what, the capture was on colour tungsten slide film! This is an analogue b&w conversion made from a fuji 64T capture via a simple paper internegative.
After using digital for a while, I thought, hey! why should only digital users be able to take colour capture in a b&w direction, with channel mixer and all that? They get to colour filter on the fly without using any actual glass filters! [jealousy]
Then I realized that chromes make a damn good capture medium for this kind of analogue process- they are so sharp and smooth that they can be enlarged greatly. More recently I have been experimenting with enlarging medium format chromes to b&w LF film (tmax and the like), then making b&w contact prints from those. In some ways I think they are more most successful b&w shots.
But yeah I also still love shooting straight to fp4+ or hp5+ and knowing precisely what those will deliver.
After using digital for a while, I thought, hey! why should only digital users be able to take colour capture in a b&w direction, with channel mixer and all that? They get to colour filter on the fly without using any actual glass filters! [jealousy]
Then I realized that chromes make a damn good capture medium for this kind of analogue process- they are so sharp and smooth that they can be enlarged greatly. More recently I have been experimenting with enlarging medium format chromes to b&w LF film (tmax and the like), then making b&w contact prints from those. In some ways I think they are more most successful b&w shots.
But yeah I also still love shooting straight to fp4+ or hp5+ and knowing precisely what those will deliver.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
Keith: Gorgeous photo!
I was referring more to my preferred methodology than commenting on results. In fact, I've seen quite a few really great color-BW conversions (including, now, yours), so I know it works, and well, but doesn't work within my mental workflow, 'tis all.
- Barrett
I was referring more to my preferred methodology than commenting on results. In fact, I've seen quite a few really great color-BW conversions (including, now, yours), so I know it works, and well, but doesn't work within my mental workflow, 'tis all.
- Barrett
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I'm with Barrett - I'm looking for and noticing different things when I'm in a black and white mindset than when I'm in a colour mindset. Now, I can do that with colour film in the camera - but I find it harder than I perhaps should. Its much easier if I've been shooting black and white film beforehand, to get the settings right (as it were).
I also find that B&W film (including C-41 B&W) produces nicer tonality straight off the scan than colour film. While I can do it, I find that I have to work harder than I like (and often have to run test prints) to get things "just so" from a colour scan.
On occasion I'd found myself shooting colour while really wanting black and white "just in case" a really good colour opportunity forced its way through my black and white mindset: where I'd then be kicking myself for not having colour film. But then I'd be working too hard to work backwards from colour scans. These days (I think at Barrett's suggestion) I make sure I have my XA or Contax T-2 loaded with colour film whenever I have black and white in my main camera. It works for me.
...Mike
I also find that B&W film (including C-41 B&W) produces nicer tonality straight off the scan than colour film. While I can do it, I find that I have to work harder than I like (and often have to run test prints) to get things "just so" from a colour scan.
On occasion I'd found myself shooting colour while really wanting black and white "just in case" a really good colour opportunity forced its way through my black and white mindset: where I'd then be kicking myself for not having colour film. But then I'd be working too hard to work backwards from colour scans. These days (I think at Barrett's suggestion) I make sure I have my XA or Contax T-2 loaded with colour film whenever I have black and white in my main camera. It works for me.
...Mike
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Depending on the scanner you have this is true, you have also mastered the technique so for you it is easy.
I used to scan most of my films as well, no problems with any of them since I just used the scans for proofs/contacts and for web posting (800x600). ICE? no my scanner was too old for that.
As I said Acros100, the Deltas and EFKE25 are the easiest to scan from the traditional BW line. Tri-X, Plus-X, HP5, FP4, Foma, EfKE, are also good to scan but require a tad of tweaking. Then there is the task of developing the film properly, which for you and me is a normal thing, actually a lovely thing, is not so for some people, who prefer the convenience of dropping their XP2 off in Malwart and picking the negatives back in 1 hour.
So far with most of those films I can get better results in the darkroom than in the scanner, both in terms of sharpness as in toanlity.
However with traditional films, even when developed properly, the scanners (the newer ones are not necesarilly better) generate lots of digi-grain that XP2 does not. Also as mentioned before the contrast of XP2 is more manageable for scanners.
All of the above is my personal opinion
I used to scan most of my films as well, no problems with any of them since I just used the scans for proofs/contacts and for web posting (800x600). ICE? no my scanner was too old for that.
As I said Acros100, the Deltas and EFKE25 are the easiest to scan from the traditional BW line. Tri-X, Plus-X, HP5, FP4, Foma, EfKE, are also good to scan but require a tad of tweaking. Then there is the task of developing the film properly, which for you and me is a normal thing, actually a lovely thing, is not so for some people, who prefer the convenience of dropping their XP2 off in Malwart and picking the negatives back in 1 hour.
So far with most of those films I can get better results in the darkroom than in the scanner, both in terms of sharpness as in toanlity.
However with traditional films, even when developed properly, the scanners (the newer ones are not necesarilly better) generate lots of digi-grain that XP2 does not. Also as mentioned before the contrast of XP2 is more manageable for scanners.
All of the above is my personal opinion
rich815 said:
robert blu
quiet photographer
One of the reason for which I prefer XP2 instead of colours conversion to B&W with PS or Lightroom (which I find works very well) is hat even if I print inkjet, in case I need I can print in wet darkroom. Or at least to look for some frien doing it, my wet darkroom has been closed many years ago. Of course the option shoot colour and later convert works as well, special for someone like me wh has been shooting only slides in the last 20 years ! But now I desire toink and see B&W !
rob
rob
mfogiel
Veteran
A Summary
A Summary
Thanks for your hints and opinions. I will do a trip to the SW of France soon, and I will take possibly 4 35mm bodies with me, so I've decided to try a comparison of some scenes using The following films: XP2(my benchmark), HP5+. HP4+, PAN-F, Delta 100, Acros 100, Reala, Portra NC160, Astia 100F and AGFA SCALA ( I've found by pure chance a shop today, where they still had about 30 rolls of this). I have pretty much clear how to expose these films, maybe apart from SCALA,( as I've found conflicting clues: some say to expose it @125-160 and develop normally, others say to avoid overexposing at any cost )- anybody can give me an idea how to get started with this emulsion?
A Summary
Thanks for your hints and opinions. I will do a trip to the SW of France soon, and I will take possibly 4 35mm bodies with me, so I've decided to try a comparison of some scenes using The following films: XP2(my benchmark), HP5+. HP4+, PAN-F, Delta 100, Acros 100, Reala, Portra NC160, Astia 100F and AGFA SCALA ( I've found by pure chance a shop today, where they still had about 30 rolls of this). I have pretty much clear how to expose these films, maybe apart from SCALA,( as I've found conflicting clues: some say to expose it @125-160 and develop normally, others say to avoid overexposing at any cost )- anybody can give me an idea how to get started with this emulsion?
keithwms
Established
I've naively treated scala like any slide film and it's been fine. Foremost be conscious of the range of the scene, and be a bit protective of highlights. Slight underexposure is fine but overexposure is to be avoided.
Let's see if I have some recent examples.... Here I used it in scene that had dappled lighting by doing simple average metering on my mamiya 6, and I guess it yielded pretty decent results (crummy composition, pardon! It was an experiment):
Like many slide films, scala can do nice things with fairly flat lighting, i.e. when it's overcast:
By the way these were processed by dr5.
You should buy up all those rolls of scala!
Let's see if I have some recent examples.... Here I used it in scene that had dappled lighting by doing simple average metering on my mamiya 6, and I guess it yielded pretty decent results (crummy composition, pardon! It was an experiment):
Like many slide films, scala can do nice things with fairly flat lighting, i.e. when it's overcast:
By the way these were processed by dr5.
You should buy up all those rolls of scala!
mfogiel
Veteran
keithwms
Thanks, will just try a roll at face value doing some bracketing, and develop normally, to see what happens ( yes I did get all the rolls ...)
I hope to report back at the end of September on the results...
BTW your canion shot has remarkable detail and tonality, I don't dare imagining how it could have beeen with a red filter on...
Thanks, will just try a roll at face value doing some bracketing, and develop normally, to see what happens ( yes I did get all the rolls
...)I hope to report back at the end of September on the results...
BTW your canion shot has remarkable detail and tonality, I don't dare imagining how it could have beeen with a red filter on...
robert blu
quiet photographer
Scala: I expose it for the (high)light, as I usual do for slides. With older scanner I had sometimes troubles, not yet tried with my new one (5000ED). But mainly use scala for projection (or no more possible Cibachrome printing)
Have a good light in France !
rob
Have a good light in France !
rob
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
XP2 and BW400CN are my favorites.
This is XP2 from my recent shots:
and this is BW400CN
This is XP2 from my recent shots:
and this is BW400CN
S
Socke
Guest
I like to develop my film, so anything which can be developed in a tank with a watch and tap water is better than C41 for me