Why shoot BW400CN or XP-2 Super???

venchka

venchka

Veteran
Local time
4:43 PM
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
6,264
I know one roll does not prove much except that I don't know what I'm doing. What else is new?

Anyway, I gave my first ever roll of BW400CN to Walgreen's for processing and scanning only. The scanned images are GREEN. I saw two images from XP-2 in one of the galleries here. They were GREEN also.

I loaded my scans into Adobe's Lightroom. Greyscale Conversion is awful. Antique Greyscale is even worse. I resorted to lowering the saturation to the max. Kinda ok. Then I printed the image on an HP color laser printer. The print was PURPLE. So I told the printer to print greyscale. Results were not too shabby.

I have seen stunning work produced with BW400CN. Google GeeBeePhoto for the best examples I have found. Some of the best B&W work I've seen period. I wish I knew how Graham does it. Perhaps he will share some of his wisdom with me.

All of this begs the question: Why not just shoot color? If I find an image that wants to be B&W just turn down the saturation? HUH?

OOPS! Examples would help.
 

Attachments

  • FL000022.jpg
    FL000022.jpg
    116.3 KB · Views: 0
  • BP-2.jpg
    BP-2.jpg
    241.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
The problem isn't the film, the problem is not knowing how to handle it.

Here are a few shots taken with XP2:

http://photoblog.gabrielma.com/index.php?showimage=113

http://photoblog.gabrielma.com/index.php?showimage=68

http://photoblog.gabrielma.com/index.php?showimage=89

...

And a few with Kodak 400BN:

http://photoblog.gabrielma.com/index.php?showimage=75

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/204437647/

----

I don't know what to tell you, except that it's not the film's fault. I think that's why Kodak chose to keep the orange mask on their film, because of the problem you're describing: many operators just don't think and know what they're handling.

I like XP2 because it has no mask, and if I ever have a darkroom or have access to one again, I'll be able to print B&W photos without the hassle of having to offset the orange mask.

What I do is I scan these in 48-bit color, "positive", no adjustments, and when I process the raw scan, I convert it to 16-bit grayscale; using SilverFast HDR. I love that piece of software.
 
Gabriel is correct. It's Walgreens fault, not the film. Try the films again and have another lab develop them. XP2 has quite different characteristics than BW400CN. I like both. The key is to find a lab that gives you b&w images not shades of green or purple.
 
Had drugstore prints from photoshopped scans of very old b&w photos, which were saved as greyscale jpgs, come out with curious green and magenta tinges here and there. It looked as though only a specific grey value (or perhaps a small range of values) was affected. Since I only use them for proofs, it wasn't that important, but annoying nonetheless.
 
OK, Thanks all. Target? I hadn't thought of them. There is one fairly close by. Or maybe it's an operator thing? I'll keep searching for competant operators!

Ilford XP2 might be better for wet printing down the road? Hmmmm....
 
Last edited:
In my experience, I haven't found a great place for B&W C41 other than Costco's send-away (non-24 hour) service, with the Kodak stuff (orange mask). They handle that quite well.

The benefits of the film, for me, are the wide latitude and quick development.

allan
 
A lot of chain processing labs are set up to scan color RGB. They do not differentiate or adjust for B&W negatives, hence the color cast.
 
They are great for scanning. I scan them with a Canon FS4000US scanner as colour negs. 42-bit rgb colour no adjustments. After that I convert them to b&w in Photoshop. Have gotten great results.
 
Essentially it is not the film it is the operator.
Most of the one hour machines have a B&W channel for c41 B&W but few of the high school kids operating them in such places as Walgrens, Walmart, target, McDonalds, ect. have a clue as how to use their equipment beyond what Kodak Gold requires.
Find real lab. Life gets sooooo much better when you have a good operator/printer.
( Candis K is the goddess of C41 B&W in my city):D
 
I use XP-2 when I need extreme exposure latitude. I then take it to the lab, have the neg.s developed, and print at home with traditional B+W materials.
As for lab made prints, you'll just have to compare labs...
 
venchka said:
OK, Thanks all. Target? I hadn't thought of them. There is one fairly close by. Or maybe it's an operator thing? I'll keep searching for competant operators!
Click to expand...

That's a very big key no matter if it's a lab or a Walgreens. The Walgreens near here has two very good photo people who can make that Fuju Frontier dance. I think it's no surprise that both shoot film too... :)

William
 
venchka said:
I
Anyway, I gave my first ever roll of BW400CN to Walgreen's for processing and scanning only. The scanned images are GREEN. I saw two images from XP-2 in one of the galleries here. They were GREEN also.

.
Click to expand...

The nerds at Walgreen printed on colour paper. That cannot work.
Desaturated Colour film looks different, the scans almost like digital.

Fitzi
 
I shoot mucho CN400 and scan it myself in a dedicated film scanner. Though it's true that the labs are inconsistent due to operator error, the other problem is that the machines are set to scan at fairly low resolution even if things are done properly.

If you are going to get scans OR prints, use a digital lab, not analog (Target is converting pretty much all it's stores and the new CVS, Target and Rite Aid stores all put in digital printers). A digital printer is not going to have the exposure error fall-off that causes the color shifts on scans and color-paper-prints in analog labs (best results are obtained when the initial scan is done using the "MONO" or "C-41BW" scan setting - ask the operator if they know how to do that...).

Again, I obtain the best results when scanning myself...

Good luck!!

Tuna
 
Does anyone here have any experience sending xp-2 film to any of the online photo places (snapfish, ofoto, etc.)?

I've been thinking about about trying a few rolls of xp-2 myself, hoping that would allow to find cheaper, faster ways to get it developed. Seems like the online places are priced pretty well, but none of them do regular B&W.

Taking B&W rolls to photoworks in san francisco is starting to add up pretty fast. How will able to keep buying new lenses if I have to spend $20 a roll for processing and printing?
 
Wow! $20 a roll? Do it yourself. I set up a B&W processing station by my kitchen sink for about $100. Then I scan in the negs. You can get a minolta dual scan IV for pretty cheap. You have to have a computer tho I guess.
 
shaaktiman said:
Wow! $20 a roll? Do it yourself. I set up a B&W processing station by my kitchen sink for about $100. Then I scan in the negs. You can get a minolta dual scan IV for pretty cheap. You have to have a computer tho I guess.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd really like to do that, but right now time is greater stumbling block than money. When I'm not working in excess of 60 a week I like to take classes at the city college. About $40 for a semester long class and you get unlimited darkroom use. And then you can do your own printing too. But for right now, I really need to find a less expensive way of getting film developed and scanned.
 
gabrielma said:
$20?!? Send them to me, I'll do it for $18! ;)
Click to expand...

Okay, I should note that I had them do a faster turn around so that I could make sure my new CL was working correctly. And they do do the best job of any place I've used in the bay area by far. But even still, $20 is just too much.

I'm thinking if I can get rolls processed and scanned for under $10 then I can either make my own prints on my ink jet, or have photoworks make some nice quality enlargements for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom