Why shoot BW400CN or XP-2 Super???

[fitzihardwurshd]

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

Fitzi

Sorry, it's about the scans, i did nor read it right.

BW40CN has an orange cast, XP2 a green one. For wet prints no prob, the scans must be desaturated tho.

There are many reasons for C41 B&W: No grain, good contrast at low light, in case of emergency it works from Iso 100 to 800 , without pushing.

Fitzi

 

[sleepyhead]

Hello. A couple of additional points about these films:

They are:
(1) relatively scanner friendly compared to silver-grain B&W
(2) one can use digital ICE dust removal
(3) good grain characteristics
(4) have a yellow-filter effect on blue skies, hence rendering them quite nicely (as in the BeeGeePhoto website mentioned above).

I still shoot silver-based for 35mm, but have started to use BW400CN for 120, and so far I'm quite pleased.

 

[venchka]

(4) have a yellow-filter effect on blue skies, hence rendering them quite nicely (as in the BeeGeePhoto website mentioned above).

Graham also uses green, orange & red filters on occasion. Brilliant work!

I need more practice and a B&W aware processor. Back to the drawing board!😀

 

[Dougg]

(4) have a yellow-filter effect on blue skies, hence rendering them quite nicely (as in the BeeGeePhoto website mentioned above).

Yes, this is one way to put it as a practical matter. Another way to say it is that XP2 for instance has greater red-sensitivity than, for instance Tri-X. So a normal exposure will result in darker blues... and lighter red/orange/yellow even without a filter of that color. This means too that there's less additional exposure needed to compensate in very red-orange interior lighting than with Tri-X. And this small extra red-sensitivity also has a smoothing effect on skin tones, maybe more call for a green filter when you want an outdoorsy tanned/textured look.

 

[anaanda]

its walgreens, here is a shot done with Kodak 400CN

 

[smiling gecko]

wayne, i'm sorry i cannot add anything to the scanning aspect of the two chromogenic films you mentioned...i do well to spell compewter - oops, i mean computer - aqaarrgghhh!!

i can tell you that the conventionally made prints - wet darkroom - i have made almost make me want to use them exclusively. for my liking, portraits especially have a tonality and "look" that gives that "something special" feel - smooth and soft, without loss of sharpness or contrast - that does well for all ages , complexions, and genders.

there is a slight learning curve in learning how to get the results you want. chiefly, it requires a higher grade of paper or contrast filter than conventional b&w films.


my darkroom experience/knowledge has been mainly self-acquired and i was very, very lucky to have had a much more knowledgeable friend (bill boardman: where are you? last saw you in austin,texas & heard you made off to colorado & let's go climb a rock - hueco tanks is calling...).

many thanks to the folks with the info on scanning. i had read it was a bear to get b&w to come out right and have not tried to scan too many rolls. now i will have to give it a go.

then there's that archival issue...again my limited technical knowledge...but i have read that the negatives from chromogenic & other c-41 films do not hold up as well in storage (as in fading, losing contrast) as conventional b&w negatives. you know, i really should look at some of the negatives from my first xp-1 rolls from, i think, the1980's. hmmm.

alright, that's enough photo-rambling for now. thank you all for your indulgence wading through, yet another, stream of consciousness of mine.

hasta la vista, adieu, dasvidanya ,fino al prossimo tempo, auf wiedersehen, and later y’all 😛
__________________________________________
"...patience and shuffle the cards" miguel cervantes
"nothing can be learned" herman hesse
"everybody knows everything" jack kerouac
"some memories are realities and better than anything" willa cather
" doo-wacka doo, wacka doo" roger miller
"we have met the enemy and they is us !" walt kelly (pogo)

 

[Diomedes]

Couple of shots done with Kodak 400CN ! 🙂

 

[venchka]

Operater error FOR SURE!

Operater error FOR SURE!

I just took my second ever roll of BW400CN to Wolf Camera. Conventiently located next door to the awful Walgreen's where the first roll was processed. Much better!

These were taken Friday night at OZ Bar in Houston. A rare thing for me to do. I took one of those other 35mm cameras and a new to me lens. I love the new lens! I'll never understand why I didn't buy one ages ago. I still need LOTS of practice!

3/5s of The Spiffingtons : Canon EF : Canon 50mm f:1.4 (most nearly wide open) : Kodak BW400CN @ 320 : Full frames straight from the CD

 

[venchka]

The rest of the Spiffingtons.

I do need more practice. Friday nights in bars 😀 and my photography. :angel:

Did I mention that I love my new 50mm lens? 😀

 

[mich8261]

sorry for reviving an old post, but I came across it as I searched for "online photo processing". I just purchased a Canonet QL 17 which should arrive any day and since I have been shooting digital for some time, I thought I best start looking for a service to cheaply develop my first trial and error rolls.

Something caught my eye in the above exchange, if I understand correctly, Ilford XP2 uses a different colour mask then other C-41 B&W films, right? That might explain why Shutterfly singles it out as the only C-41 B&W film they will not process.

Michel

 

[Dougg]

Not so old, Michel, only quiet for a month or so. 🙂 Welcome to RFF! True, Ilford XP2 does use a different mask (none, actually) than some other black & white C41 Process ("chromogenic") films. Fuji Neopan 400CN (which may possibly be rebranded XP2) has no mask either, nor did Kodak's now-discontinued T-400CN, though that latter had a very faint salmon tint overall, while XP2 tends toward gray/blue/purple.

Kodak's current BW400CN does have the same pink/orange mask as color C41 films for the convenience of the local processing labs. They print it on color paper, same as for color films, and the mask means they will probably end up with fairly tint-free B&W prints using one of their standard color filter paks. So they can just run it mindlessly through the machine as if it were a color film and the results should be more or less acceptable. 😀 XP2 requires a filter pak change, maybe a bit more thinking, and the automated prints are more likely to come with a sepia or greenish tint. But the lack of orange mask is exactly what you want for printing onto regular black & white paper in the (custom or home) darkroom.

 

[mich8261]

Thanks for the explanation Doug.

I have been looking for an online photo processing outfit and this is what I have found so far. I would be curious to hear what experience others have had with these companies.
- Shutterfly. As I mention above, their website states that they will develop B&W film if it is C-41 with the exception of Ilford XP-2
- Clark Color Labs. This site seems identical to Snapfish, but unlike the HP company, these guys say they process pretty much everything (slides, 110, b&w).

Anybody try these? Anyone else I should consider?

Thanks.

Michel

 

[ampguy]

example photo

example photo

here's a sample from bw4000cn (large)