XP2 is super!

[raid]

Thanks for the photos, Bill. It is good that there are fans of each type of film. I conclude that neither one is a bad film type.

 

[Leighgion]

Some of my good 400cn:



My favorite XP2 shot from the one roll I did:



I've just realized I think one of the big central hassles I have with XP2 is the weak contrast makes it so blacks never look black enough for me.

 

[raid]

I've just realized I think one of the big central hassles I have with XP2 is the weak contrast makes it so blacks never look black enough for me.

This is true; blacks are greyish looking in some images.

 

[marke]

This is true; blacks are greyish looking in some images.

So why can't that just be easily corrected in pp? When printing digital, isn't it better start with less contrast, and add as needed?

I've been trying to decide also which I prefer, the Ilford or Kodak. Kodak is available at Walgreens, where I usually have it processed, but if I want to get the Ilford for a comparable price, I have to order it online.

 

[sweathog]

I have only shot one roll of XP2, and only one roll of BW400CN.

I was severly underwhelmed by the XP2 shots, very flat, grey even by rights they should've been very contrasty, given the weather.

The BW400CN, on the other hand was beautifully contrasty, and yet held a lot of detail in the places it needed to. I've got some examples of the BW400CN somewhere, if I get organised enough I'll post some.

 

[Leighgion]

So why can't that just be easily corrected in pp?

Photoshop can do many wondrous and helpful things, but if it's a requirement each time, every time in order to "correct" a film's shortcoming, then that's a strong argument to not use the film, especially if, as is the case with XP2, it's actually a more expensive product. I guess XP2 proponents like the low contrast look, but that's just not me.

When printing digital, isn't it better start with less contrast, and add as needed?

You're thinking of shooting digital, where limited dynamic range makes it easy to burn out highlights and block up shadows.

 

[marke]

Photoshop can do many wondrous and helpful things, but if it's a requirement each time, every time in order to "correct" a film's shortcoming, then that's a strong argument to not use the film, especially if, as is the case with XP2, it's actually a more expensive product. I guess XP2 proponents like the low contrast look, but that's just not me.



You're thinking of shooting digital, where limited dynamic range makes it easy to burn out highlights and block up shadows.

I agree. But what about images that contain extremely high contrast? Ultimately, doesn't this give the camera have the ability to get closer to achieving the human eye's extreme range of tonality when we start with a flatter negative before the scan and pp? Isn't this what makes the chromogenic films so desireable?

 

[infrequent]

if any of you do your own scanning, is there any advantage using either xp2 or bw400cn?

 

[infrequent]

does anyone here have the LFI test / review of these two films? ; )

 

[Cat Face]

All this guff about rating at 200!

Being completely mad, I rate XP2 at 1600 and more, i'm just so crazy I think it still looks wonderful!

Seriously though, XP2 is my first ever B&W film, I love it, I rate it at whatever and have no desire to try any other type of B&W apart from using some free rolls of ilford FP4+. I have shot it using a Praktica BC1 SLR and printed at my local jessops at a 4x6 scale. Looks dandy

 

[whitecat]

I have taken thousands of rolls of film and XP2 is still the best.

 

[raid]

I have only shot one roll of XP2, and only one roll of BW400CN.

I was severly underwhelmed by the XP2 shots, very flat, grey even by rights they should've been very contrasty, given the weather.

The BW400CN, on the other hand was beautifully contrasty, and yet held a lot of detail in the places it needed to. I've got some examples of the BW400CN somewhere, if I get organised enough I'll post some.

My experience has been that XP2 developed and scanned by a Fuji Frontier lab comes out very well. Maybe the differences in developing result in the differences in the qualities of the results. The same applies to BW400CN.

 

[Florian1234]

does anyone here have the LFI test / review of these two films? ; )

This would be very interesting to read, must have been in the 5/2007.

 

[kshapero]

The mystery continues.

I seem to be one of the few who shoots C41 B&W that doesn't like XP2 and vastly prefers BW400CN.

I like them both.

 

[literiter]

I shoot BW400CN as well as XP2. XP-2 is a little more available to me, for some reason, so I shoot mostly that.

The fact that it's latitude is so wide makes the stuff a little like the old Verichrome films and makes it perfect for my old folding cameras whose shutters' are a little suspect.

Poor scan of XP2 from my Super Ikonta C (uncoated Opton) handheld at somewhere around ASA 400.

 

[infrequent]

This would be very interesting to read, must have been in the 5/2007.

yes its in the 05/2007 issue. anyone have that? i will see if i can get a reprint or something.

http://www.lfi-online.de/ceemes/page/show/issue_5_07_5

 

[cjm]

I've always preferred XP2...

 

[infrequent]

@cjm - can you recall the rated ISO of this shot? the black stripes and white whiskers look fantastic!

 

[amateriat]

I'll just say that both films (XP2 and BW400CN) are Really, Really Good, but I still prefer XP2 overall. I also use BW400 when I can't get hold of XP2 quickly enough, and without wincing. I think XP2 wins on latitude, while BW400 has a bit of an edge in no-fuss (translation: no-fiddling) contrast. I normally rate both films at E.I. 320 with very good overall results.


- Barrett

 

[cjm]

infrequent - thanks. That was shot at 400iso with the 1969 version 50mm Summicron.