Allrighty--Here goes !! To print the C-41 B&W negs RA-4 or true B&W!

[JosBurke]

Since I've never used any of this stuff I have a question regarding the Kodak and Ilford C-41 process B&W films. When you have a processed neg and wish to print will you print as traditional B&W or like a color print RA-4 ! Never bought any BUT if I run out and since Wal-Mart sells the Kodak version I may find myself in need (my Leica M2 toy with 50mm Summilux) but what of the printing aspect---will I have an orangy neg or a traditional looking B&W neg----Sorry but I'm curious and expect an orange negative !!

 

[braxus]

If possible its best to print any B&W film whether C41 or true B&W and print onto real B&W paper. Sometimes you get a tint with color paper prints or even the lighting can change the color a bit. I have on our wall at the lab some prints I did and with the true B&W prints there is no tint. This is under flourescant lighting. The color paper B&W print next to them seems slightly pink/ red tinted. Its just the way it reacts with the light. Granted C41 B&W film is optimised for printing on color paper, I would still suggest true B&W paper if you have that option.

 

[srs5694]

Ilford XP2 Super looks to the eye like a conventional B&W film -- it's got a clear (actually slightly purple) base color, not the orange color of most C-41 films. XP2 Super prints well on conventional B&W paper, in my experience. I've never tried printing it on color (RA-4) paper.

Kodak's C-41 B&W films, by contrast, have the orange mask that's typical of C-41 films. In my experience, it also prints fine on B&W paper, but often requires a higher contrast grade than is required for conventional B&W film, at least when printing on VC paper. (I find that it usually works best with effective grades in the 2-4 range.) Some people say they don't like the results of this combination (Kodak's C-41 B&W film on conventional B&W paper), but I haven't seen much in the way of clear descriptions of what's wrong with the combination, aside from insufficient contrast. This flaw could indicate differences in exposure or processing, different contrast preferences, differences in papers, or differences in enlargers between me and those who are more "down" on this combination.

I've done one 8x10-inch side-by-side test print to compare conventional B&W and RA-4 color papers with a Kodak C-41 B&W film. I didn't get an exact color match, so that was the most obvious difference between the two prints. The RA-4 print seemed to show a bit more fine detail, but that could have been due to slightly off focus on the B&W print. Because of this difference in fine detail, I slightly preferred the RA-4 print, ignoring its slight color cast. My sister, who compared the prints without knowing how they were printed, also preferred the RA-4 print. In practice, the extra hassle of getting the color right and working in total darkness mean that I generally print this type of film on conventional B&W paper. If I had some truly spectacular image on this type of film, I might try printing it both ways and keep whichever I preferred.

As a side note, you can of course print even conventional B&W negatives on color RA-4 paper. The main reason I can think of to do this is to get color effects without toning.

 

[nworth]

Ilford XP-2 prints very well on black and white paper. I believe it was designed to be printed on regular paper. The current Kodak chromogenic black and white films, however, were designed to be printed on color paper. You can print them on black and white, but the printing times will be very long and you will need approximately grade 4 paper to equal the contrast of color paper.

 

[rjas]

XP2 prints great on black and white paper because it has a near (its slightly purple or blueish like some people sometimes get with tmax) clear base. I found that when exposed at about 200-250iso I needed to print on grade 3.5-4 paper on agfa mc rc glossy to get a normal looking print. The lab I had it done at produced prints on real b&w paper so they were totally neutral, but I've seen some labs that know what they are doing get pretty close to neutral on color ra4 paper.

 

[dolande]

Related thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Lachlan Young]

XP-2 is a fine film but an absolute b*****d to print on my preferred paper due to the purplish colour of the negs creating a very effective ND filter!

Lachlan

 

[Will S]

Given that it may become impossible to take film on airplanes in the near future, I think (hope) that XP2 hangs around a long time. I've personally been able to get very nice prints from it on Ilford Warmtone and MGIV and postcard stock.

Best,

Will

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

As everyone else here has said, the colored film base (whatever the color) adds to the neutral density and lowered contrast, but they produce some beautiful images. I have shot a LOT of the Kodak chromo b/w film, and I prefer to rate it at around 100 instead of 400. This gives you a VERY dense neg, with printing times I have found to be in the 1 min range for my base exposure, but this prints more normally around a grade 2 1/2 to 3, instead of 3 1/2 to 4. I print mine on VC paper since this more closely mimics the color paper for which these films were designed. The upside of the strong overexposure with these films is that you have incredibly fine-grained negs, which will give you grainless 12x18 prints from 35mm negatives. Honestly. I have a hard time focusing with a grain focuser even at that size when I'm printing chromo b/w negs.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree that XP2 is a fine film. I think it's the best of the chromogenic b&w films. I use the Ilford filter sets when I print them, so the purple color doesn't affect the final quality of the print that much. I haven't tried printing it on graded paper, but imagine the purple color could throw a surprise or two due to the color.
In regards to Kodak's orange film base, I have tried printing on VC papers, but have not had much success. On a graded paper, which I believe would be sensitive mostly to blue light, the orange base would probably be utterly counterproductive.
I made a print on Agfa RC glossy once, a portrait, which I turned into a pro lab to print on RA4 paper. This was from Kodak C-41 B&W film (like you I was looking for any B&W film that could be had). My print exhibited better separation in the highlights, but the lab print had less grain. I think they used a digital printing method, where the scanner software can reduce grain. It had a slight green tint to it, but only very little.

In the end, I dislike the Kodak C-41, but I like the XP-2. I downrate it to about EI 200, which gives good shadow detail, but usually I have to print about grade 3 or 4.

- Thom

 

[Simon R Galley]

XP1 / XP2 / XP2 Super was always intended to be printed on monochrome paper, but with the convenience and availability of the C41 film process : When set up properly on the colour printer ( we used to supply masks etc ) it could give a pretty neutral result, quite a lot of labs found it easier to print toward the sepia end, some people liked it but...glossy 'off' sepia does not in any way float my boat.

It prints very nicely on monochrome paper, the only problem I have ever had is focussing due to the lack of a 'traditional' grain.

Simon : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[fhovie]

I am not intending to accuse any of being overly gracious to XP2 ... but My experience with it in 6x4.5 format was that I will never use it again. The grain and contrast were aweful. My 8x10 prints looked like they were done with 16mm film.
Developing film is the easiest part of the whole process. With split D23 - you can develop most film without a thermometer or a watch. Everyone has a dark closet - I have loaded film holders under the blankets on a bed in a hotel - darkness is not that hard to come by. With all the choices in B&W film, I cannot imagine why I would trust a mini lab with my negs.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I am not intending to accuse any of being overly gracious to XP2 ... but My experience with it in 6x4.5 format was that I will never use it again. The grain and contrast were aweful.

Odd. I've developed a LOT of XP2 in C-41 chemistry and have never seen anything as bad as that. I haven't done as much of the Kodak C-41 B&W - but that was certainly OK as well.

I wonder... was that developed in a "one-hour" lab? Was fresh C-41 chemistry used --- and WAS it C-41?

I have found that printing either on black and white paper produces definitely superior results. I never could get a black and white "look" with color paper - no matter how hard I've tried to balance the dichro filters.