• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

BWCN under rated?

bob100684

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
510
Format
35mm
I sure think so, but then I'm not currently able to develop real b/w myself.

 
Underrated? Maybe, but not useful if you want to make your own prints in the darkroom.
 
...and it's too grainless to be interesting to me....
 
Anon Ymous said:
Underrated? Maybe, but not useful if you want to make your own prints in the darkroom.
Click to expand...

Depends. Ilford XP2+ prints very well on B&W paper. Of course its longevity v trad B&W film remains unproven but is never likely to be as good.


pentaxuser
 
pentaxuser said:
Depends. Ilford XP2+ prints very well on B&W paper. Of course its longevity v trad B&W film remains unproven but is never likely to be as good.

pentaxuser
Click to expand...

XP1 & XP2 are exceptionally good films, my first XP1 negatives are 29 years old and still print as well as back in 1981.

I started with Agfapan Vario-XL Pro but taht was an awful film, XP1 was streets ahead but needed either longer than normal C41 development or the Ilford kit, so labs didn't like it.

XP2 came out 10 years later and was fully C41 compatible, both push process extremely well, Ilford dropped push process recommendations when XP-2 was released but at 1600 EI and increased development it gives far better tonality than conventional films with remarkably good tight grain.

Very easy to print conventionally, unlike the Kodak version.

Ian
 
pentaxuser said:
Depends. Ilford XP2+ prints very well on B&W paper. Of course its longevity v trad B&W film remains unproven but is never likely to be as good.


pentaxuser
Click to expand...

Oh, I assumed it was about Kodak's BW400CN, which has the orange mask. Obviously, XP2 Super is fine for doing your own prints.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like it too.

Anon Ymous said:
Underrated? Maybe, but not useful if you want to make your own prints in the darkroom.
Click to expand...

Actually it is just fine in the darkroom, just not in a B&W only darkroom.
 
If you'er going to shoot CN B&W, then you may as well just shoot digital.
 
Anon Ymous said:
Oh, I assumed it was about Kodak's BW400CN, which has the orange mask. Obviously, XP2 Super is fine for doing your own prints.
Click to expand...

You are probably right as BWCN was used in the title and if it was a ref to Ilford XP2+ then that probably wouldn't have been used.

My experience with Kodak BWCN wasn't good in terms of prints although the prints were done on RA4 paper by a lab. Maybe the lab wasn't very good but I think that Ilford XP2+ would be difficult to beat for genuine B&W prints from C41 B&W film.

pentaxuser
 
BWCN is like biting into a taco made without seasonings--looks inviting, but oh so bland.

Rick
 
Do I under rate BWCN? I am just not interested. I choose to start processing B&W again a couple of years ago and never considered it. How can one under rate a product that does not interest them?

"I just love the results with X, which I have never used and never paid attention to. But it is really great! Trust me!" <= Would you trust that opinion?

Steve
 
SilverGlow said:
If you'er going to shoot CN B&W, then you may as well just shoot digital.
Click to expand...

Worse yet shoot color film. (That's a joke BTW)

Come on SilverGlow, grain isn't important to everybody. Some of us actually use composition.
 
bob100684 said:
I sure think so, but then I'm not currently able to develop real b/w myself.
Click to expand...

If you like it Bob, shoot it.

As for grain? Grain is a crutch, it is ugly and I have yet to see an image I liked with it. I went to LF to get away from grain.

Damn people take some fiber.
 
It is not taken that seriously in our circle because most of us want our black and white prints on honest-to-god black and white paper, but not because it is a terrible emulsion.

Ilford XP2 is a professional product, available in small and medium formats, designed to be printed on black and white paper (hence is without orange mask), so use it if you want that.

Kodak BW400CN is a "consumer" product (though labeled as "Professional"), because it is designed to be printed on color paper (hence is with orange mask), so use it if you want that.

I did not even know that BW400CN was available in 120 until I just checked B&H to see if it had the "Professional" label.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Posted wirelessly..

When I shot BWCN I thought it was awesome. Only stopped shooting it because I started doing my own black and white. No C41. Yet.
 
Anon Ymous said:
Underrated? Maybe, but not useful if you want to make your own prints in the darkroom.
Click to expand...

I've made prints with it in the darkroom, it's not that hard.

My problem with it is that it isn't very sharp, it isn't available in larger formats, and... b&w dev is a little bit easier than c41 so if I want a b&w image....

(Not that c41 developing is hard, but it's not as silly-easy as b&w.)
 

I just found out today that it is, indeed, available in 120.
 
mark said:
As for grain? Grain is a crutch, it is ugly and I have yet to see an image I liked with it. I went to LF to get away from grain.
Click to expand...

Here, here! Grain really sucks IMHO.

I like Kodak BWCN 400 because it has virtually no grain. Same is true of Ilford XP2. I make prints with these films with a hybrid system, i.e. I scan the negative, correct the file in PS, and then print a digital negative which is used to print in carbon transfer. I have been pretty pleased with the sharpness I get with these films, but frankly if I am going to use a C41 film when the final goal is a monochrome carbon print I would just as soon use color film, which gives a lot more control of tonal adjustments in PS work.

I have only used this film in 120 size, and have not printed with it directly in the darkroom.

Sandy King
 
sanking said:
...but frankly if I am going to use a C41 film when the final goal is a monochrome carbon print I would just as soon use color film, which gives a lot more control of tonal adjustments in PS work.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Other than push/alternative processing, I see little use for these films in my own pix.
 
OK, so Kodak's BWCN doesn't print well on conventional B&W papers. In the hands of a good lab though, it can make some damned fine B&W prints on RA4 paper. I've seen some monochrome prints made on RA4 paper from this film and they can be really good. Are they just like conventional B&W negatives on conventional B&W paper? No, they're not; but they can be damned fine prints any way. Ilford's XP2 Super, as we all know, doesn't have the orange mask and prints easily on conventional B&W paper. It's almost too easy really, and it too can make some damned fine looking prints without a lot of effort. In a hybrid process, either film works extremely well. So, is BWCN underrated? I don't think so. Some folks may not like it for one reason or another, but it isn't fair to say that the products are somehow inferior because they're not. Both are excellent at doing what they were designed to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register