BWCN under rated?

[bob100684]

I sure think so, but then I'm not currently able to develop real b/w myself.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Underrated? Maybe, but not useful if you want to make your own prints in the darkroom.

 

[SilverGlow]

...and it's too grainless to be interesting to me....

 

[pentaxuser]

Underrated? Maybe, but not useful if you want to make your own prints in the darkroom.

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

 

[Ian Grant]

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

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

 

[Anon Ymous]

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

Oh, I assumed it was about Kodak's BW400CN, which has the orange mask. Obviously, XP2 Super is fine for doing your own prints.

 

[markbarendt]

I like it too.

Underrated? Maybe, but not useful if you want to make your own prints in the darkroom.

Actually it is just fine in the darkroom, just not in a B&W only darkroom.

 

[SilverGlow]

If you'er going to shoot CN B&W, then you may as well just shoot digital.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Actually it is just fine in the darkroom, just not in a B&W only darkroom.

You mean fine for making monochrome RA4 prints? If it's prints you want to make, real BW paper is far better IMHO.

 

[Ian Grant]

You mean fine for making monochrome RA4 prints? If it's prints you want to make, real BW paper is far better IMHO.

I'd guess thats all APUGer's opinion as well

Fuji went down the Ilford route, in fact Ilford made the early Fuji C41 B&W film for them.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Oh, I assumed it was about Kodak's BW400CN, which has the orange mask. Obviously, XP2 Super is fine for doing your own prints.

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

 

[Rick A]

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

Rick

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

 

[markbarendt]

If you'er going to shoot CN B&W, then you may as well just shoot digital.

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.

 

[mark]

I sure think so, but then I'm not currently able to develop real b/w myself.

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.

 

[2F/2F]

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.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

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.

 

[keithwms]

Underrated? Maybe, but not useful if you want to make your own prints in the darkroom.

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.)

 

[2F/2F]

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.

 

[sanking]

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.

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

 

[2F/2F]

...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.

Ditto. Other than push/alternative processing, I see little use for these films in my own pix.

 

[fschifano]

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.