Contrast range XP2 super or BW 400cn

[Samuel Hotton]

Choosing between Ilford XP2 Super and Kodak BW 400cn, which of these two films will provide the most detail (shadows and highlights)on either side of middle- tone? Perhaps I should say "exposure latitude" or "contrast range".

I would like to use one of these films for "available light" night photography of old buildings lit by street lights plus foot bridges in parks also lit by street lights.

From reading, it would appear that the Kodak 400cn is Less affected by reciprocity than the Ilford XP2. Do you find this to be true?

Many thanks,
Sam H.

 

[MikeSeb]

I've made limited use of both films; I'm not sure there's much difference between them. You'll need to expose either at 200-250 for best shadow detail, since neither seems to be a true 400-speed film IME.

As for highlights--since this is C-41 you have little practical development control over highlight density. (call it "expose for the shadows, pray for the highlights.") As always, it comes down to testing. Pick up a couple of rolls of each, and shoot at a variety of EI's within a roll. See what you get.

I've lately begun to shoot these films again (mostly Kodak) after eschewing them for a long time as not being "real" B&W films. I shoot and process a lot of C-41 color (probably 90% of my work) film, and it's a huge convenience to be able to process everything in the same batch, B&W or color.

 

[Ian Grant]

XP2 is superb in low light levels and it can be push processed easily to 1600, but not by a minilab.

Over the years I've used XP1 XP2 and the XP2 Super, great shadow details, and excellent tones when printing, but these are straight line films they have a different feel to normal B&W films

I've tried the Kodak 400CN but really didn't like it, it's not suitable for conventional B&W printing or pushprocessing.

Ian

 

[Aurum]

Me personally when I tried BW400, I didn't find the prints as crisp and unfussy as with XP, and XP is quite a soft film compared to other Ilford products like Delta, which has quite a hard contrasty appearance which pops off the paper
BW400 I found bit muddy in the darker to middle tones, so from my (admittedly not many rolls experience) my gut feeling would be shadow detail would be a bit lacking.

Both the XP and BW were processed by my local C41 store. YMMV

 

[wogster]

Choosing between Ilford XP2 Super and Kodak BW 400cn, which of these two films will provide the most detail (shadows and highlights)on either side of middle- tone? Perhaps I should say "exposure latitude" or "contrast range".

I would like to use one of these films for "available light" night photography of old buildings lit by street lights plus foot bridges in parks also lit by street lights.

From reading, it would appear that the Kodak 400cn is Less affected by reciprocity than the Ilford XP2. Do you find this to be true?

Many thanks,
Sam H.

I am not sure about which has a better reciprocity, they use the same process, but actually serve different purposes.

XP2 Super, after processing looks like pretty much any other B&W film,slightly pinkish IIRC, but can easily be printed using conventional B&W paper. XP2 super when printed on an optical RA4 compatible colour paper printer will have a colour cast, some scanner based colour printers will recognize XP2 Super and compensate for the colour cast. A Pro lab might have this, the local Wally World will not.

BW400CN looks like any C41 colour film with the orange background, this means that prints that come from a minilab, and printed on an optical RA4 compatible colour paper will not have a colour cast, the prints will appear black and white, even printed on colour paper. It's very difficult to get a decent print from it using a conventional black and white paper, the contrast is low, negatives are very dense and the orange mask may affect the contrast range on multigrade papers.

I would say use XP2 if you have a predominantly B&W process and want to be able to get the negatives processed without needing to use the darkroom. For example if your travelling for a while and don't want to risk latent images, especially useful if flying.

I would say use BW400CN if you gave a predominantly analogue colour process and want to shoot an occasional roll of B&W, for something special.

If you have a predominantly B&W process, there are better B&W process films out there for very low light use, like Delta 3200 and TMax 3200.

 

[2F/2F]

I've made limited use of both films; I'm not sure there's much difference between them. You'll need to expose either at 200-250 for best shadow detail, since neither seems to be a true 400-speed film IME.

As for highlights--since this is C-41 you have little practical development control over highlight density. (call it "expose for the shadows, pray for the highlights.") As always, it comes down to testing. Pick up a couple of rolls of each, and shoot at a variety of EI's within a roll. See what you get.

I've lately begun to shoot these films again (mostly Kodak) after eschewing them for a long time as not being "real" B&W films. I shoot and process a lot of C-41 color (probably 90% of my work) film, and it's a huge convenience to be able to process everything in the same batch, B&W or color.

The biggest difference between them is that XP-2 is designed to be printed onto black and white paper, and BW400CN is designed to be printed onto color paper. If you want to make your own black and white prints, I would go with the Ilford. If you want to get them machine printed, I would go with the Kodak.

Since pulling more than 1/2 grade or so messes up the color with a C-41 film, you do have a little more "pullability" with either of these than you do with a color C-41 film.

I usually only shoot these films with "alternative" processes in the plan, such as cross processing in E-6, developing in regular b/w chemicals, mixing b/w and C-41, etc. They do have plenty of uses processed normally, but I prefer a plain-ol' black and white film for almost everything I shoot. In low light, I prefer Delta 1000 or T-Max 400.

 

[keithwms]

There is no question in my mind that xp2 is superior in terms of sharpness and overall range. 400CN is fine (I am not saying that it is poor) but generally not as sharp and the highlight detail is not so well preserved, in my experience. Having said that, the contrast level of xp2 is much too low for my taste if shot at box speed and developed normally. I would recommend rating it at least 320, maybe even 200. If you don't do that then you just get a bunch of midtones with not enough shadows and highlights.

I printed some things from 400CN and it is no big deal. Clearly it's not meant to be printed on b&w paper but it works fine if you use multigrade paper and adjust a bit.

Both scan well, and perhaps that is the main reason why the chromogenics films are popular right now.