Difference between XP2 Super and BW400CN?

[film_guy]

I just got the processed negs and photo scans from a roll of XP2 Super I shot a couple weeks ago, and I was surprised how similar they looked (contrast and grain-wise) to Kodak's BW400CN. I was expecting a little better performance from Ilford's chromogenic since it costs a bit more to buy in Canada. Is there a reason why I should continue with the Ilford version?

 

[braxus]

If you intend on printing it on B&W paper, Ilford is the only one to chose. If its going on color paper, Kodak would be it. That about does it for the differences. I was amazed Kodak got a PGI of less then 25 for a 400 speed film. That was Ektar 25 territory. Sharpness is not as good though.

 

[film_guy]

braxus, is there a difference in printing on B&W paper or color paper? I guess my quesion being, is there any benefit to print on real B&W paper since I don't do my own printing.

 

[braxus]

I guess it depends on what you like. If you intend on printing at a 1 hour lab, Kodak would be the best choice. If you send it to a lab that can print traditional B&W films on true B&W paper, then Ilford may be prefered. I like real B&W paper since it has better blacks and doesn't have any tint to it in certain lighting. But if its getting scanned and printed on a digital machine, you don't have any choice of paper type there. The only benefit of C41 films is to getting them processed in a color lab. Plus they scan real nice. Other then that I'd use traditional B&W films on B&W paper printed on an analog machine.

 

[film_guy]

I guess I'll stick with BW400CN as my chromogenic film since there's no real B&W lab in Edmonton, as far as I know.

 

[aldevo]

I just got the processed negs and photo scans from a roll of XP2 Super I shot a couple weeks ago, and I was surprised how similar they looked (contrast and grain-wise) to Kodak's BW400CN. I was expecting a little better performance from Ilford's chromogenic since it costs a bit more to buy in Canada. Is there a reason why I should continue with the Ilford version?

I agree with everything Braxus says above.

I shot XP2 Super for quite a few years in the 1990s It is a little sharper than BW400CN and slightly grainer. I found the Kodak product to have slightly better film speed (very close), but some will disagree with me here. BW400CN is designed to be printed on color paper. In the USA I doubt you'll find many labs that would consistently complywith a request to print XP2 Super on B&W paper (check that C-41 box and it goes on color paper...).

I much prefer traditional B&W films, personally. Yes, the C-41 B&W films scan nicely, but you can get comparable results to these scanning good-quality C-41 Color films and desaturating.

Personally, I continue to develop and scan traditional B&W films and I am far from convinced that, with proper processing, scans on a dedicated 35mm film scanner do not produce excellent results with the traditional B&W films.

 

[MattKing]

If you are going to do the printing yourself, on B & W materials, use the XP2, because it doesn't have the orange mask. The orange mask makes it more difficult to print on B & W papers.

If you expect to need prints from a C41 lab, which will most likely print on colour paper, use the BW400CN, because the orange mask assists in the process.

My $0.02 worth.

Matt

 

[film_guy]

Matt, what about scanning the negative in, and then printing on a photographic printer like the Epson R400?

 

[MattKing]

Matt, what about scanning the negative in, and then printing on a photographic printer like the Epson R400?

I'm afraid I'm not the one to ask about this question, as I don't print using inkjet.

I generally only use the chromagenic materials when I need to have a 1 hour lab quickly develop the film.

This is probably better dealt with as a question on APUG's sister site: hybridphoto.com.

Best of luck!

Matt

 

[bob100684]

did your prints come back neutral b/w? or almost completely b/w? also, if there is a backprint string begining with 4.53 NA then a 7 digit/letter string(assuming fuji paper) they were printed with a frontier, which works by scanning the film then exposing the paper using lasers. Differences between xp2 and bwcn are hidden by the machine's grain reduction and sharpening sequence.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I just got the processed negs and photo scans from a roll of XP2 Super I shot a couple weeks ago, and I was surprised how similar they looked (contrast and grain-wise) to Kodak's BW400CN. I was expecting a little better performance from Ilford's chromogenic since it costs a bit more to buy in Canada. Is there a reason why I should continue with the Ilford version?

Speed (the Ilford is about 1/3 stop faster)

Grain (the Ilford is grainier)

Sharpness (the Ilford is sharper)

Tonality. The three above aren't decisive for me but this one is: Ilford separates highlights much better (curve shape). You won't necessarily see this unless you are wet printing in your own darkroom: machine prints don't amount to much and you can probably 'fake out' the problems with a scanner.

Cheers,

R.

 

[film_guy]

Speed (the Ilford is about 1/3 stop faster)

Grain (the Ilford is grainier)

Sharpness (the Ilford is sharper)

Tonality. The three above aren't decisive for me but this one is: Ilford separates highlights much better (curve shape). You won't necessarily see this unless you are wet printing in your own darkroom: machine prints don't amount to much and you can probably 'fake out' the problems with a scanner.

Cheers,

R.

aldevo posted previously that Kodak's better at film speed, and your post says otherwise. Which one's true or rather, which film has slightly faster speed? Another question I have is, if both were printed at maximum quality (Kodak on color paper and Ilford on true B&W paper), which one do you think would look the closest to real B&W film?

 

[Roger Hicks]

aldevo posted previously that Kodak's better at film speed, and your post says otherwise. Which one's true or rather, which film has slightly faster speed? Another question I have is, if both were printed at maximum quality (Kodak on color paper and Ilford on true B&W paper), which one do you think would look the closest to real B&W film?

Plot the curves and the XP2 comes out faster. At least that happened when I plotted them (for a magazine test) when XP2 Super was released; discussed this with Ilford because I was surprised at 1/3 stop difference; and they said, "That's what we found too."

You'd have a hell of a job ranking two first-class prints of the right subject, made by the manufacturers. Nor am I totally convinced that Kodak is better suited to colour paper. I've made a couple of excellent prints of snow scenes (heavily red-filtered) on Ilford MG IV/WT from the Kodak material -- but on a misty day, I found contrast of dark catkins against the mist to be totally unconvincing with the Kodak film.

A lot of it is subjective, obviously (though not the speed), but the tonality is different and is the only reason I'd go for Ilford, for my subjects. If I couldn't get XP2 Super, I'd not be heartbroken at switching to T400CN; but over some decades of using chromogenics, I've come to the conclusion that XP2 Super suits more subjects, better, and prints easier. Someone else might take the other view.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

R.

 

[film_guy]

Thanks, Roger for your help on this. Anyone else have any other similar or different viewpoints?

 

[mcgrattan]

I've also used the Fuji Neopan 400CN which I gather is very similar to XP2 (and Ilford are involved with it).

My own subjective preference is very strongly for the Ilford and/or Fuji products -- I've not had as good results from the Kodak. Despite the base of the Kodak film supposedly being more suited to minilab printing, I've had less colour cast from the Ilford/Fuji products when I've had them commercially printed and something about the tonality of the XP2/400CN products is just more to my personal taste.

 

[film_guy]

mcgrattan, I would love to try some Neopan 400CN, but it's not available in North America. Thanks though.

 

[Snapshot]

I've been very satisfied with XP2. When I was shooting it years ago, some labs had some print problems as some pictures were printed with sepia tones. With Kodak's 400CN, there wasn't such and issue but I found I liked the sharpness of Ilford's product.

Recently, I've printed some pictures from XP2 and was impressed at the detail and resolution I was able to resolve. I definitely would recommend XP2 although Kodak's 400CN product was able to produce very good results.