Your favorite C-41 B&W film?

[jasonjoo]

Hey folks,

I was wondering what your favorite b&w film was that is processed through C-41. I do not know anything about developing my own negatives (or prints for that matter), so for the time being, I will most likely send my negatives to Costco to be developed and printed.

Anyways, I was wondering what your favorite b&w films were! I'm really drawn to the graininess of film.

Thanks,

Jason

Edit: BTW, where do you buy your film? I will be taking perhaps 20-30 rolls of film with me on my trip. I'm planning on taking both b&w film and color film. Thanks again!

 

[DrPablo]

Hey Jason,

Your two main choices are Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2. I've only used XP2, which is a marvellous, fine grained film for its speed, and it has a nice, soft highlight shoulder. I've posted a 6x6 example below. It reputedly tolerates highlights a bit better than the Kodak version. On the other hand the Kodak version is a lot less expensive.

I prefer the look of the old school B&W emulsions, like FP4+ and HP5+, but you're going to find 1000 different opinions. Those are about as error-proof as a film can get. On the other hand, if you're not doing it yourself or getting a pro-lab to do it, you're probably going to get better quality control from a C-41 process (which tend to be very automated and high throughput in most places).

 

[jasonjoo]

Thanks doc! For the time being, I will have my negatives processed at Costco. Their turn around time is fast and they are very cheap.

Once I return from my trip, I will begin to spend some time at my universities darkroom!

 

[Peter De Smidt]

I like XP2 Super. The image on my website homepage was taken with it exposed at EI 100.

 

[MattKing]

Who will be printing your reprints/enlargements?

The Kodak version has a built in orange mask. It's probably better if the prints are being made on colour paper, adjusted to print (close too) black and white images (in the same way that Costco will be printing any proofs you order).

The Ilford doesn't have the orange mask, so if you have your own darkroom, or use a black and white lab for enlargements, printing will be easier, and potentially better.

Matt

 

[jasonjoo]

Wow Peter, that is a stunning photo!

If you could please explain what exposing at EI 100 means, that would be great! And BTW, was there a lot of dodging/burning done to the photo? The dynamic range is amazing!

 

[jasonjoo]

Matt, for the purposes of my trip to Brazil, I don't believe I will be needing any prints larger than 8x10 or 8x12 and even for those, I imagine they will be few in number.

I will be assisting in a medical mission trip in San Paulo, Brazil this summer with my church. For the most part, I will be mainly "documenting" our week there. I'd take my digital gear with me, but it is fairly expensive and I've been told that crime rates are very high in San Paulo. I am reluctant to even take my Canon A1 SLR to the trip, so I have purchased an Olympus XA rangefinder for my trip.

After my trip, I will take the time to learn how to develop my own negatives at my school's darkroom. Until then, I will be sending my film to Costco for processing and printing.

And thanks for the information on the films!

 

[DrPablo]

Jason -- exposing an ISO 400 film at EI 100 means you're exposing as if its ISO were really 100 -- in other words you're overexposing it by 2 stops. It helps you get more shadow detail (or at least prevents you from losing it).

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Jason,

Paul is right about the EI, i.e. exposure index, thing. XP2 is nominally a 400 speed film, but Ilford says that it can be exposed from about 50 to 800. Rating it slower leads to lower contrast and finer grain. Usually, I rate it at 200. But for the London Eye photo there was so much light that I rated it at EI 100. I'm glad that you like the photo. It does require lots of burning in (i.e. giving more exposure to) the sky. XP2 will give significantly better prints on regular bw paper than on color paper. If you're going to have your prints done on color paper, then you probably should use the Kodak film. I've tried it, but not enough to get a feel for it.

 

[mcgrattan]

I've had good results from both the Kodak and the Ilford products. I used to strongly prefer XP2 but the last roll of the Kodak BW400CN I had done came back very nice indeed.

It's also worth remembering Fuji Neopan 400CN which is Fuji's C-41 product (apparently made with the assistance of Ilford). Because I can get that quite cheaply, I've used that quite a bit as one of my standard 35mm films for 'travel'. I've had great results from it.

 

[film_guy]

I've shot both films (BW400CN and XP2 Super) extensively in 35mm format, and I find that XP2's slightly sharper than the BW400CN. XP2 Super looks more closer to B&W film though in terms of contrast and grain, while BW400CN looks flat and "milky" in the same conditions. I try to overexpose both film by rating them at 200 and 250, but I've also rated them at 800 and gotten back good negs. Too bad Ilford's C-41 film is more expensive, or I would shoot it more. I would love to try Fuji's Neopan 400CN but they don't sell it here.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've shot both films (BW400CN and XP2 Super) extensively in 35mm format, and I find that XP2's slightly sharper than the BW400CN. XP2 Super looks more closer to B&W film though in terms of contrast and grain, while BW400CN looks flat and "milky" in the same conditions. I try to overexpose both film by rating them at 200 and 250, but I've also rated them at 800 and gotten back good negs. Too bad Ilford's C-41 film is more expensive, or I would shoot it more. I would love to try Fuji's Neopan 400CN but they don't sell it here.

I completely agree with this analysis and would only add that Kodak's film is finer grained. For me, this is a lot less important than the higher sharpness and tonality.

I'd be surprised if you could see a difference between Neopan 400CN and XP2 Super.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jasonjoo]

So regarding the orange filter, has anyone printed XP2 negatives onto color paper? I believe Costco prints on color paper. Don't know if they have specific b&w paper.

Thanks for your help guys!

 

[Ole]

There is no orange mask on XP2. So it's just as easy as printing any other B&W negative film. Same with the Fuji Neopan 400CN.

 

[Ole]

In minilabs the colour adjustment is automatig, and the prints come out with whatever colour the automatics decide on. Usually slightly sepia, sometimes greenish, sometimes a hint of blue.

 

[Roger Hicks]

So regarding the orange filter, has anyone printed XP2 negatives onto color paper? I believe Costco prints on color paper. Don't know if they have specific b&w paper.

Thanks for your help guys!

I've often had XP2 proofed on colour paper. It's not that hard to get neutral prints -- but many minilabs can't be assed to try.

Cheers,

R.

 

[copake_ham]

Quite a few have already responded. Between the 400CN and XP-2 - like others I come down favoring the latter a bit more.

However, depending on where you are in the US - it may be easier to find the Kodak product as I've seen it sold at mass marketers (e.g. Walgreens) as well as at photog store.

As a final note, I think you've made a wise choice regarding leaving expensive gear behind for your trip. Last Sunday the NY Times had an article on the upcoming Pan Am Games due to start soon in Rio. They had the same advice regarding carrying expensive camera gear.

Of course you can never be fully safe. A good friend of ours had his brand new super duper digi ripped off when he inadvertendly left it behind hanging on the back of his chair after dinner one evening on the Queen Mary 2!

 

[nworth]

I understand that there are three such films out there, but I've only tried Ilford XP-2, which is excellent. All the films have an orange mask, but the mask is a bit different from film to film. The Kodak film is designed to be printed on color paper, and Kodak does not recommend printing it on black and white paper. I can testify that the Ilford film makes excellent prints on black and white paper. I believe the difference has to due with the dye image in the films. The Kodak product is more akin to a color negative film.

 

[Snapshot]

My vote is for Ilford XP2 Super. A truly wonderful film and it allows me to use B&W paper.

 

[film_guy]

I've never had prints or negs developed at Costco before, but here in Canada I tend to avoid the 1-hour labs except for London Drugs, and they've been pretty reliable with C-41 B&W film development and printing. For a trip like yours I wouldn't want anything less than a reliable lab processing all my film. Why don't you try shooting a roll of C-41 B&W of your choice and bring it to the lab for testing before your trip? If the lab can't give you good B&W prints, then maybe it's time to switch labs.

 

[srs5694]

A few more comments:

• The current Ilford offering is called "XP2 Super." Ilford sold an older product called "XP2" (without the "Super"). Technically, these are different products, but many people leave off the "Super" in discussions of the current product. I mention this to head off confusion -- or worse, the purchase of well-expired product from a forgotten back room somewhere!
• I have printed Kodak BW400CN on conventional B&W paper. I've gotten good results, although exposure times are long and I've usually had to use higher-than-typical contrasts on VC paper (my color enlarger's been set to values that are typical of grade 2.5-4 for most prints). OTOH, I've seen others say they can't get good prints from this film on conventional B&W paper. This could be difference of opinion of what constitutes a "good" print, different photo subjects, results of using different materials or enlargers, or other factors.
• I've not tried printing XP2 Super on conventional color paper, but I have gotten store-processed prints back from this film. Sometimes I get extreme color casts, other times I don't. I think it depends on the equipment used and/or the competence of the operators. Aside from a mail-order outfit that clearly used conventional B&W paper, the best result I got was from a local Walgreens, which used a Fuji Frontier system. This minilab scans negatives and prints digitally, and I believe it was smart enough to recognize the XP2 Super as B&W film and therefore printed it appropriately. The same minilab produced similarly near-neutral results from Kodak BW400CN.
• Even if you get back prints with ugly casts, poor contrast, or other problems, you can always order reprints -- from the original lab, from another lab, or in your own darkroom (if/when you build one). The difference can be dramatic -- one print from XP2 Super I thought was so-so in the original 4x6 from a lab is much better done on conventional B&W paper with proper exposure and contrast!

 

[bob100684]

A few more comments:

• The current Ilford offering is called "XP2 Super." Ilford sold an older product called "XP2" (without the "Super"). Technically, these are different products, but many people leave off the "Super" in discussions of the current product. I mention this to head off confusion -- or worse, the purchase of well-expired product from a forgotten back room somewhere!
• I have printed Kodak BW400CN on conventional B&W paper. I've gotten good results, although exposure times are long and I've usually had to use higher-than-typical contrasts on VC paper (my color enlarger's been set to values that are typical of grade 2.5-4 for most prints). OTOH, I've seen others say they can't get good prints from this film on conventional B&W paper. This could be difference of opinion of what constitutes a "good" print, different photo subjects, results of using different materials or enlargers, or other factors.
• I've not tried printing XP2 Super on conventional color paper, but I have gotten store-processed prints back from this film. Sometimes I get extreme color casts, other times I don't. I think it depends on the equipment used and/or the competence of the operators. Aside from a mail-order outfit that clearly used conventional B&W paper, the best result I got was from a local Walgreens, which used a Fuji Frontier system. This minilab scans negatives and prints digitally, and I believe it was smart enough to recognize the XP2 Super as B&W film and therefore printed it appropriately. The same minilab produced similarly near-neutral results from Kodak BW400CN.
• Even if you get back prints with ugly casts, poor contrast, or other problems, you can always order reprints -- from the original lab, from another lab, or in your own darkroom (if/when you build one). The difference can be dramatic -- one print from XP2 Super I thought was so-so in the original 4x6 from a lab is much better done on conventional B&W paper with proper exposure and contrast!

sounds like the tech at your walgreens was smart enough to click the black and white button....yes there really is one on a frontier.

 

[jasonjoo]

Wow, thanks again for your kind help!

As suggested, I will go through a few rolls of XP2 Super and have them developed at different labs. I can't remember what the lab was called, but they are based in the Los Angeles area and accept mail orders. They are fairly popular, but their business name slips my mind.

Does anyone know of this lab? Or have any other lab suggestions that are based in southern California? Thanks!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The XP2-Super really is nice film. I've gotten good enlargements up to 11x14 size with surprisingly little grain. Not at all like a conventional b&w film, however it can be slow to print and the purple cast of the film base can alter contrast response, but all of that can be overcome. Beautiful film. I have used the Kodak equivalence, but I don't like to print it at all.
- Thomas

 

[DrPablo]

I wonder if the purplish mask on XP2 Super masks the grain. I enlarged a 6x6 negatve to 11x14 and I struggled to find grain to focus on.