Which C-41 B&W film?

Going to have a bash with the new (to me) C-41 emulsion B&W films and

have been reading specification of Kodak Portra 400BW and Kodak

T400CN.

 

I shall be using an M4-P with 1.4/35mm for 'street' shots. Have

Weston meter but would like not to have to bother too much. Scanner

is Minolta Diamage Scan 5400.

 

 

Which film would you recommend? Thanks

Well, you probably should simply test alot of color negative films an see what you like best. I personally like Fuji Press 400 and 100. They are very cheap but only come in 20rolls packs.

 

Greetings,

I use Ilford's XP2 super. It has remarkable latitude. It can be exposed anywhere between 50 and 800 ASA, though I find 200 is ideal. I like the contrast and creamy tones, and as an added bonus it scans very well.

 

I used T400CN once and wasn't keen on the results, but can't remember why. Just didn't seem to match up to XP2.

there're only a few b+w c41 films so try them all and see what you

like. another route would be color negative then to mono in

photoshop. i too like the ilford as it is easier to work with in

the traditional darkroom.

I completely agree with Paul. Almost 80% of my photographic work is made with this film. Not only scans better than any other B&W film, but also produces beautiful prints under the enlarger. My other preferred film is Tri-X, that although produces a bit more pleasant prints is a lot more hard to scan well. Try XP2 Super, you'll love it.

I tend to carry all three C41 B&W choices. My experiences, which

is confirmed by my Lab tech guy, is that Kodak T400cn is a touch

flatter in contrast and is good for higher contrast situations, while

the slightly more contrasty XP2 is helpful in flatter light. Kodak

Portra B&W is suppose to be optimized for scanning in a similar

way that all the Portra films are. I haven't used Kodak B&W

enough to comment on this film, but what I have shot with it has

been fine.

 

I'd say 90% of my B&W wedding work is with T400cn exposed at

ISO 320. It is helpful in capturing the subtile tonal gradations of

the Bride's dress without introducing the contrast that can blow

the highlights when using fill flash. I switch to XP2 in duller/flatter

light AND sometimes when using the Noctilux.

 

A final thought about the C41s...they are a nice choice when

mixing digital prints with those from film. The grainlessness of

these films matches the look closer IMO.

Ilford XP2-Super. Wonderful film.

One difference between the Kodak and Ilford films is the base tint. Kodak films have

a typical brownish tint like conventional C-41 color films which make it easier to have

machine prints produced. If you plan to print your own in a conventional darkroom

however, the Ilford has a purple base similar to Tri-X or HP-5. This allows better

control in the darkroom especially with polycontrast filters. All scan nicely.

 

Another option is to shoot color negative stock and switch to B/W in Photoshop. I use

Fuji Press 200 and 800 and both of these also scan nicely.

Portra 400 works well if the light is contrasty...shot it on a dull day and you'll get flat prints..<p>

www.antiquecameras.net

I would go T400CN. Portra is geared towards lab processing and printing and getting a true B&W print on colour paper. T400 is usually cheaper but has the same emulsion, just a different colour base. It can be a little 'flat', but essentially what this means is that you have all the tones with detail from highlight to shadow. This is good for scanning.

 

When people say you can rate these C41 films (XP2, Portra B&W, T400CN, and the new Fuji version of XP2)at anything from 50ASA to 800ASA beware! They are only relying on the inherent wide exposure latitude. It is a rough and ready practice and in no way replaces correct exposure. Over exposure gives you very fine grain, but a loss of sharpness, under exposure gives you good sharpness and bigger grain. You decide, but again, for scanning you want a neg that has all the information in a range your scanner can cope with. T400 can be genuinely uprated and push processed, but the results are poor, the mid tones turning muddy.

<<Going to have a bash with the new (to me) C-41 emulsion B&W films and have been reading specification of Kodak Portra 400BW and Kodak T400CN.>>

 

Pure and simple here's the way they shake out:

 

T400CN is a b*tch to print neutrally on color paper, so it should be used by someone who wants the convenience of C41 processing but who has access to printing on b&w paper.

 

Portra B&W and its identical but cheaper "consumer" twin, B&W+, print well neutrally on color paper, so would be the coice of someone who wants to have the film processed and printed on a minilab.

 

These films scan equally, have the same tonal range and sharpness. EI 400 is already at the tail end of its latitude and it can't tolerate any underexposure at that speed. I rate it 320 to be safe, since my mechanical M's fire faster and slower than the marked speed

form shot to shot.

 

XP2 Super is not as sharp as the Kodak films (though not by much), and is higher contrast. It has a gray film base vs the orange of the Kodak films. So the Kodak films scan like color negs but XP2 has to be handled like traditional b&w. It confuses the heck out of minilab printers. I would use XP2 if I wanted C41 processing but intended to print using conventional enlarger. XP2's emulsion scratches very easily also. It is also in reality an ISO 200 film, which is where I found I have to rate it to avoid underexposure.

In my experience, XP-2 rolls over and plays dead at 800. TCN will still give me a viable shot at 800 (which I seem to need often enough) but it's better at 400.

Question, does XP2 super require special developing ?. If that is the case who do you have develop it ? The best place to send it to.

 

Thanks,

Bob

Echoing some peeps above, XP2 colour paper prints have more of a tinge to them than their Kodak counterparts, so your initial prints won't be as nice as if they were done with Kodak. The payoff is later, when you find a nice neg and want to work with it down the road on your own!

 

Regards!

Every time I see a thread like this one explored so well on the

forum (and isn't it great that this still happens a little more

frequently than the threads full of rude posts from bores who

don't otherwise have a life), I realize that this forum still gives

patrons their money's worth over and over. This has been a very

useful thread, and I am grateful for it and posts like it (of course, I

also love the posts with great shots in them).

 

In the "have your cake and eat it too" category, what are your

views of the benefits (or lack of same) of shooting in either C41

color or E-6 chromes and then going to B&W in photoshop

compared to using the c41 B&W films? If you are scanning and

printing B&W digitally, are there significant compromises is

starting with color? If you do this, which films work best?

I would not waste my money on Portra 400BW. It is the same as the consumer black and white film sold "over the counter" at WalMart and the rest.

 

Look at Jim Cliffords posting a few days back of a portrait using T400CN.

 

I also have just purchased the 5400. Scans XP2 and T400CN nicely.

 

I would not push XP2 or T400CN and shoot it at 320. At the end of the day it is a subjective choice. My advice is to purchase both and shot away.

I've shot XP2 super from ei 50-1600 and gotten printable negatives. And being an 8x10 user now, I'm a big supporter of Ilford films.

 

hp5+ forever!

 

Cheers,

*G* i shouldnt post before i had my morning coffee.....

 

OK the only B&W C-41 i use sometimes is the XP2 for its tonality and look. It also scans wonderfully btw. Still some color negatives have just as much contrast as the XP2, still the 'look' of XP2 is something different then you can get from desaturated color negative.

 

Greetings,

All C41 B&W films scratch more easily than traditional emulsions. Portra has a reputation for being a little more resistant than the others, which I agree with. However, if you find scratching a consistent problem then either change labs or pay extra for professional "dip and dunk" processing.

 

Like you I tend to use C41 films if I'm using meterless cameras, rating the film at ISO 200 and guessing exposure.

When I shoot C-41 B&W, its T400CN, but rated at 200, and if in flat lighting, I'll have the lab push it a stop (C41 push).

 

At 400 its just barely on the edge of losing the shadows, and hasn't really got enough punch in the low midtones to compensate with some sort of impact. That is - weak dark areas. The least bit of additional underexposure will catch you fighting in Photoshop to salvage the image.

 

On the other hand, the film tolorates over exposure very well, tends not to block up too badly if the subject contrast is held to some reasonable range, and you butt is covered in case of a slight mis-metered shot.

 

It does tend to be a little flat. Outdoor shots, fill flash, and controlled lighting its fine. Get out on a cloudy day or shoot in a flat lit area and that C41 push keeps it looking snappy.