What B&W film for processing in C-41?

Can anyone recommend a good 400 ISO B&W film that can be processed in

C-41, printed on colour paper and most importantly, that scans well

on a 4000 DPI film scanner. Links to scanned B&W pictures (processed

in C-41) would be appreciated. Is it true B&W film doesn't scan well?

For those requirements, it doesn't get any better than Ilford XP2 (IMHO).

Ditto XP-2 Super.<div></div>

Xp2super... absolutely.

I am coming to like XP2 more and more as well. However, why not the Kodak variants?

 

allan

BW400CN is a very nice film, scans beautifully, prints even more beautifully on traditional black and white paper.

 

Minilab prints can be low in contrast depending on lab. Scans may need to be increased in contrast in post-processing to get a nice print.

If you want high contrast black and white results through scanning film, I wouldn't go C-41. Shoot Velvia 100F or something similar and use channel mixer. Very fine grain, excellent sharpness, good contrast.

 

For low contrast and medium contrast stuff, C41 B&W works well.

XP2 is ok, but I found it to be dull and grainy unless I overexposed it by at least one stop.

 

On the other hand, Kodak's comparable films -- T400CN, Portra 400BW, BW400CN, etc -- all look great when I've shot them at 400, and they also seem sharper than XP2.

 

It is true that traditional (non-C41) B&W film doesn't scan quite as easily as C41 film. One of the main reasons is that it can't take advantage of dust-and-scratch removal technologies such as ICE and FARE, which means you have to spend more time manually removing imperfections in Photoshop. Other than that issue, traditional B&W film is certainly scanable and lots of people get great results with it. But as many others here will tell you, there's not much point in shooting non-C41 B&W film unless you're going to develop it yourself.

XP2 is the preferred choice for printing on real B&W paper, since it doesn't have a strong orange mask. The Kodak options are designed to print sort of neutral grey on color paper -- although it looks better if the minilab selects true B&W. That's because they have the full orange mask. But the Kodak is a nightmare to print on real B&W paper.

 

All of them scan great.

RT: Leon is drum scanning, which uses oil mounting, not IR dust & scratch removal like ICE...

 

 

RT Dowling wrote:

 

 

"It is true that traditional (non-C41) B&W film doesn't scan quite as easily as C41 film. One of the main reasons is that it can't take advantage of dust-and-scratch removal technologies such as ICE and FARE, which means you have to spend more time manually removing imperfections in Photoshop"

<i>RT: Leon is drum scanning, which uses oil mounting, not IR dust & scratch removal like ICE...</i><br><br>I see. His post says "4000 DPI film scanner" which, to me, made it sound like a typical Nikon/Minolta/Canon desktop unit.<br><br>If one is going to spend big bucks on a drum scan, presumably they'd be able to use whatever film they want and not worry about it...?

I use a desktop scanner, the Nikon Coolscan V. If only I had a drum scanner...........

I'll be shooting a B&W series and don't develop myself. Don't have much time left to test and scan all my options. Normally I'd use Tri-X but you never know which soup they use to develop and it's rather difficult to find a lab that can print on B&W paper in my location. Therefore I need B&W, and still have the advantage of commercial processing/ printing. Since Iﾴll be scanning it on my NIkon Coolscan V, itﾴs inportant to have a film that scans well in B&W. Dust and scratches will be less of an issue because my lab uses dip and dunk and ususally deliver clean negs.

John, my BW400CN prints really very beautifully on black and white paper by Zona. They haven't complained so I assume it prints ok.

 

The orange mask in the Kodak C41 black and white films varies from film to film, it's not a "full orange mask" like that in color films.

I would choose BW400CN, or one of the many fine color films and desaturate. 400UC looks great in B&W, and you retain the option of color if you decide you want it.

 

If you don't mind a slower speed, Provia 100F and the Velvias look amazing when desaturated. Super sharp and very little grain.

With all due respect, I think you are kind of an idiot to even bother with the C-41 B&W films if you intend to scan. Just shoot color film, such as Ultra 400 or Reala, and desaturate. Better yet, shoot slide film like Astia or E100G because they have greater density range.

 

The prevailing myth is that the B&W chromogenic films are some magical version of conventional B&W films, but can be processed in C-41. That's utterly false. The B&W C-41 films are identical in every respect to color neg films, except they just have a single monochrome dye layer.

 

Big deal. You loose any color channels to play with at the expense of a film that lacks that contrast and density range of conventional B&W films to begin with.

 

If you aren't doing your own process *do not* even consider shooting conventional B&W film.

<The B&W C-41 films are identical in every respect to color neg films, except they just have a single monochrome dye layer.>

 

Not according to Kodak.

 

The technical information on Kodak's website indicates that ISO 400 B&W C-41 films have finer grain than ISO 160 color neg films.

 

Of course, these films all have very fine grain, and so the difference might not matter to you. But -- at least according to Kodak -- the difference is there for those who need it.

 

I just wish Kodak still made a B&W C-41 without the orange mask for those of us who still print optically but occasional want the convenience of the C-41 process. There's always XP2, but the Kodak product seemed slightly finer-grained and sharper.

I've used both Kodak's and Ilford's C41 B&W films with outstanding results. I scan the film

with a Nikon 8000 and print digitally. My experience agree's with Jonathan's post: the

grain is exceptionally fine with both of these films--much finer than conventional B&W

400 ISO films--and their tonality is superb. I've had no contrast problems with either one.

 

Only knock for me is that the negatives are not "archival"; but I'm kidding myself if I think

anyone is going to care about my negatives in a hundred years!

 

I agree with others here that there is no point shooting conventional B&W films unless you

do the processing yourself. Commercial labs just can't adjust for your "system" of shooting

like you can. I use a Jobo and get consistent, predictable results with a range of B&W films.

It's also great for C41 processing.

Well, BW400CN has finer grain and hence better tonality than any currently available color negative film. In addition, it's low contrast so you can use it to good effect in very high contrast situations. I have no scientific basis for this, but to me it is the film that best deals with direct sunlight.

 

If you shoot large format, there should be no problem with converting from color but in 35 mm 400UC converted to B&W looks quite simply - ugly. If you want to start with color and turn that into black and white in PS, use a slide film like Velvia or at the very least, a fine grained color neg film (none of which produce as fine grained results as 400CN).

I've only run about 3 or 4 rolls of BW400CN so far and I had nearly given up on it until I read this thread. At first I was getting blocked up shadows so the last roll I ran I overexposed by one stop. The lack of grain was awesome, but the highlights were on the edge of blown out.

 

From reading everyone else's experience it sounds like my lab is doing a crap job of developing... Guess I need to buy a few more rolls and give it another chance. Which paper are you having it printed on?

Fuji Neopan 400CN. Very similar to Ilford's XP-2 Super. A bit sharper, with better contrast.

 

Russ<div></div>