What is the best B&W film for Landscape Photography - C-41

<p>I do a lot of landscape photography. All in colour. I'd like to try some B&W film. What does every think is the best B&W for landscape. I'd like to limit the choice to C-41 processing. <br>

Many thanks in advance for your advice.... S</p>

<p>There's only two choices here, right? Kodak and Ilford? There's no reason to not just pick up a roll each and have at it.</p>

<p>Another option is to continue to shoot in color and convert your images to B&W in photoshop.</p>

<p>Either the Kodak or Ilford stuff will do. Why wouldn't you just use real black and white film?</p>

C-41? Ilford XP2 Super.

<p>[[Why wouldn't you just use real black and white film?]]</p>

<p>The very existence of C-41 B&W film renders such a question rather pointless.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kodak BW400CN is excellent for landscapes, as well as stunning portraits. Much better than XP2 IMO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The very existence of C-41 B&W film renders such a question rather pointless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm, not really. 400CN just isn't very sharp. That's just the trade-off for being able to drop the cassette with the local C41 minilab.</p>

<p>Real B&W emulsions like Acros and TMX are generally better choices for landscapes. If the need is for a faster film, the current TMY is about the best 400ISO B&W film available.</p>

<p>Steve, I started b&w with the Kodak C-41. It seemed ok at first but I really wasn't getting satisfactory prints back from the photo lab, certainly the photos didn't meet the expectations I had when I took the picture. My color slides, on the other hand, were terrific. When I complained to the photo lab the guy at the counter suggested that I might have bettter luck to just do it myself, so I did. After a few early disasters and learning how to load the film reels easily I began shooting a variety of "real" black & white films. I like the Ilford films but Kodak Tri X at 400 ASA is fine too. Shooting b&w films set me on a path to an enlarger and a darkroom and I'm very pleased that I did. Enlarging & B&W printing is a very enjoyable past time. I still shoot a few rolls of Velvia from time to time but mostly I'm very happy to develop and print in black & white.<br>

If this path isn't for you then I think the suggestion to shoot color film and change it to monochrome in photoshop is the best advice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This page might be of interest:<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/cameras/ilford/xp2_super_400">http://www.pbase.com/cameras/ilford/xp2_super_400</a></p>

<p>If you're gonna limit yourself to C41, then you may as well go fo a color film like Reala or Ektar, and then do your B&W conversions in Photoshop.</p>

<p>If you want real high quality B&W, then you'll need to look at real silver films like TMX, FP4, Delta 100, Acros, etc.</p>

<p>I'm not a big shooter of the C-41 B&W films, so I make no claim to being an expert about them, but regarding the sharpness issue, I've seen several references to the Kodak C-41 film not being a sharp film. However, I've also seen several cases now and had direct hands-on experience with it where the lab prints just weren't very sharp, but when scanned the images were quite sharp (and prints from the scans blew away the lab prints in sharpness). Not sure if the lab's all had focus issues, but one lab did finally concede their equipment's focus wasn't adjusted properly after being shown the results and then checking their equipment (results after that were much improved). Having seen it several times now, I kinda question whether the film really has a sharpness problem. Aside from that, I find the Kodak film can produce some really lovely portraits when printed on traditional B&W paper, but I am not fond of it for landscapes. I do plan to try the Ilford at some point to see if its look is much different from the Kodak and also because it doesn't contain any masking and thus should be easier to print.</p>

 

<p>Having shot both Kodak BW400CN (and it's predecessor, T400CN) and Ilford XP2 Super, and having scanned the negatives directly with a film scanner, I always found the Kodak films to have greater sharpness. The Ilford film's advantage is that it doesn't have an orange base, which makes it easier to print on B&W papers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... I've seen several references to the Kodak C-41 film not being a sharp film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've shot a couple rolls of 400CN; it's okay but it is really not anything to be excited about. From what I saw, its relative lack of sharpness is consistent with Kodak's datasheet. 400CN has a MTF 50 of about 50 cycles/mm. In contrast, MTF 50 for TMY is about 80 cycles/mm, while TMX and Acros are both higher than 100 cycles/mm.</p>

<p>The claimed advantages of chromogenics really are no longer so compelling. That the film is developed in the same line as color negatives is more a detriment as lab processing become increasingly expensive and rare. Compatibility with ICE is nice, but not so important if processing at home.</p>

<p>I'm not too crazy about monochrome C-41 films, but that's because I process all my own film, do precious little scanning, and pring conventionally in a darkroom. I have used both Kodak's BW400CN and Ilford's XP2 Super, and they are both very good films. Which you should choose depends on what you plan to do with the negatives. Planning to have the negatives printed at a commercial lab? Then Kodak's offering might be the better choice. It is designed to print neutral gray tones onto RA-4 (color print) papers with little difficulty. It does not play nicely with conventional B&W papers. If printing onto conventional B&W papers is part of the plan, then Ilford's XP2 Super is the better choice. It prints beautifully onto conventional silver B&W papers of normal contrast grades. Planning to scan the negatives? Pick one, both are high quality products and will not disappoint. Compatibility with ICE is a good thing no matter what. There is always a bit of dust here and there. ICE does not work with conventional B&W films.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone. Some good advice and food for thought. My choice of C41 film was just lazy..... my favourite & trusted lab only does E6 & C41 so i was trying to save a trip to a second lab. I will try a C41 and a real B&W film and see how i go.... many thanks.... :) S</p>

<p>Don't use a lab use yourself.... All I am going to say since you told us you were lazy. :)</p>

<p>I personally use Ilford XP2 super. I haven't done any 400CN, but I don't feel like I need to as the XP2 gets me what I want. It can be exposed under a wide range of settings from ISO100 to ISO1000 in my experience and still get a decent shot. The ISO100 is going to be very, very, very fine grain, but you will lose a bit of the extreme highlights, the ISO1000 is going to be very grainy, but it will come out okay, ISO200-400 is a good middle ground (it is rated at 400, but if you check the film data Ilford tells you to expose at 100 or 200 for finer grain or 800 with more grain). I've found that the resolution is very good even if it isn't say Acros level.</p>

<p>[[Don't use a lab use yourself.]]</p>

<p>Not everyone can process at home.</p>

<p>I think that the main reason for the lack of sharpness when compared to traditional B&W films is the actual image. A true B&W image is formed by actual silver crystals. C-41 is formed by dye clouds. Regardless of what anyone else says, dye clouds are not as sharp as silver crystals.</p>