Kodak Replacement For XP2 Super?

[jimvanson]

The seeming demise of Ilford (say it ain't so -- Fuji! there's a

great sale in England) makes me wonder about Kodak's C41 equivalent

in roll film.<P>I see Kodak produces (still?) CN & Portra.<P>Any

advantages of one over the other when it comes to machine proofs &

custom prints. Is one sharper or faster (I shoot XP2 @ 250) then the

other?<P>Tkx...jim

[scott_eaton]

Portra has a denser base than T400CN and is easier for conventional mini-labs to print.

[michaelkh]

Well, talking of Fuji, isn't their chromogenic film to all intents and purposes XP2 on an

orange base? possibly other differences I suppose, but Ilford co-developed it...

 

I'm not sure Ilford has met their 'demise' yet a while though.

[scott_eaton]

I'm not familiar with the Fuji emulsion.

 

I can just tell you for a fact Portra B/W, or whatever Kodak is calling it now, is easier for optical labs to get neutral prints from than T400CN.

 

Otherwise, all the B/W chromos are fairly similiar in terms of speed.

[jimvanson]

When XP2 Super was released one of it's announced improvements was improved sharpness. Ilford claimed that the denser base of the Kodak products on the market at that time caused a drop in sharpness in a film that they themselves admitted was not as good as a conventional silver halide product.<P>I use C41 products for the convenience of fast cheap machine proofs but only because my self printed or custom printed enlargements could be counted on to deliver.<P>I'm guessing (how about praying) that Kodak's C41's are up to snuff?<P>What ISO's are people shooting their roll film at?

[simon evans.]

Hey, Ilford's not dead yet!

<p>

The Fuji CN film is more or less identical to XP2, which has a clear base. The Kodak BW400CN film (sorry, T400CN and Portra are no more) has a dense orange mask to make life easier for minilab staff when printing on colour paper. Use the Kodak film if your proofs and enlargements are on such equipment. I would choose prints on <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/papers/portraBW/portraBW.jhtml">Kodak Portra B&W paper</a> from any of these films over colour paper any day.

<p>

XP2 and Fuji Neopan 400 CN have more contrast than the Kodak films and are the obvious choice if you're printing at home, although images like <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1131607">this one</a> suggest that nice prints can be made from Kodak films too (T400CN printed on Ilford MG IV grade 3½). But I find printing through the dense orange base of an overexposed C-41 film is a time-consuming experience.

[lex_jenkins]

My local pro lab did an excellent job on proof prints from Kodak's B&W Portra stuff. I have no idea what paper was used but I'm certain it wasn't conventional b&w - I tried unsuccessfully to match their results in my darkroom on variable contrast papers.

 

As for exposure the stuff is pretty forgiving. I didn't have a light meter with me when shooting my first roll in my Rollei TLR, which doesn't have the most repeatable settings for shutter speeds and apertures. But every frame was usable - most were excellent. My favorite, however, was an accidental double exposure on the first frame (I was just getting accustomed to the Rollei), but that's another story.<div></div>

[david_carper]

ILFORD XP2 Super is still being produced. The factory is still coating this and other films. Don't count it out yet.

 

If you are going to switch away from XP2 Super, I would suggest the Fuji product, as it is the only other chromogenic film that I know of that is designed for optimal printing on black and white paper.

 

The Kodak films print very well on color paper, but are more difficult to print on black and white paper than the XP2 Super.

 

David Carper

 

ILFORD Technical Service

[jimvanson]

David -- It is very nice to hear both your voice and your message -- thanks.

[lex_jenkins]

David is absolutely correct about printing any of Kodak's C-41 process monochrome films onto conventional b&w paper. I've tried many times.

 

In order to achieve anything resembling the above proof print from the lab (presumably on color paper), I have to engage in tedious split-filter printing, laying in the dark areas first with magenta filtration, then selectively burning in each highlight area using yellow. Even after that it still doesn't look as good.

 

I wouldn't give up on Kodak's C-41 process monochrome films if that's all that were available. As long as the negatives are solid and don't need any special attention a good lab can make fine prints.

 

BTW, at an art show last year I saw some prints of photos of the insides of the Anasazi ruins. The tonality and range were amazing - full shadow detail, no blown highlights from the light streaming in from outside. I asked the photographer about his materials and technique. He said it was just Kodak's C-41 monochrome (I don't recall which).

 

After pressuring him a bit, tho', he admitted that the print was done digitally (on light sensitive paper) after tweaking in Photoshop. It would have been very difficult to achieve that kind of range without some sort of manipulation, whether conventionally or digitally.

[simon evans.]

David, good to hear from you. It must be tough for the people who have lost their jobs. Those of us who enjoy using Ilford products hope the company continues to manufacture them, without which the photography world would be a much poorer place.

 

XP2 vs BW400CN: if printing digitally - at home or commercially - the differences aren't really worth discussing. Why not test a roll of each and compare?