LeicaBraz Posted January 17, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) What are the main differences between these films? Grain, etc.? Tks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Hi LeicaBraz, Take a look here C41: Kodak vs Ilford BW. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted January 17, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 17, 2011 I can only speak from personal experience. I find XP2 too "smooth"; if it were a digital camera, it would be a Canon, with overly aggressive noise reduction. In my experience it gives a plastic feel. 400CN, on the other hand, is more "film-like" in its rendition. I particularly like the way it handles blacks and metallic reflective surfaces. ...of course you can always just buy a roll of each and give them a bash... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 17, 2011 Share #3 Posted January 17, 2011 Hi The annoying difference is the Kodak has an orange mask which makes wet printing more difficult, the Ilford does not have the mask, I dont think the Fuji has it either. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted January 17, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 17, 2011 ...of course you can always just buy a roll of each and give them a bash... The best advice - low cost, lots of fun, and then YOU know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Manning Posted January 20, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 20, 2011 It's true, the orange mask on the kodak makes standard b&w wet printing really difficult. BUT...the BW400CN is a great film emulsion. Shot at ISO 200, it's fabulous, 400 is great, and it gets very contrasty at 800. The nice thing is, just process like normal...the film has THAT much latitude. Here are a couple of Kodak BW400CN examples: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Ryan Posted January 21, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 21, 2011 David - very nice. Thanks. Were they exposed at 200 and developed as if they were 400? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted January 21, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 21, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can only speak from personal experience. I find XP2 too "smooth"; if it were a digital camera, it would be a Canon, with overly aggressive noise reduction. In my experience it gives a plastic feel. 400CN, on the other hand, is more "film-like" in its rendition. I particularly like the way it handles blacks and metallic reflective surfaces. ...of course you can always just buy a roll of each and give them a bash... Regards, Bill This just goes to show how subjective film can be. I have the exact opposite opinion. I think XP2 looks like real B&W film, whereas 400CN is too smooth for my taste. FWIW, I scan all of my film and don't do wet printing. Try a roll of each and form your own opinion. -Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 21, 2011 Share #8 Posted January 21, 2011 Choose the end result you desire, then use the materials designed to give it to you, directly. ie. B&W film for B&W pictures. Everything else is a workaround. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted January 21, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 21, 2011 Funny how people can perceive these films so differently. Some say they are hardly different at all, while others perceive one or the other as too smooth or what-have-you. I find 400CN very smooth with excellent contrast and a wonderfully creamy tonal range, while XP2 has classic grain and contrast but not as rich a variety of greys. As a disclaimer, I should mention that I get all my film scanned and have not made a wet print in decades, so that may account for a difference in perception. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted January 21, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 21, 2011 Film has always been, and always will be, a 'strange animal' to deal withno two people process it exactly the same way and get identical results. Even with a dedicated processor (which I have), the age of the chemistry can vary an other wise 'standardized' process. Variation is part of the process. The aim is to get it under control. Scanning film also has its variables. Whilst aware of them, I have yet to master them. Meanwhile, I am satisfied with not bad results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 21, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 21, 2011 David - very nice. Thanks. Were they exposed at 200 and developed as if they were 400? Both these films (as well as the equivalent fuji) are dye image films and like color negative C41 you cant really do much to vary development or rather it is not recommended. Yo can get home processing chemical kits Ilford quote 50 to 800 ISO, normal mini lab processing, it is like digital you spin the dial on the exposure meter, but I know some people used 10,000 ISO with XP1 the precursor to XP2. even at 800 it is more difficult to print, and get a nice print. 50 is the best speed, if you want ultra fine grain... Noel http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061301945161573.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted January 21, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 21, 2011 Hi The annoying difference is the Kodak has an orange mask which makes wet printing more difficult, the Ilford does not have the mask, I dont think the Fuji has it either. Noel ...interesting snippet, Noël (thanks). Presumably this would be a contributory factor to the relatively longer exposure times I get with Kodak B&W negatives. Will try to set up a Kodak/Ilford comparison some day. All purely educational, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 21, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 21, 2011 ...interesting snippet, Noël (thanks). Presumably this would be a contributory factor to the relatively longer exposure times I get with Kodak B&W negatives. Will try to set up a Kodak/Ilford comparison some day. All purely educational, of course. It is only annoying if your are using variable contrast paper, I dont have an analysier, I'd have to think, so it is simpler not to use a masked film, not a problem scanning, and bubble jet printer. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted January 21, 2011 Share #14 Posted January 21, 2011 ...just to qualify my earlier comment re: longer exposure times with Kodak negatives, my observation does not apply to traditionally-processed Kodak B&W negatives. I was referring to C41-processed Kodak B&W films. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Manning Posted January 22, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 22, 2011 Dan...just have a lab (or minilab) process normally. Spin the ISO wheel for your meter to shoot how you want. I believe the exposures were, top to bottom in my examples, 400, 400, and 200. I think the different grain looks were a result of lab scanning. For a hybrid workflow (film shooting, then scanning/printing digitally), I think Kodak BW400CN is terrifically underrated. It looks beautiful, you can sharpen to include grain or not, and you can use ICE to scan. And...it's flexible to shoot and easy to get processed. It's just a bit pricier than traditional silver halide film...but if you pay for processing, it's generally cheaper to process than traditional b&w. Experiment, I say! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 22, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 22, 2011 Dan...just have a lab (or minilab) process normally. Spin the ISO wheel for your meter to shoot how you want. I believe the exposures were, top to bottom in my examples, 400, 400, and 200. I think the different grain looks were a result of lab scanning. For a hybrid workflow (film shooting, then scanning/printing digitally), I think Kodak BW400CN is terrifically underrated. It looks beautiful, you can sharpen to include grain or not, and you can use ICE to scan. And...it's flexible to shoot and easy to get processed. It's just a bit pricier than traditional silver halide film...but if you pay for processing, it's generally cheaper to process than traditional b&w. Experiment, I say! Hi David Not just cheaper to process in large cities you can drop in in mini lab as you walk past and pick up the CD after you walk around a few blocks almost like chimping a M8 or M9... Conventional mono rather slower... But Ive not noticed any difference between the Kodak, Ilford or Fuji mono C41, note I'm not saying they are the same, merely you need to be critical... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Ryan Posted January 22, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 22, 2011 Thanks David. These were shot with the Summaron 35 LTm on M4 using XP2 exposed at 320 ISO and developed as if 400 ISO: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/141888-c41-kodak-vs-ilford-bw/?do=findComment&comment=1566106'>More sharing options...
Dan Ryan Posted January 22, 2011 Share #18 Posted January 22, 2011 This is 400CN exposed at 320 ISO and developed as if 400 ISO - both this and the previous set developed and scanned by the lab - I think they may have a Noritsu. These taken with a Nikkor 35mm f2 I can't see much difference between the XP2 and the 400CN Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/141888-c41-kodak-vs-ilford-bw/?do=findComment&comment=1566109'>More sharing options...
David_Manning Posted January 23, 2011 Share #19 Posted January 23, 2011 Beautiful tonality in all examples. I'd like to add, though, that pushed silver-halide film produces better results than c-41 b&w film shot at 800 (a stop under). In the silver film, you compensate for underexposure with additional development. With c-41 film, you just get underexposed negs. So if you need low-light shooting, go with silver-halide film. For me, c-41 b&w film EXCELS outdoors, shot at 200iso. David. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted January 23, 2011 Share #20 Posted January 23, 2011 Beautiful tonality in all examples. I'd like to add, though, that pushed silver-halide film produces better results than c-41 b&w film shot at 800 (a stop under). In the silver film, you compensate for underexposure with additional development. With c-41 film, you just get underexposed negs. So if you need low-light shooting, go with silver-halide film. For me, c-41 b&w film EXCELS outdoors, shot at 200iso. David. ...David, with respect, this has not been my experience when shooting XP2 or BW400CN at ISO 800 or 1600. I get (maybe) an increase in contrast/grain and/or decrease in tonality, but definitely not underexposure. Perhaps both films were designed with enough latitude to cover 1-2 stops underexposure. Just my humble view. Note that as a general rule, I prefer using traditional B&W film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.