colorflow Posted March 14, 2007 Share #1 Posted March 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am thinking of shooting B&W using the c41 film. How good is it? Comments appreciated. Thank in advance, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Hi colorflow, Take a look here c41 B&W?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
George61d Posted March 14, 2007 Share #2 Posted March 14, 2007 Ah - I was in the same boat a couple of months ago so let me tell you my experience. i returned to film recently and chose C41 B&W for convenience mostly while I tried out my new Leica. I tried Ilford Xp2 and Kodak's 400cn 1) Very fine grain on both. 2) Kodak film comes out a bit flat - lacking impact. 3) XP2 had nice contrast and captures a wide dyamic range 4) Both scanned well in a coolscan, and as they were C41 ICE worked nicely. Scans for both could no be considered neutral so reqiured conversion in PS CS. 5) My very first shot with XP2 came third in a local competition. I am using XP2 now as I find it acceptable - Its not T-Max, Neopan etc etc but it is a fine film in my opinion. I just like the convenience of a 1 hr turn around with proofs so that i can easily judge which images to scan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 14, 2007 Share #3 Posted March 14, 2007 I used XP2 Super (at 400) on last autumn's One Challenge. I was pleased with the results although there was more grain than I expected. I've heard that you should overexpose slightly - underexposure increases the grain. I've got another roll to shoot. 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/18798-c41-bw/?do=findComment&comment=200825'>More sharing options...
dfbldwn Posted March 14, 2007 Share #4 Posted March 14, 2007 For quick snapshots, I use Kodak's 400UC and get them to scan it as B&W, rather than color, or convert the scans to B&W when I get home. I get the fine grain, a higher speed, and a bit more responsive (sharper) image. What really sold me is that it seems more robustly made ... better able to withstand the abuses of 1-hour processing, fewer scratches, and (believe it or not) more dust resistant when I get it home. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 14, 2007 Share #5 Posted March 14, 2007 400CN for me. It's the only thing I feed my IIIc on. Developed, printed and scanned at my local Sainsburys in one hour - they text me when it's done - and they do a better and cheaper job than Jessops. I've tried XP2 in the past and found it too "creamy". 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! Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Regards, Bill ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/18798-c41-bw/?do=findComment&comment=200939'>More sharing options...
@bumac Posted March 14, 2007 Share #6 Posted March 14, 2007 I like the XP2 very much. M6, 1,4/35, yellowfilter, Ilford XP2Plus, Negativscan 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/18798-c41-bw/?do=findComment&comment=200973'>More sharing options...
peter_n Posted March 15, 2007 Share #7 Posted March 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Use the relevant tag for the film of interest on flickr and you should get a goodly number of images. I like XP2 a lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted March 15, 2007 Share #8 Posted March 15, 2007 These chromagenic films seem to benefit from a bit of overexposure (rate at 320 or even 200). Geoffrey Crawley had a recent article in AP which would seem to bear this out - the characteristic curve was much more "tolerant" at the top end than the bottom, so, in theory, you can overexpose a bit to get better shadow details without losing the highlights. The processing then sorts things out at the printing stage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share #9 Posted March 15, 2007 These chromagenic films seem to benefit from a bit of overexposure (rate at 320 or even 200). Geoffrey Crawley had a recent article in AP which would seem to bear this out - the characteristic curve was much more "tolerant" at the top end than the bottom, so, in theory, you can overexpose a bit to get better shadow details without losing the highlights. The processing then sorts things out at the printing stage. Can this be done automatically at the drug store 1 hr processing or will it need to go to a photo lab with special instructions? Thanks, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 15, 2007 Share #10 Posted March 15, 2007 Alan, what's being refered to is the film being shot at 320 (i.e. slightly overexposed) and then processed as normal. So the processing could be done at any 1 hr lab. I've had problems with some shops not accepting XP2 as they think it needs to be somehow processed differently from standard colour negative. This is not the case. To be honest I prefer to use 'normal' b&w films such as FP4 and develop at home, but for anyone wanting to dip their toes in the b&w world the C41 films can be a good introduction. The only 'problem' is that it's sometimes difficult for the lab to give neureal b&w prints - this is a problem with the lab not the film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted March 15, 2007 Share #11 Posted March 15, 2007 I use XP2 successfully. It does need a bit of over exposure compared to Tri-X. I would post some pics but I can't seem to make the system work:mad: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.Morrison Posted March 15, 2007 Share #12 Posted March 15, 2007 I totally agree with all the comments that have been provided and commend those who backed up their statements with photographic proof (and very enjoyable too!). The only thing I can think of to add is that many labs are careless with their handling of film and this is what has caused me to abandon the chromogenics. Very frustrating to have great pics on scratched negs. I have returned therefore to silver and use a custom B&W lab for processing. Robert Morrison, M4-P, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfspencer Posted March 15, 2007 Share #13 Posted March 15, 2007 Very frustrating to have great pics on scratched negs. I have returned therefore to silver and use a custom B&W lab for processing. Robert Morrison, M4-P, etc. I shot a roll of film several weeks ago. Out of 36 shots there were one or two that I thought were pretty good. Guess which ones were scratched. I guess I am going to have to go back to developing my own B&W. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
awoodhall Posted March 15, 2007 Share #14 Posted March 15, 2007 I, too am amazed at the abuse shop-developed C41 film is subject to. Having received a badly-scratched roll from a shop in Cleckheaton, I tried a second semi-pro (but shop-based) lab in West Yorkshire, recently; I specifically selected the "....not laying the film emulsion side up and walking on it with Doc. Martin's" option. Alas, I forgot also to tick the "... keep your sweaty bloody thumb-prints off my negatives" box. Not having ice on my Scanwit meant tedious clone stamp repairs in Photoshop. So I processed a roll of Tmax. No special precautions apart from basics. Lovely clean results. Moral - if you want a job doing properly, etc. etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 15, 2007 Share #15 Posted March 15, 2007 Andrew, Welcome to the forum - like your response At least you didn't go to Jessops and select the 'please take this roll of film from my holiday in Australia, keep me waiting a week with a few different excuses before admitting you've lost it, but then give me a crappy Jessops film in compensation and ignore my letters of complaint' box! Grrrrr:mad: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted March 16, 2007 Share #16 Posted March 16, 2007 OK even though my preference is XP2 here are a couple of shots from Kodak 400BWC chromogenic: 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/18798-c41-bw/?do=findComment&comment=202656'>More sharing options...
bobbyrab Posted March 16, 2007 Share #17 Posted March 16, 2007 Find yourself a lab, or better still a person within a lab you can trust, my experience has been the more automated the system, like C41 process, the less likely they are to muck it up, my lab maintain their machines really well and I never get problems, conventional B&W, being literally more hands on is more likely to end up scratched or water marked. The other great thing with these films is how well they scan, if you're end output is digital, I think they're the way to go. Kodak and Ilford are very similar, with Ilford having the more contrast. 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/18798-c41-bw/?do=findComment&comment=203062'>More sharing options...
colorflow Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share #18 Posted March 16, 2007 Thanks everyone for your input. I am going to try a roll of Kodak 400cn. I used to shoot Tri-X a few years back, but just can't find a lab close by and don't want to wait two weeks for mail order. Speaking of mail order, do they get scanned with high power x-ray at the airport like checked bags? I had 10 rolls of exposed film ruined by checked bag scans. Thanks again, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 16, 2007 Share #19 Posted March 16, 2007 Alan, have you thought about developing yourself at home? Sorry to hear about the films in the checked in baggage, I guess that's the sort of thing you do once :-(. To the best of my knowledge mail order parcels aren't scanned, at least I've never heard of anyone having problems with film bought internationally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PATB Posted March 17, 2007 Share #20 Posted March 17, 2007 I tried the Kodak but prefer XP2. Kodak has much less grain, but I like the contrast of the XP2. My experience so far: Longs Drugs (Kodak and Ilford): Hit or miss. Sometimes good, sometimes massive colorcast. Snapfish (Ilford): Scanning and development of XP2 are good enough. Printing is bad, colorcast. I am going to try Costco next. Have excellent luck with their Noritsu developer/scanner for color with Fuji Superia 400 and high-res scanning. Here's my newbie shot with XP2, Leica MP, 1/15, f2.0, 50mm cron (developed and scanned by snapfish). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.