innerimager Posted March 29, 2007 Share #1 Posted March 29, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am starting to learn darkroom work from a very experienced pro B&W printer. He has never worked with chromogenic film for making prints, but we know it's preferable for B&W scans allowing use of ICE. His question, and mine, is whether it's possible to make excellent B&W prints form this film, and if so what brand/types are recommended? If I can start with such a film that allows me to explore both printing and scanning the same negatives in less time, that would be great. But at least while learning, if the quality of standard B&W film is better for printing, I'd rather go that way. Thanks a lot....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Hi innerimager, Take a look here chromogenic for wet B&W printing?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted March 29, 2007 Share #2 Posted March 29, 2007 Peter, XP2 doesn't have an orange base - it looks like a 'normal' b&w film - that may make printing easier. I seem to remember that the Kodak equivalent does have the orange base you'd normally get in a colour negative film, but I'm not totally sure on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted March 29, 2007 Author Share #3 Posted March 29, 2007 Steve- who makes XP2? thanks....Peter never mind, can't beat google speed! http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/XP2SGB_QX.pdf thanks again, it looks promising....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 29, 2007 Share #4 Posted March 29, 2007 I am starting to learn darkroom work from a very experienced pro B&W printer. He has never worked with chromogenic film for making prints, but we know it's preferable for B&W scans allowing use of ICE. His question, and mine, is whether it's possible to make excellent B&W prints form this film, and if so what brand/types are recommended? If I can start with such a film that allows me to explore both printing and scanning the same negatives in less time, that would be great. But at least while learning, if the quality of standard B&W film is better for printing, I'd rather go that way. Thanks a lot....Peter Peter, I use Ilford XP2 almost exclusively, and I think it is great. It is sharp, fine grained, and I think the middle greys are smooth and creamy. Not everyone likes that, but I do. It prints as well as normal B&W films. I print on Ilford fiber-based multigrade and I think the paper is also great. XP2 and other chromogenics have some intersting advantages. It is processed in C41, along with colour negative material. So processing can be done by an external lab very quickly and cheaply. And quality should be uniform. Push processing does not seem to be useful, I believe, so that is another variable gone. The final negative is not sliver based, which means that a light diffusion syndrome called the callier effect does not happen. This is an effect where columated light from a condenser enlarger is scattered by silver grains, causing the projected image to have a different contrast curve than the negative. It means that the print will have some degradation of darker tones, resulting in poor shadow reproduction. Printing for good shadows results in blocked highlights. This problem does not occur with diffusion enlargers, but with XP2 and other chromogenic films, it does not happen at all. Some people do not think this matters - I do. It is also good to understand that while these films have some leeway, they do have an ideal film speed. When I tested, XP2 is best at 200 ISO. This is the speed at which Zone I (4 stops below middle grey) produces some detail on the negative. The rated 400 does not give enough density on the negative to produce good shadow detail. Lower ISO ratings (100, 50) give thicker negatives with lots of shadow detail, and (apparently) finer grain. But I think 200 produces the best negatives, and is a nice balance that allows usable lens opening and shutter speed combinations in many situations. Lastly, I find the XP2 scans well. I scan all my negatives as part of my archive and retrieval process, and I use photoshop as a test environment to see what I would do in the darkroom with respect to contrast, burning/dodging, edge burning, local manipulations etc. You can then make a plan for your printing session, and save paper and money, since you know where you are going. Scanning also produces a "proof", since you can adjust the scan and use the software to see what is on the negative and what may be possible without a more tedious process in the darkroom. When you do go to the darkroom, you have a plan and know where you are going, and the wall-worthy print comes faster and with more confidence. Most of this also applies to the Kodak chromogenic films, which I have used successfully, on occasion. I did not plan to write this much. Likely you did not plan to read this much either. All the best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted March 29, 2007 Author Share #5 Posted March 29, 2007 My goodness Michael- thank you very much. You may not have intended to write so much, but I need to read all I possibly can as I begin the journey. This incredibly informative and helpful response speaks not only to your generosity with sharing your knowledge, but to the best of what these forums offer. It's like a 24 hour/day graduate school! I especially appreciate your advise about exposing at 200 ISO. I am after denser prints, and this probably saved me a lot of time before eI, if ever, appreciated this aspect of the film. Again, thanks....Peter PS- Have you tried the XP2 "super" as well as XP2. Ilford describes it has having a wider dynamic range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 29, 2007 Share #6 Posted March 29, 2007 Peter, More than welcome. In fact, I am now using XP2 Super. I think the Super version was an update, and I doubt you would find the "non-super" version for sale. And could anyone resist someting called "Super"... Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 29, 2007 Share #7 Posted March 29, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Peter, Ilford XP2 super is the current version of the film. Remember that if you overexpose by rating the film at 200 you'll get denser _negatives_. I've never had much success rating XP2 at 200 - all I had was overexposed prints :-) - but enough people have recommended it that it's well worth trying. Personally I prefer traditional silver films such as Tri-X or FP4, but make up your own mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted March 30, 2007 Author Share #8 Posted March 30, 2007 so- do all chromogenic (C-41) films employ the same chemicals and times in developing? Any suggestions as to researching this? thanks again....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r_smith Posted March 30, 2007 Share #9 Posted March 30, 2007 Peter the whole point of chromogenics like XP2 is that they are designed to be C41 processed, which is standard the world over - same chemicals, same times, same process. I think the film labs and manufacturers back in the '70s hoped that they could do away with silver B/W and standardise the whole process for negative films. It didn't quite work out like that, because there were enough stubborn amateurs and picky pros to keep good old HP5 and Tri-X going strong. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted March 30, 2007 Author Share #10 Posted March 30, 2007 Thanks John I thought that was the case. Meanwhile, I will look into C41 while staying open to picky and stubborn applications of traditional film. I didn't decide to add film to my digital photography just to make things easy for myself! On the subject, do you view the process as sufficiently standardized and reproducible that the results would be similar enough from any lab so that convenience is the only criterion? Does it pay to develop C41 yourself? Does it pay to get a particular lab? thanks again. best....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 30, 2007 Share #11 Posted March 30, 2007 C41 is a standard process, same chemistry and times for every film. However you are still relying on the lab having fresh chemistry and taking care of the film - i.e. no scratches. Personally I don't think it's worthwhile processing C41 at home - it has to be done at a higher and more consistant temperature than b&w. I can get C41 develop only - no prints for £1.99 in the UK. One issue you may have if you go to a 1hr lab is persuading the shop staff that it's safe to put the film in the standard colour chemistry. It is of course, but some staff don't seem to know that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted March 30, 2007 Share #12 Posted March 30, 2007 XP2 is the best in my experience - certainly better than Neopan C41 B&W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.Morrison Posted March 31, 2007 Share #13 Posted March 31, 2007 I have used various chromogenic B&W films for years. The C41 processing is convenient but find a good lab that won't scratch your film. The films have enormous latitude so pushing or pulling is not necessary. Contrast is generally poor. Whereas I usually wind up printing a normally exposed silver halide film at approx. grade 2, I often print a normally exposed chromogenic at grade 3.5. Enlarger exposure times are also very long. A dense neg. will take an eternity. They are beautifully fine-grained but tend to look mushy at 16"x20" or larger though this suits certain portraits quite well (sometimes). Robert Morrison, M4-P, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted March 31, 2007 Author Share #14 Posted March 31, 2007 thanks Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.