XP2 and 400CW

[misterb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

this is my first thread in this forum.

I'm an M6 user, still loving the film photography.

I've always used TMAX, TRIX DELTA400 and developed in my darkroom,but I have never used Ilford XP2 and Kodak 400CW. Now for some reason I'd like to try them.

I'm used to print on Ilford Multrigade FB paper.

Here is the question: I read that the base coulor of these films is slightly reddish/pink. Does this affect in any way the results of the print on multigrade paper, in other words does the film colour work as a grade filter?

Does anyone have any experience about this issue? Did you get good results?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Stefano

 

Feel free to have a look to my pictures and write comments

http://flickr.com/photos/mister_b/sets/

[Michael Hiles]

The Kodak film looks like colour negative film - it has an orange colour that looks like the colour mask of colour negative film. The Ilford negatives look pretty much like regular B&W negatives. Oddly, in both cases it is more difficult to identify the emulsion side of the negative than for silver-based film, but this does not much matter. They also lay very flat. So far as I can tell, there is no link between the colour of the negative base and the use of the multigrade filters.

 

My experience in printing (on Ilford's FB Multigrade paper) is that exposure times are longer than for silver-based film. That does not bother me, since I am never in a rush. And I can fine-tune a 1 minute exposure better that a 10 second exposure, so I tend to like longer exposures anyway. They both print beautifully on the Ilford paper, and also on Zone VI Brilliant, and I speculate that they should do very well on all papers.

 

Also (my opinion) the Ilford (my preference) has a very smooth quality that I like. It used to be said that XP2 in a 35mm camera looks like it was exposed in a 6x6 camera. Some may argue, but the assertion has some merit. The greys are very smooth and creamy, with very little sense of grain, and (when conditions are ideal - tripod, best focus and exposure) the images are very sharp. The Kodak film has quite similar characteristics. I like the Ilford a bit better.

 

The processing ease and consistency is, for me, a big plus. Almost any place will do a creditable and inexpensive job, (assuming they are marginally competent and do not scratch the film), so that is a variable removed. It lets me concentrate on the picture, and avoid physics and chemistry.

 

Good luck.

[misterb]

Thanks a lot, very helpful.

 

I'll start trying these films soon.

 

Stefano

 

Feel free to have a look to my pictures and write comments

http://flickr.com/photos/mister_b/sets/

[mark_goode]

Thanks a lot, very helpful.

 

I'll start trying these films soon.

 

Stefano

 

Feel free to have a look to my pictures and write comments

Mister_B's photosets on Flickr

Stefano,

 

I use Kodak's BW400CN, a black and white film that is developed using the C41 process. It has been greatly improved in the last year or so. I get it developed at a lab down the street and then scan them. Here's a couple of pics I took with my M7 using this film: Here's to life! on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Reflections on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

BTW, I checked out your images on the Flickr site; very nice work.

 

Regards,

 

Mark

[abrewer]

Welcome Stefano, Michael and Mark!!!

 

 

This is so obvious as to be painful, but I just want to point out again to Stefano that the XP2 and Kodak films he mentions are both C41 process...which I assume you're not doing at home.

 

XP2 is more contrasty in my hands. I've posed some photos to the Photo Forum with it in the last year that make this pretty obvious:

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/landscape-travel/8214-fountain-square-cincinnati.html

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/landscape-travel/8216-zinzinnati-eyeing-you.html

 

Question for my own curiosity about FB...why are you not using resin-coated papers instead? The fiberboard sure soaks up the water. Just curious.

 

Thanks.

 

Allan

[mark_goode]

Allan,

 

I've found Kodak's film to be sufficiently contrasty . . . if the lab processes it correctly (;-p) If not, there's always Photoshop! Having said that, it sounds like I should give Illford's product another try. Thanks for the tip.

 

Mark

[innerimager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wonderful images there Allan. I have the 50/1.4 asph and the XP2, and hope to be able to put out such quality with them. best...Peter

[boilerdoc]

I love both films BUT, if doing my own darkroom work I prefer the Ilford because it doesn't have the orange base. The orange base seems to make it tougher adjusting filtration during printing. Nearly grainless and the more exposure you give them the more grainless they are. Weird, huh?

Steve

[lesliefeng]

Stefano,

 

I use Kodak's BW400CN, a black and white film that is developed using the C41 process. It has been greatly improved in the last year or so. I get it developed at a lab down the street and then scan them. Here's a couple of pics I took with my M7 using this film: Here's to life! on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Reflections on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

BTW, I checked out your images on the Flickr site; very nice work.

 

Regards,

 

Mark

 

Nice picture, I also like BW400CN, it is easy to scan because you can use ICE for BW400CN as a color neg film, sometimes I rate it as 200 to get more contrasty pics.

[StS]

My experience in printing (on Ilford's FB Multigrade paper) is that exposure times are longer than for silver-based film. That does not bother me, since I am never in a rush. And I can fine-tune a 1 minute exposure better that a 10 second exposure, so I tend to like longer exposures anyway. They both print beautifully on the Ilford paper, and also on Zone VI

 

My experience is the same. Anyhow, a good hand print takes 30-60 mins, but maybe I'm slow. In the end the colour of the XP2 carrier material doesn't seem to influence the grade filtering

 

I can't comment on the Kodak, I grew up on Ilford chemistry. Since multigrade paper is common (much more practical in my view rather than storing stacks of different grade paper), I would assume Kodak took care of this point as well.

 

In a way I abandoned processing my own films some time ago due to lack of time and interest (the miracle of the appearing image as seen on paper is invisible for obvious reasons). Any industrialized C41 should probably be better controlled than most home developments.