bscott Posted August 21, 2008 Share #1 Posted August 21, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would like to know your opinion of Kodak's black and white film that develops in C41 compared with B@W that is developed in a developer solution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Hi bscott, Take a look here B@W in C41. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
querstrommotor Posted August 21, 2008 Share #2 Posted August 21, 2008 Greetings from Berlin...., I use both C41 Films regulary, the Ilford XP2 and the Kodak BW 400. The difference between both Films might be the first thing to look at: Ilford XP2 vs Kodak BW 400 -XP2 has more grain than the Kodak -XP2 has more hard contrast than the Kodak, it lacks a bit of tones in the grey range ifyou shoot the film at 400 ASA -Kodak BW is more flexible when it comes to different aperture settings you can handle it between 100 and 800 ASA. The best way is of course to give him 200 - 320 ASA, you get a lot of details in the shadows. If you use the Kodak at 800 ASA, you get more grain and also heavy contrast. It is not the best way to shoot this material, but if you have no other material with you, it is possible to get printable results. -the XP2 has not such a wide range of handling possibilities as the Kodak. -the XP2 has a more real Film Look, the Kodak misses the grain and looks a little bit more synthetic (only a little!!!!) but this material is very sharp - for 400 ASA it is one of the sharpest film on the market. -both materials have a color stitch after beeing developed - so if you want to scan the material, you have to adyust colour saturation on zero, to get B&W. The Ilford Film is printable on real black and white Paper, if yo wanna process the whole thing analog - the Kodak will use colour paper for printing. With analog workflow both materials can not handle different graduation processes. So now you have an idea, what it is all about and also some differences to the conventional B&W Films. The biggest difference is the charakter of the grain, and there the Kodak is more different, than the Ilford. The "grain" of the Kodak material is exactly the same as with colour film, so it is no real grain, as with a TRIX for example. Both materials do not have a strong individual character as if you work out a classic B&W film with a very well adjusted process. BUT!!!!! If you do not use your own developement process and you wanna go for a hybrid workflow - both films a maybe the best way to go. You get alsways the same quality of film developement, even when you use a cheap supermarket-lab. You get perfect scans - both materials are absolutely a dream to work with a scanner. If you like a certain look, you can do your postprocessing on your computer with software like NIK Silver FX Pro - here you can give your pics the look of a nearly every famous B&W Film - and it looks realy stunning. So from that point of view it is absolutely great, that the Kodak has no real grain, a high grey scale, a more soft contrast (shot with 200 ASA) - so you can bring em in nearly any direction. The Ilford has more specific character, so it is not as flexible in your post as the Kodak material. Hope that helps Yours Ekki Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted August 21, 2008 Share #3 Posted August 21, 2008 The Ilford Film is printable on real black and white Paper, if yo wanna process the whole thing analog - the Kodak will use colour paper for printing.Yours Ekki Ekki's post hits all the important points really well. 1-2 things occur to me. Both the Kodak 400CN and the Ilford XP2 can be printed on normal B&W paper. Commercial/consumer labs who still do chemical processing of their prints usually print 400CN on colour paper, and the film has an orange mask which makes it look like colour negative film, and helps make it compatible with colour paper. These labs often do not know what to do with XP2 (at least in North America). The XP2 has little or no mask and looks pretty much like a normal B&W negative. But in a classic wet darkroom, they both make very nice prints on normal silver gelatin paper. Good grain, very sharp and high enlargeable. I have 15x enlargements on the wall from XP2 and they are excellent. I use XP2 mainly, and get very nice results exposing at 200 ASA. When I occasionally use 400CN I also use 200 ASA. This is based on film speed tests based on getting a density of 0.1 for Zone I exposure. This means at 200 ASA I get good printable shadow detail and a rich range of tones. Both films scan very well. Cheers, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 21, 2008 Share #4 Posted August 21, 2008 I only use 400CN in my Barnacks and M2. I expose it at box speed, using Sunny-16 most of the time. Follow the links in my signature to see the results, which, I should add, I am entirely happy with. Conversely, I have tried XP2 a number of times (and XP1 before it) and never really liked it. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted August 21, 2008 Share #5 Posted August 21, 2008 I tried Kodak 400CN once and didn't particularly care for it. As Ekki stated, it just doesn't have the same character as real B&W film. Ilford XP2 Super, however, looks great to my eyes. It scans beautifully and I can use software such as Digital ICE to remove scratches and dust that would take me half an hour in Photoshop with traditional B&W film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
querstrommotor Posted August 22, 2008 Share #6 Posted August 22, 2008 It is really a good thing, that both c41 films ar existing on the market, because they are really different. For some situations the Ilford XP2 is the leader, a situation later it is exactly the other way round. I think both are great films, if you want a hybrid workflow and you have not the experience or possibility in develope film on your on. If you want to ad the character of a real B&W film via software, I like the Kodak a lot more, because this film has not a strong character. If I wnt to have analog prints I like the Ilford more, because the look is more like a real B&W film - sometimes you can process pictures which are extremly near to TRI X - caracter. So I think it is good to have both material in the fridge;-)))) Ekki Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted August 22, 2008 Share #7 Posted August 22, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I still dont understand and maybe someone can explain it to me, if you are scanning and post processing why you would use a c41 b&w. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
querstrommotor Posted August 22, 2008 Share #8 Posted August 22, 2008 If you are just do scan work, you do not need a B&W film, you can also do with colour film, but with the things I have said above (grain, texture - look....). But if you like analogue prints AND the possibility to scan your pics it is a good way... Ekki Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 22, 2008 Share #9 Posted August 22, 2008 I still dont understand and maybe someone can explain it to me, if you are scanning and post processing why you would use a c41 b&w. It's a reasonable question, and for me there are two reasons. Firstly, I've never been able to make colour converted to b&w look right without a lot of fiddling with channels and the like. Even then, it often has a flat, often low contrast look that I don't like and can't get rid of . I am less technical than a coatimundi so perhaps someone else can explain it better in tekky terms, but there is certainly a difference for me. The other reason for me is psychological. If I KNOW that I have b&w film loaded, I visualise in monochrome. My eye is tuned for subjects that will play to the strengths of b&w. If I KNOW I have colour film loaded, the opposite occurs and I visualise in colour. What I CAN'T do is con myself to think in monochrome if I know I have colour film loaded. I have (subjective) proof of this - on the rare occasion that I have forgotten I have loaded colour film, and gone out thinking I was shooting b&w, or vice versa, the pictures tend not to "work". This is a personal thing, of course - others may vary. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
querstrommotor Posted August 22, 2008 Share #10 Posted August 22, 2008 Bill, with your psychological "problem" you are not alone!!!! It is the same with me - if I use the M8 and I want to shoot B&W, I adjust the menues to have RAW(DNG) and JPAG fine in B&W (that is visible on the rear monitor of the cam). I get crazy if I compose a picture in B&W and want to check the composition on the screen - and see a colour pic..... It is the same with film!!!!! If yo wnt to transform a colour negative or slide via a scan into B&W it is not such a big deal - if you want to print colour in B&W I can understand what you mean.... What you miss is the special style of real B&W films - and some of the most interesting films are also not reachable via a well made software. I never will achiev the look of ADOX wit a colour trasformation.... But that was not the question... The question depends on c41 B&W films. With the Kodak there might be only a little difference in scanning the negative in comparison to colour material - with the XP2 film - there will be a lot of difference. And if you wanna print analogue too, there is no better way than using these films. Ekki Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted August 22, 2008 Share #11 Posted August 22, 2008 I think Bill makes an important point above. B&W phptography is a different medium from colour. Hard to explain in words, but they are different (IMHO) fundamentally from an artistic point of view. That impacts on strongly how the mind's eye works before any of the technicalities. Bill thanks for articulating that. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernmelder Posted August 25, 2008 Share #12 Posted August 25, 2008 No clue if it has been said already, but if you want to scan from the negative, XP2 is said to be better. I shot about 15 rolls of XP2 in the past 8 months and really like it so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted August 25, 2008 Share #13 Posted August 25, 2008 I still dont understand and maybe someone can explain it to me, if you are scanning and post processing why you would use a c41 b&w. From what I understand, the 400 speed C41 B&W films have the grain of 100 speed color films (or at least much less grain than 400 speed color films). I find BW400CN to be much smoother than traditional B&W film. It looks good for some shots. It can be nice in portraits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 25, 2008 Share #14 Posted August 25, 2008 One thing that I have found 400CN excels at is metallic surfaces... IIIc, 5cm Elmar. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted August 25, 2008 Share #15 Posted August 25, 2008 The last two posts match my experience, and Bill's picture is a fine example of the character of these films. They are both very smooth and creamy in the mid grey tones. Many think that they compare well with roll film negatives (often stated 6x6 Tri-X in HC110) - that comes from the fine grain, sharpness and smoothness. Another advantage is the C41 processing. Assuming a careful handler, no involvement in what is an exacting but essentially boring job (fine printing is exactly the opposite of boring). Cheers, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.