I have decided to try the C-41 B&W film process and scan the negs to print digitally. However I won't have a scanner for at least a year.If I want to get an enlargement until then I will get it printed traditionally. I hope to accumulate the negatives until then. I've never scanned negs but in color I get the impression some films are a lot easier than others to scan. Since some people like the Kodak T-400CN others the Ilford XP2 and I'm hearing good reviews about Kodaks new Porta C-41 B&W, I'm wondering if anyone has experiences scanning these films. I thought that might make my decision easier.

-- Gerald Widen (gerald@sfa1.com), July 13, 2001

Answers

Gerald,

There are a lot of variables but a lot depends on the hardware and software in question. With my setup (LS2000 + Adobe), I've found that XP2 is the easiest to work with so far. Please see this thread regarding scannability issues of CN & the new BW film from Kodak:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001MtD

-- Shourya Ray (sray@shouryaray.com), July 13, 2001.

XP-2 and T400CN can be printed by custom labs onto traditional B&W paper, and the results are very good. My lab prefers the T400CN becuase they claim the XP-2 emulsion is very soft and easily damaged. (I can vouch for this fact -- you can scratch it easily with a dull fingernail.) I am also told that Portra C-41 WILL NOT print on traditional B&W paper, but it is superior for scanning as it has an extra scratch resistant layer protecting the emulsion. (The information on Kodak's website backs this up.) Seems to me that if the above is all true, you're in for a tough decision!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 13, 2001.

Jack, it seems at least one of the concerns is solved. My local photo store said Ilford has realized the soft imulsion problem with XP2 and has come out with a new XP2 "Super" which has solved the problem. Anyway, bought a roll and will check it out.

-- Gerald Widen (gerald@sfa1.com), July 13, 2001.

Hey great! I had not heard that(?) I preferred the XP-2 to the 400CN, and stopped shooting chromogenic film altogether because of that. (That is until I recently started shooting the new Portra.) Anyway, now I can go back and give XP-2 a try. I learn something new almost every day in this forum. You gotta love it!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 13, 2001.

Whatever improvements Ilford made to XP2 Super, scratch resistance was definitely not one. XP2 Super is wonderful film, but it still scratches easily. It will scratch in a roller transport processor (such as used by a typical minilab) and strips of XP2 Super will scratch just being inserted into and/or removed from a plastic negative page. I wish they would fix it. I love the film but hate to use it as eventually the negs that I want to keep printing are scratched horribly.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

Okay, now I'm bummed out again :-(((

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 13, 2001.

I have been using XP1 and XP2 since it first entered the market and I am now of course using XP2 Super. In that time I have never had scratching problems with home processing and only once with a lab. I have spoken to others who also have never had a scratch problem with XP films. Clearly the processing is important but drying and storage might be more significant.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), July 14, 2001.

Gerald:

I have scanned many negs with a Nikon LS3 and both Ilford and Kodak C- 41 negs work well.

DO NOT, repeat DO NOT try scanning ordinary silver films with that scanner, or in fact many scanners. You will likely get wierd artificacts and they just will not work. The scanners are made for dye-cloud inages.

The scanner instructions do not say anything about this. It is worse with the digital ICE on.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), July 23, 2001.

Can Ilford XP Super 2 be re-fixed in hardening fixer to make it more scratch resistant?

-- Robert Gordon (rgordon@sienahts.edu), September 24, 2001.

Rob Gordon: It might work, but rewetting the film would wash out the 'stabilizer' that is the final step in the C41 processing, which might have its own negative (pardon me) effects. Plus rewetting and redrying the film outside the filtered environment of a C41 machine exponentially increases the potential for dust and other crud taking up permanent residence on the pictures.

I've never probelms with XP2 scratching that would be worth the risks of getting it wet again.

Finally, the C41 stabilizer does have a hardening component, I believe (formaldehyde rather than the acid used in B&W fix).

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 24, 2001.

My B&W processing and printing lab tell me that chromogenic films do not have a long storage life span compared to standard B&W films like Tri-X, HP5+, FP4 etc..They say they (chromo negs, especially Kodak T- 400CN) fade within a couple of years of processing. I dont know if its true, I'll have to wait another year to find that out, but it puts me off using them. They have great tone and latitude, but I would like my negs to last a lifetime. Also, is there an 'ideal' way of storing negs? and what about transporting overseas like if you move countries, any suggestions?

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), September 24, 2001.