In case some other chromogenic film fans haven't seen this yet. I thought it was worth posting.

Regards and have B&W fun.

-Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 20, 2001

Answers

Thanks, Ivan.

Quite interesting. I hope some serious users will comment here...

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), July 20, 2001.

I would have to agree with most everything in the article. I've never liked the Ilford C-41 b/w films. T400CN has given me some great results in the past and is fairly easy to print from onto regular b/w paper. But recently I was on a vacation and soma friends asked me to shoot some b/w photo of them. I didn't feel like shooting Delta 100 and having to print the photos myself. So I told them to buy some Kodak Black & White+ (which is the "Select" in the article). And I was very suprised at how little color tinting there was in the prints done at the local CVS 1-hour lab. I did feel like they were a little more contrasty than the T400CN stuff though. But that might have been my imagination.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), July 20, 2001.

I have used chromogenic B&W film since the early-mid eighties. The first was Agfa Vario-XL, soon followed by Ilford XP-1. Agfa soon exited the chromogenic film business, but Ilford improved their efforts. I do not shoot chromogenic film exclusively, but it allows for much easier processing. I like all the current materials, and am testing Kodak Portra now. I find a great variation in processing by the one hour labs. Some do a fine job, others, not so good.

-- David Page (pagedt@attglobal.net), July 20, 2001.

I agree with Josh: I don't care for Ilford's XP2 Super, (although HP5+ is my standard silver based film). I also agree that Kodak's chromogenic stuff gives much better results. I've shot a fair bit of the 400CN and there is a lab in my area that prints it on an Agfa machine and Agfa paper. They can correct for the color tinting very well, I get very good grays. Of course the film renders remarkable detail. Also, they will give you a "sepia" tone that everybody thinks is very cool and I have asked in the past for them to crank up the blue tones a bit when I thought a colder tone would look good.

It's fun stuff.

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), July 20, 2001.

Interesting:

I remember when XP-1 first came on the market. I shot about 8 or 10 rolls using a IIIf. I had half developed by a professional lab and did the other half myself. I would say it [at the time of introduction] was the worst film that I have ever used. It cured me of using it.

That was a long time ago. Maybe when I am not doing something important to me [that's for TX and Delta], I will try it again.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 20, 2001.

Ditto. Almost made me throw up. I swore off it. Maybe I'll give the Porta a try. But I'll keep a little bag handy, just in case ;-)

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 20, 2001.

XP-2+ has a longer scale, finer grain, sharper detail, and better lattitude than any non-chromogenic ISO 400 film. Judging it by the quality of machine prints on color paper is inappropiate. Printed on true B&W paper the results can be breath taking, particularly in one's own darkroom, which is where the true test should be.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 20, 2001.

Bill:

As to my statement concerning XP-1; it was printed on black and white paper. When I get time, I will try the newer versions. Maybe they are better; still maybe I won't like them as well as you. We will have to wait and see. :)

When I get time; oh well.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 20, 2001.

I haven't been shooting any of these lately, although I've run a few (i.e. less than a dozen) rolls of both XP2 and 400CN through my camera. I like them. In fact, I'll probably run through some more as soon as I finish my current personal project. I wonder about longevity, though. I seem to remember a "horror story" about XP2 and other chromogenic film fading faster than a regular color print. Anyone have any problems with fading or is it just another myth?

-- Eric Platt (ericplatt@aol.com), July 20, 2001.

Because the image is a dye cloud (as with color negative film) and not silver grains (as with conventional B&W), the chromogenics are not as archival. However, I keep my negatives in the dark, and I haven't seen any fading. I doubt that I will in my lifetime. Which chromogenic you use depends a lot on whether you are having a lab print your images on 4X6 color paper, or whether you scan or print yourself. I do the latter, and much prefer XP-2, because the negative is easier to work with (no orange masking.) You do need to find a decent lab. The average one-hour joint can get away with dirty negatives, because no one enlarges past 4X6. Chromogenics give you 400 speed with the grain of 100 speed conventional films. The film has tremendous latitude, and the highlights never seem to block up. I thought the referenced article didn't have a lot of application for someone doing their own printing.

-- Phil Stiles (stiles@s-way.com), July 20, 2001.

I've been shooting with the chromogenics since they first came out. The Agfa and Ilford products were designed to be printed on B&W papers. When Kodak entered the market, they designed their offerings to be printed on color papers.

Since I use a film scanner rather than an enlarger, the difference is inconsequential to me. Any of these films scans beautifully and allows the use of ICE with scanners so equipped for dust reduction.

I find the tonal quality and mid-range separation of XP2 Super superior to that of T400CN. It stands over-exposure a bit better too, allowing one more ability to flatten the contrast as needed. T400CN is a bit more contrasty and handles underexposure better. B&W Select is very forgiving, even if it is not quite the equal of T400CN in shadow detail. I haven't tried Portra yet.

My favorite B&W film is Ilford Delta 100 still, but I use XP2 Super and T400CN an increasing amount of the time.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), July 20, 2001.

Try T400CN at 1250 pushed 2 stops. Works a treat.

Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 21, 2001.

Regarding TCN, PJ's, and M6's, see also http://washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/photo/galleries/essays/090800.htm

-- Wayne C. Lee (wlee@s.psych.uiuc.edu), July 21, 2001.

Yeah, I like TCN too, but the new Portra prints so well at the mini- lab, that I have switched to it. I agree that the TCN has better shadow detail, though we are splitting hairs. Unfortunately, the chromogenics still do not give the shadow detail of the newer silver- based emulsions, but they are sooooo convenient!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 21, 2001.

Jack:

Unfortunately, the chromogenics still do not give the shadow detail of the newer silver- based emulsions, but they are sooooo convenient!

I need an explanation for that one. I develop all of my own film and I don't consider the color regime less trouble than b & w. For me it says, less control, more temperature control, unstable chemicals and lower quality images [as you have noted]. What a deal.

As I have said, I haven't tried the newer versions. I will when I get a chance and then I will have an informed opinion. At present I don't. Particularly, scanning properties.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 21, 2001.

Sorry, but I don't buy that XP-2+ gives less shadow detail than conventional ISO 400 films.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 21, 2001.

Re: sooo convenient - this is in the sense that you can drop chromogenic B&W films off at the corner 1-hour lab - a boon for people who don't have the time, space, skills, or inclination to do their own processing (NOTE THE 'OR'!! - I'm not implying ALL or MOST chromogenic users lack skills!!!). CG films ARE more of a pain to process yourself than silver negs.

One other chromogenic 'weirdness' - XP2 has less grain in the highlights and MORE in the shadow areas (due to dye-cloud technology)

Personally I think they aren't bad - nice (lack of) grain at 250 or so and they're own distinctive tonality. But I went back to conventional silver process because I shoot B&W expressly for home processing - if I'm going to the trouble, time, and expense of lab processing, I at least want to get color images out of it - I can always change them to B&W in Photoshop if needed. Plus my C-41 chemistry always went bad between sessions - at least DD-X and Rapid Fix will wait for you.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 22, 2001.

When I started this thread I didn't expect it would evolve so interesting thanks to everybodys contributions. I have learned a lot from all of them but still I miss graphic examples of what results could be obtained from the different choices explained for. Since I'm just starting to learn about chromogenic films and their capabilities I'm taking the risk of showing here and here (black and white examples only, of course) what could be obtained just for starters. These are crude (and I mean crude!) results obtained by scanning 1-hour lab 6x9cm prints from XP2 negatives using an inexpensive table top scanner (UMAX Astra 600S in my case)and Microsoft Photo Editor as a software tool to do it. Autobalance only was used because of my lack of time to learn how to do anything better yet. In fact some timid attemps were done to improve results using the other tools in the software but my inexperience quickly made me go back to auto... In summary, I think it could show potential users what to expect as a start for them to evaluate whether it would be worth to take the plunge. But more experienced users' examples could help us see the way to go. Certainly thousands examples are in Photo.Net but dedicated ones could be far more didactic, I think. Thanks in advance for contributions. We all will have fun. -Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 22, 2001.

Oops ! Lets see now: here and < href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=135262">here I hope this time it works . . . -Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 22, 2001.

Third and last time. If i'm not able to do it this time you will have to copy/paste the address if you want to get there

Sorry about the incovenience. -Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 22, 2001.

Art:

I have not shot the new XP2+, so cannot comment on it... BUT, old XP2, TCN400 and Portra 400 DO NOT give me the shadow detail I get from Delta 400, especially when pulled. I find even Tri-X better in the shadows when pulled. If the chromogenics do provide better shadow detail for you, I'd like to know the specifics of your processing. I have shied away from XP2 because of its (extremely) soft emulsion layer. And I understand from an earlier post that XP2+ is still very scratch prone.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 22, 2001.

Andy:

The ability to get acceptable B&W images in a couple of hours from the mini-lab is precisely the point I was making. NOT that they are somehow more convenient to process... However, with an automated JOBO C41 is pretty easy :-)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 22, 2001.

Jack, Set camera to ISO 200 (same as I do with Tri-X), put exposure on "P," drop off film at neighborhood Wolf Camera for develop and print, select negatives to print on Agfa Multicontrast process in Ansco 130. Great shadow detail; highlights sometimes require burning in. Lord knows how great they'd look doped in Amidol.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 22, 2001.

Bill:

I don't have a "P" on my M. But I get the idea...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 22, 2001.

Jack: Sorry if I garbled myself - I meant to agree with your statement about convenience via the 1-hour lab. ...and to agree with art's statement about less convenience for self-processing. Both are correct.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 22, 2001.

I shot one roll each of XP2 Super and 400TCN last week with the same camera(IIIc)and had both rolls processed at my usual lab, which does excellent work, on successive days. The Ilford was so much better to the point that I felt something was wrong. I assume that both products have to be comparable based on the reputation of the companies and the even split here. After talking to the person running the machine (she was a pro for a number of years) I came to the realization that these films shouldn't be judged when printed on color paper because of the small amount of color in the negatives and slight diffenences in the chemicals from day to day. She showed me the same photographs printed on color paper and traditional B&W in a traditonal darkroom.What a difference.I think this is the reason why some people hate one film and love the other and why some labs refuse to process the stuff. I must of been lucky with the Ilford this time. I was impressed though. The detail in the shadows was excellent even in the areas that grauated to almost black. I shot a lot of the film in the sun and there was detail in the bright areas also.The overall contrast and look was good. You can't really tell from 4X6 prints but the film appeared very sharp.

-- Gerald Widen (gerald@sfa1.com), July 23, 2001.