C41 B&W negative

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Understand that C41 films can be developed and printed by normal one-hour photo shops. Can you be kind enough to share your experience on using this kind of film - is the print normally not up to the standard of films requiring special B&W developers? Which would you recommend (C41, ASA 400)? I plan to have the films developed and printed by the one-hour photo shop and then check the effect, then have the best shoot be enlarged by a professional lab. later, I think this can save some cost, does it make sense? Thanks for your advice.

-- tom tong (tom.tong@ckh.com.hk), November 04, 2001

Answers

IMHO C41 is better than conventional film in grain, sharpness, and latitude. I usually prefer to shoot at EI=250 for increased shadow detail.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 04, 2001.

Tom - I am a big fan of Ilford XP2 Super. The Super is much improved over the older formulation standard XP2. There is plenty of exposure latitude, fine grain and a wonderful 'creamy' effect with the midtones. As for speed it is only available in 400 ASA which is perfect for standard use. Of Kodak's C41 B&W film I cannot comment.

Regarding processing I use a pro lab in London to process and contact print the film - I then print the selected enlargements myself. I would recommend using a pro lab for processing as in my experience 1 hour type labs are less careful resulting in scratched and poorly developed negs.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), November 04, 2001.


I have good luck with them--better than trying to get regular black & white film done these days (if you do not have access to a darkroom like me). What's nice is that the developing is pretty well controlled, and the proofs are decent if the lab is any good, and its very inexpensive compared to sending B&W film out to a quality "hand done" type of lab. Then you can always have a custom B&W enlargement from your best shot done on conventional B&W paper by a custom lab.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 04, 2001.

Well, regarding prices in London - a typical high street lab charges £8 ($12) to process & print to 7x5 a 36 exp film. A pro lab (Metro in W1 - as used by many a pro/media person) charges around £11 ($16.50) to process & contact. The choice is yours.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), November 04, 2001.

Hi, Tom:

I did exactly what you plan to do and Bill's opinion very accurately summarizes my own.

I still relay on a lab to print my pictures but thanks to a friend's unexpected and impresive good will (he gave me an enlarger, believe it or not . . .!) I'll soon begin printing the negs I get from my usual 1-hour lab.

As for the results, you can have a look on my first attempt to upload my XP2 pictures to Photo.Net and on a latter one that shows the wide range of applicability of this film.

I have also tried Kodak similar film and did noticed some subtle differences but still prefer XP2 better.

In short: I'd strongly recommend to go ahead with your idea.

Good luck, Tom. Enjoy it !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), November 04, 2001.



The word on these films seems to be that Kodak is better if you're going to have all prints made on color paper, which is what you would get if you use a conventional one-hour or color lab. This is because the Kodak C-41 B&W films have an orange mask, as do color negative films, to make them print better on color paper. The Ilford XP-2 Super has no mask and is better for making prints on regular B&W paper. It is probably the best film made in 35mm format, and will make a 16x20 print that most people will find hard to distinguish from medium format.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), November 04, 2001.

BTW: I buy XP2 in 100ft rolls and have it cut into 36 exp rolls at the same store. It makes an interesting difference in final costs . . .

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), November 04, 2001.


Ivan, I like the "first attempt" photos - they are really black and white whilst the "latter one" have a colour casting which I feel not that good.

-- tom tong (tom.tong@ckh.com.hk), November 04, 2001.

I've been quite happy with the Kodak TMAX CN400 (I think it's called) and my local one-hour lab (Fuji owned "Ritz"), which I've used exclusively the last few years. The prints I've gotten back are sharp, contrasty and with only the slightest color cast. Not too shabby for 1 hr lab work.

I found earlier versions of XP2 kind of finicky- strong color cast, and images didn't seem very sharp but rather foggy or flarey. Also, the neg. scratches easily (as did earlier batches of CN400 I used).

I'm going to try the XP2 again, as I understand it's much improved lately. For some reason I seem to think that my lab prints C41 B&W on B&W paper (thus dealing with the color cast), but I'm not 100% sure. I've also a roll of the Kodak Portra C41 B&W- but I understand that for best results you need to use Portra paper in color chemistry. A bit complicated.

I agree that using this for proofs coupled with a pro lab for enlargements makes sense. People love B&W, and it's great to have it so accessible now.

Anyone know what the archival characteristics of these chromogenic B&W films are compared to conventional B&W?

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), November 04, 2001.


What are chromogenic B&W films? Forgive me for asking this stupid question as I am totally new to B&W photography. I am also keen to know the difference between chromogenic and conventional B&W film.Thanks for all the advices.

-- tom tong (tom.tong@ckh.com.hk), November 04, 2001.


Giles (or anyone else),

I was wondering how the C-41 b/w films are when printed on regular b/w paper in your darkroom. Lately i've been scanning all of my negs straight into a computer and the T400CN ones look great. I'd like to get back into the darkroom to make some real prints, however, and I was wondering how they work.

thanks, john

-- john locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), November 04, 2001.


John - again I can only speak for Ilford XP2 Super. I use an old Meopta Axomat enlarger with Nikkor Lens printing through Multigrade filters onto Ilford Multigrade IV Rc Pearl paper. Probably 90 % of prints are done at grade 3. This gives a fine contrast range and as mentioned earlier a wonderful creamy range of midtones. I have also found the prints respond very well to tinting. I once dabbled with Tri-x but found printing rather difficult and extremly contrasty even on grade 1!

These type of condensor enlargers do tend to show up any scratches and dust so you do need to be careful. However, in my humble experience a keen amateur with simple equipment (my darkroom cost around £100 to set up) and care can rival many a pro lab for results and will certainly better any machine printed set-up. I would advise anyone who's a Leica B+W nut and has not printed before to give it a go - it's great fun and not difficult!

I wouldn't wish to put down all 1 hr labs but believe me when your carefully created and tresured work is scratched to hell by a ignorant machine operator you will feel differently. This also happened to me in a pro lab too! But the lab staff were extremly apologetic, they printed the negs, retouched the prints created a new set of negatives and then hand-printed a run of fibre paper 16x12 prints at no cost! Try getting that at the local 'Super Quicky Snap Shop'!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), November 05, 2001.


Dave:

It is probably the best film made in 35mm format, and will make a 16x20 print that most people will find hard to distinguish from medium format.

Interesting because I just did this test for the hell of it. Compared Tri-X from a Blad and XP2 from an M6. Same scene. I could tell the difference at 5 x 7. The Tri-X had much more snap. The XP2 [which is much better than XP1] had a muddy appearance. I only went to 11 x 14 but there was no comparison.

C41 is easy to process yourself. It will give you better consistancy than even the best pro lab [at least in my experience].

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), November 05, 2001.


Chromogenic = C-41.

-------

What are chromogenic B&W films?

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), November 05, 2001.


Chris; it is a B&W film that is C-41 procesed.

I have begin to use it and find it very convenient, specialy if you don´t have a dark room at hand, I like my Tri-X grain a lot, and wonder if this kind of negatives can last as much as silver ones.

Ivan, buying XP2 bulk film is a lot os saving.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 05, 2001.



I've recently started using XP-2 Super. What I'm wondering about is its exposure latitude. If, on the same roll I shoot shots rated at 100, 200, 400 and 800, and the film gets processed at 400 (since mini-labs don't push or pull) will the prints still be usable. I had read something to this effect but didn't quite believe it.

I've tried shooting at 400 and 800 on the same roll and the results weren't quite what I had read about. It could have also been poor prints at the mini-lab since I didn't tell them that I had shot the film on two ratings.

Any input? If it works, its the closest thing to digital film's advantage over traditional -- being able to change ISO's mid-roll.

Are there any color films that have the same latitude. I shoot Kodak's Supra 400 and Portra 400, Fuji's Superia 800 and 1600, and I don't think I can get a full stop push or pull.

-- victor (danzfotog@yahoo.com), November 05, 2001.


Hi, Tom:

Please excuse the delay in answering to you: I wasn`t in touch with my computer today.

The "real" B&W photos an the other ones were made the same way except that the others were printed in sepia tone by the lab. That's what they generally do. The brownish colour is called sepia II (by my lab at least, they have other tones too; I remenber a blueish one, for instance). To print them in real B&W takes longer for them because they have to specifically adjust the filters in their machine so that they do it only after everything else is over. Fortunately they don't charge extra for it.

In your case, you should ask the people at your local lab to show you the different tones they have available for printing XP2 negatives and choose the one you prefer. If you are lucky enough they will print B&W with less problems than they do here.

Of course, the preference for brown sepia or B&W is just a matter of individual taste. In fact, I like very much some examples of brownish photos like these ones which are based on XP2 negatives too.

I hope my contribution could be of any help regarding your original question.

Best regards, Tom. Post your results once available . . . I'd like to hear from you and most possibly many other friends do too.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), November 05, 2001.


Me again:

I'm sorry. I just read my previous answer and remembered that it is not true that they don't charge extra for real B&W: they have to change the paper roll in their machine by real B&W paper (the normal one is colour print paper) and they DO charge extra to do that (some 25% app). The "B&W sepia" (not quite B&W but almost . . . I don't like it) is the one at no extra charge.

Still true that you should check the tones available.

Cheers

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), November 05, 2001.


I have my first roll of C41 film (Kodak 400CN)back just now. I shot at ASA 800 and it was processed (1 stop push) by a 1-hour lab and printed on colour paper. The result is very....DISAPPOINTING! Very little contrast, muddy. Grain is OK. I will try to reprint some photos in conventional B&W paper to see if the paper matters and try one more roll and get another lab to do the job to see if the lab matters. I have tried TMAX 400 and the result was found very satisfactory. Is the 400CN negative scan well to give a real B&W result in the computer monitor and subsequent printouts?

-- tom tong (tom.tong@ckh.com.hk), November 05, 2001.

One more question - will the result be better (and the negative scan better) if the film is developed by conventional B&W developer? I mean for C41 film.

-- tom tong (tom.tong@ckh.com.hk), November 05, 2001.

Tom, the 400 CN will indeed give much better prints on conventional b&w paper than on colour paper from most mini-labs. It is, in my experience, a low contrast film that needs a boost from a high contrast b&w-paper. My best results have been on graded fiber paper, grade 3 Emaks to be more specific. You should not attempt to develop the film in ordinary b&w chemistry.

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), November 06, 2001.

You probably had dissappointing results because you underexposed the film. This stuff likes to be over exposed better than underexposed.

Your results also depends on whether or not your lab has experience with C-41 black and white films.

-- Tristan (tristan@tristantom.com), November 06, 2001.


Tom - you seem to be misguided regarding the exposure rating etc. XP2 like most C41 film (ie colour negative) has an inherent built in exposure latitude of -1 to +2 or +3 stops. This allows it to be rated at 200 to 1600 ASA and still give perfectly acceptable prints (from a GOOD mini-lab or any pro lab or home amateur). It is not 'push processed' during processing, just processed as normal. Push/pull processing is only really applicable to conventional B+W film or transparencies.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), November 06, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ