Of XP2, T400CN or Portra, which does better when exposed above EI 400. I want to expose it at EI 800 or perhaps as high as EI 1600. I notice that Kodak says its ok to push process the T400CN up to 2 stops in C41, but that Ilford says run XP2 normally no matter what.

I'm hoping someone here can take the experimentation curve and shorten it for me a bit. THANKS!

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 03, 2002

Answers

FWIW do not use Ilford.It prints lousy,its the worst of these films. i use Ilford products but not this one!i have used T400cn and its great.The Portra is aid to be less contrasty.In my opinion,not shared by all you users of "pro" film,for me it means FLAT.Dull. i prefer "amateur" products.at the end its your choice.Try each one before the main shoot.Its only a few dollars.i have never pushed so have no idea what would happen.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

I have used T400cn at +1 and +2, very good resolution, fine grain and medium contrast. Give it a try in a test before you shoot valued shots, I think you will like the results.

-- Richard (wpcdallas@aol.com), May 03, 2002.

If you are already printing your own B&W negs, XP2 works very well on multigrade papers with about a #3 contrast filter. XP2 doesn't like overexposure, though. The others, with orange masks, are more work to print on a simple home darkroom setup. If you're getting commercial prints, ask the lab which they have the most success with. Recent reports on Portra are very positive but I haven't tried it myself. If I felt the need to push B&W a stop or more, I'd stick with something like HP5 or Tri-X.

-- Joe Brugger (jbrugger@pcez.com), May 03, 2002.

Here's another vote for Kodak's T400CN. I can't remember ever having it pushed to 1600 (@ that speed, I'd rather just use Neopan 1600 or Delta 400 pushed 2 stops), but I can say that when shot @ 400 it can give very nice almost grainless negatives that print fine on B&W paper (T400CN no longer has the deep orange mask that it did back when it was 1st introduced in the 1990s).

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), May 03, 2002.

BTW, here's a non-Leica example of a shot taken w/T400CN @ ASA400 & 1950's glass:

Zeiss Ikon Contessa w/Zeiss-Opton Tessar f/2.8 45mm; 1/250 sec. @ f/4, 2x yellow filter.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), May 03, 2002.

I use XP2 for at least half of my b&w work. It is very easy to print in the darkroom with multigrade paper. Portfolio DW is my favorite. XP2 has creamy look to it. Even with overexposure(rate it at 200), XP2 can give great prints, just alot more printing times though. Kodak has had 3 different C-41 films in the last 4 years, not sure if that is bad or good. I don't use the Kodak films.

My only complaint is that any of the b&w C-41 films are very thin and can be easily scratched in a negative carrier if you are not carefull. Learned the hard way a few times.

Grab a 50/f2 Summicron, a M3, and shoot away with XP2.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2002.

I misspoke. XP2 is tolerant of overexposure but doesn't work well when underexposed, as when you're pushing a stop or two. The person who suggested Delta 400 is pointing you in the right direction, but that doesn't help if you want to stick to a C-41 film.

-- Joe Brugger (jbrugger@pcez.com), May 03, 2002.

I use the C41 B&Ws heavily for wedding work because of the work flow for proofing is easier. Lately I've been expermenting with carrying all 3 popular versions and using them in different lighting conditions, T-max 400 CN seems less contrasty, where I find the Illford film to be the opposite and better for duller lighting situations. If you're scanning like I do, it's easy to adjust the curves on either, but I prefer being closer to the desired contrast going in. The Kodak Portra B&W is suppose to be better formulated for scanning, yet I find it a bit more demanding than the CN in terms of exposure lattitude. If, like other regular films, these ones gain contrast when pushed, I'd stick to the CN If you must use a C41 B&W film. If not, I found Pull processing Delta 3200 yeilds amazing results.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 04, 2002.

I have been very happy with TCN400. I tried the XP2 Super, but was not impressed. I think it must depend on the lab. I got to a local Ritz, and in both stores, the results of the Kodak TCN are great. I wasn't impressed with Portra tho'.

If I want fast B&W snapshots, I easily grab TCN. It's worked ok pushed a couple stops, but gets kinda wierd- ghosty/bleedy.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), May 04, 2002.

When Kodak came out with 400CN they sent me 10 rolls to shoot and asked me to get back to them.

My unscientific findings were that the grain is so fine I can barely find something to focus on even at 11x14. Good and bad. Good for super fine grain prints, bad 'cause I like the look that grain gives 35mm work. But every film has its use. Gotta have tools.

Ilford used to say you could shoot its C41 BW at any speed from 200-1600, was that it? Anyway all you got was good negs at 200 and thin negs at 1600. I didn't like it either way.

I found the best CN400 negs were at ASA 200 and that even at 400 they seemed thin. But I look for a full range in my old fashioned silver films so it may just be me. I never did try pushing the film. It is hard to find a lab that will push C41 sometimes.

I have no opinion on the latest versions of these films. I like Tri-X, I'm an old fashioned guy.

-- Neil Swanson (neilsphoto@yahoo.com), May 04, 2002.

I tend to find that XP2 is my default emulsion, but also use T400CN. I would like to see some shots @ 800 as I almost always shoot both at 200. I find that it gives as another post says, a "creamy" look with fine grain and very nice out of focus appearance that nicely complements leica bokeh. Another hint -if you don't develop and print your own, but use a mini lab, then find one that knows how to set up the colour channels properly or you will end up with colour casts which sometimes can look OK (sepia) but more often look cruddy (blue or pink) Also get your lab to print on black and white paper not colour paper. You will get a much better result even tho' it costs a couple of bucks more.

-- Peter (Peterm1@ozemail.com.au), May 04, 2002.

I used Afga APX 100 and 400, superb contrast and fine grain. I like T400cn for super fine grain and easy/fast processing using c-41. I'll trying out XP2 and XP5 to see the difference in emulsion. So far, I love the 400cn for portraiture which I could really enlarge them. APX is still on my favourite list. Check out some of my photos shot with them and judge for yourself. http://www.leica-gallery.net/gregchoong/folder-2419.html

Enjoy.

-- Greg (greg_choong@yahoo.com), May 04, 2002.

Charles:

FWIW, the latest issue #8, April '02, of the British magazine Black and White Photography has a comaprison of 4 C-41 films: T400CN, XP2, Portra and Konica VX400.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), May 04, 2002.

XP2 if you want to print in a real B&W darkroom. 400CN or Portra if you want machine made prints on color paper. (yuck!) Thats what the Kodak films are made for - cheap pseudo B&W. Portra in particular is -not- for printing on B&W papers. Any of the above if you want to scan them. XP2 is the most tolerant of exposure errors and will produce wonderful prints if you can do your part. I think your results will suffer if you push any of these films. Are you sure you need the speed? If so then try Delta 3200 at 1250ish.

-- Henry Ambrose (henry@henryambrose.com), May 05, 2002.