View Full Version : Recommended film (C41)B&W & colour
Hi all,
Can you recommend 2 negative films for me? :)
Or just advise your favourites.!
Bear in mind that the photography stores here in Ireland aren't great, so nothing too rare. I've been to over 4 photography stores and none have ND filters, 100 ASA colour film etc.
Digital P&S are taking over!!
1. Colour, max 200 ASA.
I've been using Kodak Gold 200. It's not bad, sometimes a lot grainier than I'd expect.
2. C41 B&W. I've only seen Ilford XP2 here
400 would be Ok if it's not too grainy. Haven't tried, miatakenly bought some Tmax 100 thinking it would was C41.
Thanks!! :D
Nick
I don't have a huge experience, but do have a few ideas:
Colour:
Fuji Superia 100/200. Now, the colours are 'consumer' (i.e. bright and appealing as opposed to 100%accurate), but the quality has always been good for me. And, if you shop around, you can get it VERY cheap. Here in London, I know a shop (Calumet), which sells 36exp rolls for only ~£1.20 a roll, so check the 'net.
Kodak High definition is more expensive, but really does what it says on the packet. Grain is finer than an ISO 200 film has any right to be.
As for C41 B&W, I've only used XP2, but it fits the bill for me, and the 400 speed is handy.
Hope this helps,
David
I have been shooting Ilford XP2 400 since they came out with it and before that I shot Ilford XP1 400. I like it and I never have had any problems with grain.
I normally shoot slide film, Agfa RSX, but if I want to shoot color negative I go with Agfa Vista. I like the colors, it is cheap to start with, and it is usually on sale.
Dick
back alley
06-24-2004, 14:54
just started to shoot xp2 and so far i like it.
i have been reluctant to go back into the darkroom (nice summer weather) and having one hour processing plus cd is just so damn handy.
as for colour, i have always liked the fuji line of chromes.
joe
C-41 B&Ws can be tricky to get processed correctly. I suggest you try a few different minilabs and stick with one that processes them reliably. Innaproriate channels at some minilabs will give you nasty brown or purple colour tints on C-41 B&W if they are not careful, and a lot aren't!
I generally use the Kodak "B&W 400" C-41 and stick with Kodak Minilabs. Thesedays though, I shoot colour and enlarge/print in mono at home if I want B&W prints.
LionFlyer
06-24-2004, 18:42
I have been using down some Kodak Portra 400 I have been keeping in the fridge. The lab I use processed it right. No color casts anyway. I can't add more to what has been said about C41 B&W. If mail order is alive and well in ireland, how about going online, ordering what you need and wait a few days for it to show up at your step? Less expensive too. Just buy a lot of it at once or the shipping eats up the savings.
I'll echo LionFlyer's mail-order suggestion; brings the whole world to your doorstep!
Like Dick, I've been using Ilford's XP for a long time, starting with XP1. I've settled on EI of 250 rather than 400 as giving better results, but then it's also my practice with all C41 films to "overexpose" by 2/3 stop.
I like XP2 Super a lot. Very nice smooth quality. I have limited experience with other chromogenics, but recall liking Agfa's until it was discontinued. Recently I've tried some Kodak T400CN, but not enough to form any solid opinion.
One thing to be aware of among the chromogenics is that some like Kodak Portra 400 BW employ the same orange mask as color films so that they can print more conveniently on the same automated 1-hr lab machinery.
Others, like XP2 and Kodak T400CN, have no mask, and so are intended for traditional B&W paper. But these still should print ok at the lab if they'll just pay attention and switch filter packs!
Partly to avoid silly mistakes with camera ISO settings, I just standardize on 400 speed C41 films, and leave the setting at 250. Conveniently, Kodak's Portra 400UC is possibly the best 400-speed color negative film ever made. I think they're calling it Ultra Color 400 now. Fuji's NPH 400 isn't too shabby either. :-)
Cool, thanks for the suggestions folks!!
I will add one more: Fuji Reala. Despite its reputation as a portrait film, I think Reala is just as nice for landscape/nature shots. Colours produced by Reala is still pretty punchy.
As for C-41 B&W, I'm with the rest of the gang here: T400CN or XP2. I like T400CN more than XP2 because T400CN is more forgiving in exposure error. I used to guesstimate exposure to take photos with my RE-II (meter is dead), and 99.5% of the shots came out fine. Not so much luck with XP2.
>Can you recommend 2 negative films for me?
>
>1. Colour, max 200 ASA.
>
>2. C41 B&W.
1. Fuji Superia X-Tra 400 ISO rated @ 250 (+ 2/3rds stop). I use this as my standard travel film and used a lot of it in Europe a couple of years back, rated as mentioned you really have to look very close to see any grain, I have several shots blown up to 10x15 inch and you have to look up close and look hard to pick them from the same size Reala 100 prints (grain wise, Reala has a more creamy look overall IMO). The over exposure gives nice strong colours and good contrast. Use standard C41 processing btw. If you must have a true 200 ISO I'd again go for the Fuji Superia, but make sure you still overexpose it 1/2 to 2/3rds of a stop to really get the best out of it.
Note: Fuji Superia isn't great for portraits, if your shooting lots of people/skin use Fuji NPH pro film and expose as above.
2. XP-2 rated @ 200 ISO (+ 1 stop). My standard B&W film, rating at 200 gives a neg with better contrast and less grain (no grain?). The biggest problem I found was getting half decent prints in the UK without going for true B&W paper ($$), I had just about every colour tint you could think of thru Kodak labs but I'm sure I was just having bad luck. Here in Australia I get my stuff done on a Fuji Frontier lab and get "colourless" B&W prints on standard Fuji colour paper that look very nice, again I've blown them up to 10x15 inch with no problems. It’s also nice with XP-2 to be able to be able to change the ISO up to 800 mid roll and still get decent results indoors. Use standard C41 processing btw.
Hope that helps ..
That Guy
06-25-2004, 13:18
B&W
Another vote for the Ilford XP2 here. I've been using since it came out. It has a great tonal range and, like everybody else says, is very smooth. A few years back I shot a friend's wedding with it, 12-ish rolls. They turned out beautifully and to this day, my shots are the ones on her walls. :D
As for the Kodak T400CN, I've used maybe less than a dozen rolls. The constrast isn't as good, IMHO.
Color
It just hasn't been the same for me since Kodak Royal Gold got discontinued. :(
Thanks again! If you overexpose your film do you need to tell the lab, or will the machine take care of it all?
-Nick
As for 'colourless' prints from C41 B&W here in the UK, I've found the Boots that I have tried to be good. I think that many of their labs run Fuji (possibly frontier) machines.
David
Nick, you don't have to tell the lab if you overexpose the film. Even if you did, they wouldn't do anything about it. Hardly any lab do push/pull processing of C-41.
I'm not sure if overexposing a good ISO100 film really improves the result but I've shot NPZ800 film at both ISO800 and ISO 500 for the same occasion and both developed at the same time. The later has deep black and smoother grain in the shadow area. At 800, the black area is more grainy muddy dark gray than deep black. I hope you understand what I meant.
Originally posted by chenick
Thanks again! If you overexpose your film do you need to tell the lab, or will the machine take care of it all?
-Nick
This is the question I was going to ask. Thanks for the answer Kris. Sounds like I am going to have to go out and shoot some XP2 at 200.
That Guy
06-29-2004, 14:03
Originally posted by Kris
Hardly any lab do push/pull processing of C-41.
Mine does... :confused: Or at least they used to; I've never had it done.
Oh, and I got back a roll of T400CN yesterday. I forgot it was in one of my cameras. My wife says she likes the prints from it better than other B&W's I've used. It just looks a little too gray to me. Idunno. I'll post a few this evening (got them scanned at the shop :D) and you tell me what you think.
back alley
06-29-2004, 14:38
lookin' forward to them chris!
joe
That Guy
06-29-2004, 18:50
Okay, I uploaded three to the Member Gallery. I only resized them before uploading, so no retouching here.
I'll have to get some better software before I do more of this. I feel like such a hack :(
back alley
06-29-2004, 18:57
chris, that first shot is great!
they could use a bit more contrast but as they are there is a glow to them i quite like.
joe
Chris, the grey looking photos can be altered to your liking easily with Photoshop by playing with curve.
I guess it's the reason why most B&W user insist on developing and printing their own photos: because the lab doesn't know exactly how contrasty/less contrasty we want it.
I'm against the majority here by liking T400CN more to XP2. I find T400CN has larger latitude. Dull looking photos from T400CN isn't caused by the negatives; more because of the lab operator I think.
I hope you don't mind me playing around with your photo a bit. Here's what I did.
Here's what the adjustment curve look like. I don't know if it's helpful for you or not to show it but I will post it anyway.
For color negative film 100-200 ISO, my choices are easy. I always use one of the following, and always like the results:
1. People / Street: Fuji NPS (160), Fuji Reala (100).
2. Portraits: Fuji NPS (160), Agfa Portrait (160, play with pushes and pulls to find your taste, up to ½ stop).
3. Landscape: Agfa Ultra (100)… no comparison.
And that’s all she wrote:)
That Guy
06-30-2004, 13:52
Thanks for the demo, Kris. That looks better than what I got from the shop. Is this with Photoshop Pro or Elements? I actually don't have either, but need to get something. The pictures I posted were just resized in MS Paint (high tech, eh? :( ). I don't have any tools for editing the images, really. I need to get something, and I'm thinking Elements would work for me, since I don't have the time or the ambition to learn Pro.
(Sorry to hi-jack your thread, Nick)
Chris, I use Photoshop 6.0 which I bought second hand for c.a. US$60. I have no ambition either to master any photo editing software. The reason why I bought PS is because most advices/tutorials on how to tweak photos use PS as photo editing program. Make it much easier to learn rather than searching for similar features in other software.
I also have this Arcsoft PhotoStudio 5 coming with my scanner. I haven't really used it yet but i'm pretty sure it has the basic features such as curve alteration, cropping and unsharp mask. If you find the price is relatively cheap, I'll install it in my computer and let you know what features there are in that software.
Also there's one feature very important for me in PS: the colour channel mixer. Used for properly converting colour photos into B&W rather than just simply desaturating. Try have a look at this recent photo critique thread:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2389458
Additional note: in that example above, the result achieved is similar to putting green filter on the lens. Therefore the pink sweater and the lips are darkened. Notice how her face also appears darker in my version, which I think also better. I like a female when she is a bit tanned (though not roasted!) rather than pale.
I think Paint Shop Pro is available as a shareware program and the last versions featured a lot of similarities with Photoshop. Another option is getting the advanced image viewer Irfanview. It's freeware, and the last version has advanced options for image resizing, level adjustment and filters.
You can find it in http://www.irfanview.com/
Good luck !
Oscar
Originally posted by chenick
Hi all,
Can you recommend 2 negative films for me? :)
Or just advise your favourites.!
...
1. Colour, max 200 ASA.
I've been using Kodak Gold 200. It's not bad, sometimes a lot grainier than I'd expect.
2. C41 B&W. I've only seen Ilford XP2 here
400 would be Ok if it's not too grainy. Haven't tried, miatakenly bought some Tmax 100 thinking it would was C41.
Thanks!! :D
Nick
Nick, just a question. Have you considered picking up the smallish amount of equipment it takes to develop your own B&W? It's not hard to do, the equipment is inexpensive, and it opens you up to a large range of interesting films, most of which scan well (though NOT with Digital ICE).
You also have total control of the process, including pushing or pulling.
To me RF cameras and traditional B&W films are an ideal match.
My $0.02 Cdn
Gene
Is 2c Canadian worth much? :p
I hadn't really considered my own darkroom, maybe I should... it would certainly allow more control over printing.
Unfortunately I can also see this hobby getting pretty expensive!!
I think I'll start with a slide scanner and see what goes from there!
-Nick
Originally posted by Gene
Nick, just a question. Have you considered picking up the smallish amount of equipment it takes to develop your own B&W? It's not hard to do, the equipment is inexpensive, and it opens you up to a large range of interesting films, most of which scan well (though NOT with Digital ICE).
You also have total control of the process, including pushing or pulling.
To me RF cameras and traditional B&W films are an ideal match.
My $0.02 Cdn
Gene
Originally posted by chenick
Is 2c Canadian worth much? :p
I hadn't really considered my own darkroom, maybe I should... it would certainly allow more control over printing.
Unfortunately I can also see this hobby getting pretty expensive!!
I think I'll start with a slide scanner and see what goes from there!
-Nick
Naw, 2c Cdn is not worth much. But I should add that I no longer have a full darkroom. Just a changing bag, developing tank, a few chemicals and few little doo-dads like graduated cylinders just for developing the film, not making darkroom prints. All the images from my developed negs now go through my slide scanner.
The cost per roll of developing your own B&W to the negative stage is very low, probably less than 50c per roll.
Gene
Originally posted by Kris
Nick, you don't have to tell the lab if you overexpose the film. Even if you did, they wouldn't do anything about it. Hardly any lab do push/pull processing of C-41.
I'm not sure if overexposing a good ISO100 film really improves the result but I've shot NPZ800 film at both ISO800 and ISO 500 for the same occasion and both developed at the same time. The later has deep black and smoother grain in the shadow area. At 800, the black area is more grainy muddy dark gray than deep black. I hope you understand what I meant.
I overexpose all of my negative films (color & B/W) by 1/3 of a stop. It insures better shadow detail and finer grain. 400 @320. 800 @ 650, and 100 @ 80.
This thread made me remember I had some XP2 negatives in a drawer somewhere that I gave for lost as the prints the lab gave me were total crap, almost no contrast, no detail, nothing. They were taken with my Zenit SLR and I remember the batteries died in the cold and I had to guess exposure and with a red filter my judgement was a complete disaster.
So after reading this I decided to gave 'em a second opportunity on my scanner, and... I think I'm going to use XP2 again... reasons are here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php/cat/541/ppuser/25
Originally posted by taffer
This thread made me remember I had some XP2 negatives in a drawer somewhere that I gave for lost as the prints the lab gave me were total crap, almost no contrast, no detail, nothing. They were taken with my Zenit SLR and I remember the batteries died in the cold and I had to guess exposure and with a red filter my judgement was a complete disaster.
So after reading this I decided to gave 'em a second opportunity on my scanner, and... I think I'm going to use XP2 again... reasons are here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php/cat/541/ppuser/25
Speaking of XP-2, which I like as a B/W C-41 emulsion, I've been using the Fuji Neopan 400CN (C-41 process) as of late. It has a bit more contrast than the XP-2. It was designed by Fuji and is made by Ilford. However, the standard Neopan 400 (traditional silver film) is beautiful!
XP2 has a long, forgiving, exposure latitude that lends flexibility in darkroom printing... but the consequence is muddy dull machine prints from the local lab. So it can be deceptive. I used Ilford Multigrade papers in the darkroom, and almost always had the contrast above normal to get some life in the print. Even easier when "processing" a scan of the neg. The film provides all the detail you might want in both shadow and highlight, and it's up to the user to pull out what he needs. That's just the way the material works, and I really like the richness I see in the results. :-)
Oscar, you've given those old XP2 negs some new interest! I'm looking forward to your new ones.
From the above article about Neopan CN, it looks like Fuji may have tried to compromise a bit more in the contrast to get more lively machine prints. It'll be interesting to try this product to see if it gives up some/too much in the shadows and highlights, and to find out if it uses an orange mask.
Here's one from my Bessa-T, with old 35 Summicron...
Originally posted by Doug
XP2 has a long, forgiving, exposure latitude that lends flexibility in darkroom printing... but the consequence is muddy dull machine prints from the local lab. So it can be deceptive.
So that's the explanation for the dull prints I received from the Zenit and the surprise after scanning the negs... I recognize that long exposure latitude looks interesting so my next roll may probably be XP2, and I'll give HP5 a rest for a while... it's always good to change !
Russ, thanks for the info ! That Fuji may be worth to try too...
Originally posted by taffer
So that's the explanation for the dull prints I received from the Zenit and the surprise after scanning the negs... I recognize that long exposure latitude looks interesting so my next roll may probably be XP2, and I'll give HP5 a rest for a while... it's always good to change !
Russ, thanks for the info ! That Fuji may be worth to try too...
Taffer
The last time I checked, the Ilford Neopan 400CN, still was not available in the States. And the last timeI checked with Fuji, they still had no plans to offer it over here? I have mine sent over from the U.K. If we need to make a bulk order, let me know.
Russ, does the Neopan CN have an orange mask? If not, is there any faint tint to the film base?
trisnadi
07-06-2004, 03:28
For colour works I use Kodak Supra 400, good for film scanning. For BW C41, I use Kodak BW400CN ('new' version of T400CN). I like using chromogenic BW because I can use the 'ICE' feature of the film scanner. Samples of BW400CN: http://www.pbase.com/trisnadi/northjakarta
Well today I've found a surprise in the campus photo store in the shape of a 3-pack of XP2 (36 exp.) for 9,95. Not bad, not bad at all... I've also finished the roll on my Fed so I guess I'll have some environmental portraits in a couple of days.
I've also fallen in love with the Leica CL and 40 'cron I've seen in another photo store... but that's completely off-topic in this thread :D
Has anyone heard of Fuji Pro Plus? I went to buy some film today, the nearest store I could find had limited options, they had only Kodak (Gold, CE, MAX), YKL, Fuji Superia and, a pack of 5 in plastic labeled Fuji Pro Plus. The clerks weren't too informative, when I asked for differences they just said the brands. They did inform me that the Pro Plus was for use in their studio. So I was wondering if this was a higher-end film, but funny thing was they were selling it for cheaper than the Superia.
titrisol
08-10-2005, 10:04
a) color: Fuji Superia is my favorite
b) C41 BW: Ilford XP2, rate it at 200 (or set your exposure compensation to +1)
Hi all,
Can you recommend 2 negative films for me? :)
Or just advise your favourites.!
Bear in mind that the photography stores here in Ireland aren't great, so nothing too rare. I've been to over 4 photography stores and none have ND filters, 100 ASA colour film etc.
Digital P&S are taking over!!
1. Colour, max 200 ASA.
I've been using Kodak Gold 200. It's not bad, sometimes a lot grainier than I'd expect.
2. C41 B&W. I've only seen Ilford XP2 here
400 would be Ok if it's not too grainy. Haven't tried, miatakenly bought some Tmax 100 thinking it would was C41.
Thanks!! :D
Nick
The Fuji Superia X-Tra films are excellent. I prefer the Neopan 400CN for B/W chromogenic films. (Joe, I do have your 6 rolls & prints boxed, just have to get to the Post Office to send off). You Canadians, are tougher to send to. No UPS at work for Canada.
Russ
back alley
08-10-2005, 15:23
hey, that's a familiar face!
how you doin'?
joe
Bertram2
08-10-2005, 16:52
Hi all,
Can you recommend 2 negative films for me? :)
Or just advise your favourites.!
Bear in mind that the photography stores here in Ireland aren't great, so nothing too rare. I've been to over 4 photography stores and none have ND filters, 100 ASA colour film etc.
Digital P&S are taking over!!
1. Colour, max 200 ASA.
I've been using Kodak Gold 200. It's not bad, sometimes a lot grainier than I'd expect.
2. C41 B&W. I've only seen Ilford XP2 here
400 would be Ok if it's not too grainy. Haven't tried, miatakenly bought some Tmax 100 thinking it would was C41.
Thanks!! :D
Nick
1 = Superia 200
2= Kodak BW400CN
That's what I use, that 's what has turned out to work best for me.
Regards,
Bertram
MJFerron
08-10-2005, 17:12
My favorite color films are Fuji Reala 100 for Outdoor travel/landcapes and Kodak UC400 for a faster film. Low grain and beautiful skin tones.
wlewisiii
08-10-2005, 17:45
1) Fuji Reala CS for 100 and Fuji Supera for 400
2) Kodak BW400CN
I rarely use the C41 chromagenics now that I'm developing at home, but that one was my favorite when I was. I do love Plus-X and Tri-X a whole lot more though.
William
I've never shot chromogenic film. My favorite color neg film depends on the use. I liked the two Vericolors (S for short & L for long) a lot but they're gone, aren't they? Now Fuji reporter 800 for a fast film. Plain old Kodacolor 200 is a good cheap general-purpose film. I don't shoot much color though so don't listen to me.
hey, that's a familiar face!
how you doin'?
joe
Joe
Sharona is keeping me buried in wedding shoots. Very soon though, she'll go to the PO to ship your package. (Neopan 400CN, prints, etc). I'll try to check in more often. My posting count must be miserably low. The Neopan 400CN, is also a great wedding film too. (I'll assume that you were referring to my ugly mug).
Russ (Kiron Kid)
back alley
08-10-2005, 18:59
(I'll assume that you were referring to my ugly mug).
oh yeah!
:)joe
(I'll assume that you were referring to my ugly mug).
oh yeah!
:)joe
:mad: (A recent Neopan 400CN snap)
Russ
(I'll assume that you were referring to my ugly mug).
oh yeah!
:)joe
Joe
Let me know what you think of the site that Sharona put together. It's still in the works. She still has many more more snaps to add to it.
http://www.quietlightphotography.com/
Thanks
Russ
back alley
08-10-2005, 20:06
wow, that's a pretty good site russ.
easy to navigate, read, nice & simple, good sample shots etc.
i can see why you're so busy.
joe
wow, that's a pretty good site russ.
easy to navigate, read, nice & simple, good sample shots etc.
i can see why you're so busy.
joe
Thanks. I've used the rangefinders on more than one occasion too.
Russ
jmilkins
08-11-2005, 01:05
Like Kris , I prefer the Kodak T400CN over the Ilford XP2, but that's becasue like Doug my minilab prints with XP2 were always a riot of sepia or cyan tones.
I also really like Reala for colour. The greens are landscape green not lurid green!
I've also started to do the PS mod to Black and white from (E6) colour that Kris mentioned, but still need to practise that, so the only one I've posted so far is this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15592&cat=4726&page=1
Like Kris , I prefer the Kodak T400CN over the Ilford XP2, but that's becasue like Doug my minilab prints with XP2 were always a riot of sepia or cyan tones.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15592&cat=4726&page=1
John
That's the result of an untrained machine operator.
Russ
jmilkins
08-11-2005, 14:24
Yes Russ, but then I'm an untrained Photoshop operator so I can't point the finger :)
Bertram2
08-11-2005, 16:36
John
That's the result of an untrained machine operator.
Russ
I hate it to correct you but this comes from printing C41 on colour paper instead of B&W paper. Happens often because of the two different workflow in some labs.
You have to let them dev the negs first and then you give them the negs a second time for printing on BW paper.
MY lab DOES print it on BW on demand but then they can't make me a CD because the CD is part of the C41+colour paper workflow. AAARRGH !!
In principle I found the Kodak sepia effect rather acceptable, sometimes even quite nice . XP2 prints with a greenish color cast , that's really ugly .
Best regards,
Bertram
Yes Russ, but then I'm an untrained Photoshop operator so I can't point the finger :)
John
My PhotoShop skills are nonexistent too. I know very little about digital and computer processing. Which is fine for me, for now. I just love film & film cameras.
Russ
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.