Ilford or Kodak B&W Film?

Hi everyone! I'm thinking about starting to take some black and white photos (i'm a big fan of black and white photographs). So, to get photos developed in a short time, the photo lab close to my house says to use B&W film that says C-41 on it.
The two films I'm thinking about getting are Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak BW400CN. I really like the deep contrast between the black and white (you know, like the photographs from a long time ago); so my question is what film do you think is better at getting that pure b&w look-which comes closer? thanks for any advice you can give me. :)

I have used both of these films extensively. Pretty much they're the only films I use anymore. In my opinion (and this is how I use them) 400CN for portraits, XP2 Super for landscapes.

How do these films compare to traditional Black and white? I know the dev process is different but is the picture quality different at all and if so how is it different? I've been frustrated by the long dev times of traditional black and white but like the look it gives.

There are many differences between these and traditional B&W films. I can tell you a few things I have noticed, but perhaps some of the more expert traditional B&W shooters can provide even more.

I think that the C-41 films have a smoother look to them than ISO 400 traditional films.
They can be colored any tone you like.
They don't accept lens filtration in the same way as traditional (i.e. you get less of an effect from your color filters).
They dont push/pull process well.
XP2 Super has perhaps the largest exposure latitude of any film around (I use it in pinhole cameras for this reason).
They are more expensive.
I have heard that they are more difficult to print traditionally with an enlarger on B&W paper (but haven't tried it).
They are cheaper to process commercially.
They scan really well.
They only come in one speed (may require significant ND filtration for desired effects).
They aren't Tri-X 320.
They are arguably more convenient to use.

Hope this helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhotoGirl

Hi everyone! I'm thinking about starting to take some black and white photos (i'm a big fan of black and white photographs). So, to get photos developed in a short time, the photo lab close to my house says to use B&W film that says C-41 on it.
The two films I'm thinking about getting are Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak BW400CN. I really like the deep contrast between the black and white (you know, like the photographs from a long time ago); so my question is what film do you think is better at getting that pure b&w look-which comes closer? thanks for any advice you can give me. :)

---

I use XP2 Super rather than Kodak BW400CN because I say to myself that one day (*) I'm going back into the chemical darkroom and I'm going to print these things properly rather than scan them. XP2 Super looks like a normal black and white film whereas BW400CN has the same brown mask as colour negative films.

If you give your film to a minilab and you get them to do the whole job including making prints then you'll probably get a better result from the Kodak film. It is designed to be printed on the standard colour paper in the machine. With XP2 you are more likely to get a reddish colour cast if printed on colour paper.

If you send the film to a specialist lab to be printed on black & white paper (or you do it yourself) then you are better using XP2 - but it will take just as long as today.

Charles
(*) To be honest I've almost stopped shooting film. I'm now quite happy with th eresults I get converting the images from my DSLR's into black & white

thanks so much for all the replies everyone. :)

I spoke to a person who works at the photo lab that I plan to give my roll of film to (eventually) and he said that they don't print them on B&W paper, but they switch their machine to specifically scan B&W film and the product turns out well. I've never heard of this before,(:o ) is this common practise for making B&W prints in labs using C-41?

They must be scanning in greyscale. That should eliminate any color cast, but I'd think that printing in greyscale would be more of a guarantee. Theoretically, anyway. I'm sure they know what they're doing - and it sounds like they have a fix for it. The good news is that even if you're not happy with the prints, the negs will be fine and can be re-printed.

I was blown away by the prints I used to get from a local camera store lab - they were printing on b&w photo paper. However, not long after I started using it they switched to a digital mini lab... Prints were 98% as good though.

thanks, another view :)

It' s been said a few times here, but it all depends on the lab. I exclusively shoot the Kodak Pro 400CN for my B&W, and am quite happy with the results. I haven't used the Ilford, so I can't effectively comment on that. What I can say is that the kodak is an excellent film if the lab processes it properly. I don't know what my lab does special, but the 400CN comes out looking like traditional B&W, and I have enlarged it to 10x15 with great results. The only problem, of course, is the >$4/roll for film, and then of course the price to develop and get prints made.

-Chris

thanks for your help, Chris :)