Re: [Leica] C-41 process b&w films

[henry <henry@henryambrose.com>]

>On rare occasions I've shot Ilford's XP2 b&w film but see that Kodak has
>a relatively new C-41 process film out called T400CN.
>
>Can someone with experience point out the differences between them and
>which gives better tonal rendition? I thougth the XP2 was rather
>contrasty and wonder if the T400CN might be less so.
>
>Thanks,
>Lea
>
>
It depends on what you will do with the film.

I find XP2 to have wider exposure latitude, superior gradation and 
tonality to the Kodak films. T400CN may have slightly finer "grain" - 
maybe. I'm surprised that you found XP2 "contrasty" since most complain 
of it being flat. Is that based on machine prints or looking at the 
exposed film, or?

If you want to have a film to process quickly and then to scan for your 
art work I think you will be happiest with XP2. (this after looking at 
your site) It offers wonderful possibilities for creative techniques. At 
1200-1600 it gives great grain effects and a luminous glow to highlights. 
At 100-200 it shows finest grain and contrast. I usually use it at 
320-400 where it gives excellent full range negatives that scan 
beautifully and print in the darkroom as well. Exposed normally XP2 seems 
to be able to capture a broader scene range than anything I've used. 
Write me off-list if you want to see some examples, I've used about a 
bazillion rolls of this stuff.

If you want 4X6 machine prints  T400CN or the new Portra B&W might be a 
better choice. My understanding is that T400CN is soon to be discontinued 
(if not already) and replaced by Portra. 

I was going to try Portra but with the local shop's price of $8.27 a roll 
I balked at the prospect. For wedding shooters who want machine made 
stuff to deliver in volume at a cheap price its probably worth the extra 
$4 or 5 bucks but I doubt for any other use the higher price can be 
justified. I cringe at this thought - delivering machine made color "B&W" 
as a finished product - but for the unwashed masses it'll probably be 
perfect.

Henry