Re: [Leica] Re: Kodak C-41 Tri-X

[Godfrey DiGiorgi <ramarren@bayarea.net>]

The subject of this thread is very peculiar. There is no such thing as a 
"C-41 Tri-X". I must have missed something at the beginning ... what does 
it mean?

I've been using Ilford's XP2 film for many years (since it first came 
available, and it's predecessor XP1 as well) and started using Kodak's 
T400CN film just after it came out. These are excellent B&W films: I 
don't know why anyone would say differently. They are not the same as 
TMax 400 or Delta PRO 400, they have different characteristics, but they 
create beautiful negatives which print extraordinarily well when they're 
used appropriately. 

XP2 (and the new generation XP2 Super) is a very smooth-grained film with 
tremendous exposure toe. It's rated speed is 400, but I've shot it with 
everything from EI 200 to EI 1600 and obtained satisfying negatives. By 
overexposing it up to a stop, you can flatten the contrast curve a bit 
and make the grain almost invisible. Underexposing it will render a thin 
negative that you must print on high contrast paper with a grainier 
appearance, but it retains a remarkable amount of detail even into pretty 
deep shadow values. The key thing about XP2 and XP2 Super is that they 
tolerate a tremendous amount of overexposure in the highlights without 
blocking up so you can concentrate on getting adequate exposure for your 
important shadow values and let the highs fall where they may, then 
adjust the tonal curve in printing (or electronically). 

Ilford does not put the standard color negative "crossover mask" (that 
orange base color) into the XP2 films so they are somewhat problematic to 
print on color paper -- that's the reason for your "sepia tone", an 
improper printing filtration setup. A good photofinishing lab can get a 
setup that works reasonably well on color paper, but these films are 
designed to be printed to best effect on B&W papers. 

Kodak's T400CN film shares many of the characteristics of XP2 but Kodak's 
focus in its development is somewhat different. T400CN has a shorter toe 
(more contrasty) and evidences a bit more grain, particularly on 
overexposure. It will block up the highs when overexposed by 1 stop, but 
will hold detail in the midrange better when underexposed. Exposed on its 
nominal EI 400 or up to 1 stop under, it returns extremely high quality 
results. 

Kodak designed T400CN to be easily printed at 1-hour photofinishing labs 
on color materials. To effect this they included a light crossover mask 
and include calibration setup information for color labs to work from so 
you usually get snappy, mostly neutral black prints from it rather than 
sepia or violet with such processing. Due to the orange mask, it is often 
a bit more difficult to print it on B&W materials: the crossover mask 
tends to reduce the contrast on orthrochromatic B&W papers so you end up 
going with harder grades to get the same snappy results. 

Printed to their best advantage, both these films produce long tonal 
scale, high acutance images with very smooth grain and beautiful 
transitions in tonality. They're really amongst my favorite films for 
portraiture. XP2 in particular is great for taming contrasty lighting 
situations.

Both films also scan extremely well. They take somewhat different gamma, 
contrast and bias settings to get the most out of; the film scanner 
doesn't care and is happy to make the adjustments. The orange mask in 
T400CN is totally invisible to a film scanner, the lack of it in XP2 is 
equally invisible. 

I have several photographs on my website made with these films. None of 
the webpage image versions do the printer-prepared versions justice - I 
downsample and re-adjust pictures for my web pages to give as good a view 
as possible consistent with a reasonable download time, but they can be 
used as examples. 

<http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/AlfaRomeos/78spiderMar98/springspider.htm
l>
  These two photos were made with XP2 using Minox 35GT-E camera. The 
print versions retain tremendous shadow detail in the shadows of the 
undercarriage, the highs and middle tones are very close to what's on the 
web page. They're more snapshots than anything else, but the ability of 
the film to hold detail across a tremendous lighting range is what 
impresses me.

<http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/portfolio1/SF-night.html>
  The photo was taken with a Leica Minizoom, hand-held for ~2 seconds, on 
XP2 rated normally. I scanned, sized and 'hand colored' it in PhotoShop 
for printing to a approximate 11x14 print. Obviously, there is quite a 
bit of motion blur from the long exposure, but it's a mood picture, not 
designed to be razor sharp. The print shows just beautiful tonal scale in 
everything, with detail and structure well into the dark regions, and the 
streetlamp highs just barely block up (I could actually print them down 
for more detail, but I like the effect as I've gotten it). 

<http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/zurich-98/um-columns2.html>
<http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/zurich-98/um-columns1.html>
<http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/zurich-98/um-michael.html>
<http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/zurich-98/um-michael-det.jpg>
  These four pictures were taken at the same time using T400CN in a 
Rollei 35 Classic. The photofinisher's prints stunned me when I saw 
them... they were just beautiful. I scanned these from the negative at 
maximum resolution and prepared print files for 266 dpi 16x20 images from 
them - they print absolutely superbly. The photograph of Michael is so 
razor sharp that included the "-det" full 2700 dpi section ... with the 
limited resolution of the 2700 dpi film scanner, you can make out the 
"Wetzlar" engraving on the back of the Minox IIIS he's holding. You can 
count stitches in his jacket, etc. I was so impressed with how much 
detail there was in the scans that I optically enlarged this frame with 
my slide projector to 50x75 inches ... you can not only make out the 
engraving, you can read it clearly! Truly impressive acutance. And the 
tonal scale in the negatives is just about perfect: nothing is burnt, all 
the shadow values hold super detail, etc. 

<http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/rvl/rvl.html>
  All the photos in this gallery (not the pictures of the cameras ... 
those are pirated! :) were taken with XP2 using Rollei 35S and Leica CL 
cameras. Scanned at 2700 dpi from the negatives, printed to the maximum 
length on an 8.5x11" page from 266dpi print files... As usual, the print 
versions are far better than what you see on the website. 

Without going into cheerleader mode, I feel that any B&W photographer who 
does not try these films is missing out on films which can return superb 
results. They are very flexible to use in heavy, contrasty lighting as 
well as subtle soft light, with a wide variety of subjects, and have 
tremendous exposure latitude as well. Just don't think of them as Tri-X 
to be processed in C-41 ... they have very different characteristics.

apologies for the longish post.

Godfrey

>Anthony said:
>> I have not heard good things about the C-41 TxxxCN films from Kodak, so I 
>>wasn't going to consider those (I want something over ISO 1000, anyway), 
>>but if there are any contrary opinions, I'd be interested in hearing them. <
>>
Joseph E. Hayes said:
>I was fortunate enough to go to the SantaFe Photo Workshop last year and
>when buying film to attend, picked-up Ilford's version.  Shot it only to
>find out they would not process it the lab at the Workshop.  I would up
>bringing it to a local guy who ran it through the machine.  oh
>Boy...when I got the pics back was I suprised...
>
>Printed on color paper, it gave each image a warm "sepia toned"
>quality.  A bit disappointing at first since most of the film was
>exposed at a very special place.  Trying to save the day (and my work),
>I did find some of the images worked well in the sepia tone and
>subsquently had them enlarged and framed.
>
>I also had sent the negs to a regular lab here in Los Angeles to print
>the images in B&W.  They looked okay - not too grainy - but I think I
>would prefer to continue working with standard B&W films such as Tri-X. 
>
>Joe Hayes