Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Ilford XP2 vs. Kodak T400CN

  1. #1

    Default Ilford XP2 vs. Kodak T400CN

    Ilford XP2 vs. Kodak T400CN

    How do these two chromogenic films compare to each other? I've done searches here on CS as well as others. The general impression I get is that the Kodak has higher contrast and finer grain, and the Ilford, having lower contrast and slightly more grain, is better suited for portraits.

    Good place to get these films? CP & Ruby? What are the prices like? I know Ruby has got lots of Ilfords...

    Any tips from users of these films to share? Overexpose a little?

    Another thing is, which lab knows how to handle these type of films well?

  2. #2

    Default

    They are similar in nature, depending on what your output is going to be. If you are going to be printing it on normal photo paper, you make prefer Kodak as the Ilford straight off will have a slightly cooler cast to the B/W images.

    Personally, as I do my output on actual B/W papers, I prefer the Ilford one. The cooler color cast does not bother me as I am just using the color prints as a proof to select which negatives to print on actual B/W. I find that Ilford gives me more snappier B/W as compared to the Kodak which though is finer grain produces images that are less punchy. I usually overexpose and shoot the XP2 Super at iso200.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    706

    Default

    The november month's issue of Practical Photography compares the available chromogenic films and according to the article, the Kodak T400Cn rates slightly higher then the Ilforg XP2.

    The kodak has a wider exposure lattitude and has finer grains as compared to XP2.

    The cost for T400CN is slightly more expensive then XP2. If I remember correctly XP2 costs $5 while T400CN costs $5.50? You can get T400CN at Cathay and XP2 at Ruby.

  4. #4

    Default

    Thks guys.

    Just dug thru my old film cabinet and realised I had a Kodak T400CN hiding in the back all these while, along with a superia 200 and a max 400. The T400CN is way expired though, 10/2000.... yikes. Even has a price tag still affixed. $5.70. Must have been way back in 1999 or so when I got it. Prices dun seem to change much eh?

    Anyway, I've seen Neopan's results, and while they look alrite for traditional B&W stuff, I seem to have a slight liking towards prints that are not 'true' B&W, but with a very very slight tinge of sepia, or a burgundy/gold tint to the print. That's how I normally PS my digital shots when I want to have so-called 'B&W'.

    What about good labs to send these type of films to? I read that the developing result varies quite a bit from lab to lab, especially for this film type.

    Xplorer2, when u say "less punchy" for the Kodak, u are refering to the output on B&W paper rite? On color photo paper the kodak will still be more contrasty?

    I'll definitely try both out soon....

  5. #5

    Default

    Actually, I find that even on color papers the Kodak is a bit less punchy than the Ilford one. But try it out on your own. Slight overexposure generally produces better shadow details. Lab wise, you can try ColorLab at Aldephi or Konota at Peninsula.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Zimbabwe
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    I find Kodak t400cn has creamy smooth tones and Ilford XP2 SUPER looks a bit more like a b&w film as it looks more "gritty" and punchy. Both are extremely sharp and relatively grain-free, can't go wrong with either. As xplorer has already said, just rate them at ISO 200-250 speed for better contrast. Since Ilford is cheaper, I just get Ilford. In the end, its the developing lab that counts, coz most neighbourhood photolabs can't print them well at all. Fotohub at Bt Timah has given me some of the best b&w prints on colour paper so far, with Colorlab, Ruby and Grace quite good also. Personally, I would rather go for the real b&w film as they definitely have more character...

  7. #7

    Default

    For the advice on slightly overexposing the frame, is this done together with rating the ISO at 200-250, or only either one and not both at the same time?

    Anyway, fyi, here are today's (15th Nov 2003) prices for these film.

    Ruby - Ilford XP2, $5 ; Kodak T400CN, $5.50.
    CP - Kodak T400CN, $5.20.


    Thanks all for the input.

  8. #8

    Default

    Hello all.... =)


    I like the look for XP-2 Super, but the uncle say pull to ISO 100 it looks good.....

    The film can tahan arnot ? has anyone tried ?

    TiA!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    East, SG
    Posts
    2,641

    Default

    I like the Ilford xp2 super

    You can even rate it at ISO 50-80 even.

    Just rate it at ISO 250, and when it doubt, just overexpose, no horse run!

  10. #10

    Default

    hahaha.. okay =) thanks..

  11. #11

    Default

    i find XP2 to be granier than TCN400.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finkster
    Ilford XP2 vs. Kodak T400CN

    How do these two chromogenic films compare to each other? I've done searches here on CS as well as others. The general impression I get is that the Kodak has higher contrast and finer grain, and the Ilford, having lower contrast and slightly more grain, is better suited for portraits.

    Good place to get these films? CP & Ruby? What are the prices like? I know Ruby has got lots of Ilfords...

    Any tips from users of these films to share? Overexpose a little?

    Another thing is, which lab knows how to handle these type of films well?
    I love XP2 because it has more 'grit' than the T400CN, though frankly I think both have their applications.

    Exposure wise, you'd want to consider how you're going to make prints from the processed negs.

    If you're printing in the darkroom onto 'normal' B+W paper, overexpose when shooting for finer grain. Which means less than ISO400. I have shot at 200 all the way down to 50, yielding frames with different density, and you can do so on the same roll of film. The beauty of XP2 is that you use different ISOs on the same roll. For me, 100 and 200 are good.

    If you're making 'normal' lab color prints, I won't advise overexposing. Shoot at 400 or else the lab might not be able to happily print the denser negs you'd get at less than ISO 200. It's just a rule of thumb and it all depends on the lab operator.

    If you're adventurous, you can play with cross-processing XP2 to get monochromatic slides (I am certain that it will work with T400CN as well, and might even work better with it) . I hesitate to use the term "black and white" slides because XP2 'slides' will have a greenish tone, and because of the film base, will not be entirely clear. Still it's an interesting effect. Ilford used to offer instructions to do this (with XP1) but it's as simple as overexpose when you're shooting and process at normal slide processing times. I suggest trying ISO50 to 100 for starters.

    Do note that both XP2 and T400CN render the appearance of color tones rather differently than the traditional silver films. You may not care about this, but it's useful to know that they do.
    Last edited by kahheng; 25th May 2005 at 01:33 AM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Ansel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Land Downunder
    Posts
    2,207

    Default

    And just to add to the above, you can process XP2 in diafine if you want. I got quite good results when I rated it at around ISO 200. Not sure if the Kodak one can be processed in diafine though.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    East, SG
    Posts
    2,641

    Default

    how's the tones like for xp2 in diafine? easy to print in darkroom?

  15. #15
    Senior Member icarus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East
    Posts
    3,874

    Default

    I prefer XP2's fine grain, and it scans very well too~
    Yngwie J. Malmsteen - "...I've never considered myself a fast guitar player..."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •