PDA

View Full Version : C-41 Film experiences


kennethcooke
17th December 2008, 05:03 PM
having used Ilford FP4 and HP5 with the Ilford pre paid service for quite some time, which I hasten to add, I have found to be excellent, I decided to try C-41 film which can be processed by companies like Jessops in an hour. It works out about £2.50 less than Ilford and you get 7 X 5 borderless gloss prints as standard unlike Ilford, their basic package is 6 X 4 with a border. The first C-41 film I shot in a newly acquired M6 was Kodak BCW400 CN. Jessops processed it for me but the prints had a strong jade green cast. I spoke to a very helpful lady at Fuji Labs who incidentally have re located their operations to Leeds- http://ccimagingftp.com and she advised me to ask Jessops to re print. I duly did this and the results were fine without a cast.

Also available, although I have not tried them are Fuji Neopan 400CN which I am reliably informed is made in the UK for Fuji by Ilford and Ilford's own XP2 also 400 asa.

I would be interested to hear other members experiences with C-41 film

B&W Neil
17th December 2008, 05:12 PM
[QUOTE= I would be interested to hear other members experiences with C-41 film[/QUOTE]

I used a cassette of XP2 once and a High Street processing lab badly scratched the film (tram lines from end to end). Unfortunately, this experience put me put me off C41 mono film types for life :eek: However, during my travels I have seen many a good print made from mono C41 film.

Neil.

Mike O'Pray
17th December 2008, 05:12 PM
It's certainly news to me that Ilford are now making Fuji's film. I'd be surprised. I wonder why Fuji would need Ilford to produce their film for them now? I am assuming that initially Fuji did its own film so what's changed? As long as your lab can print on trad B&W paper, I'd be inclined to use XP2+ film. It was made for printing on B&W paper but I have had no experience of Fuji chromogenic film which might be just as good.

Mike

Argentum
17th December 2008, 05:20 PM
Never tried it but your lab prints will be printed on colour paper which is where the green cast comes from. When the colour in those prints starts to fade, which it will, they will turn from black and white to some other colour. Green or purple probably. That will be noticeable sooner than if they were normal colour prints as the slightest bit of colour change will instantly put a colour cast in the prints.
I'd stay with the ilford printing because they print on black and white RC paper.

Dave miller
17th December 2008, 05:37 PM
It's certainly news to me that Ilford are now making Fuji's film. I'd be surprised. I wonder why Fuji would need Ilford to produce their film for them now? I am assuming that initially Fuji did its own film so what's changed? As long as your lab can print on trad B&W paper, I'd be inclined to use XP2+ film. It was made for printing on B&W paper but I have had no experience of Fuji chromogenic film which might be just as good.

Mike

Then be surprised Mike.

Mike O'Pray
18th December 2008, 09:15 PM
Then be surprised Mike.

Will somebody(ies) tell me more on this then?

Thanks

Mike

Rob Archer
18th December 2008, 09:24 PM
I use Ilford XP2 super in 35mm quite a lot. I get it processed at Peak Imaging who always do a good job, with no casts or any other obvious faults. I just get 6x4s and ake any bigger prints myself. It gives superb results once you get used to the rather odd grain effect. I'd be interested to know if Ilford do make fuji's film too - I've used Neopan 1600 a few times and it really is excellent, too.

Rob

Dave miller
18th December 2008, 09:41 PM
Will somebody(ies) tell me more on this then?

Thanks

Mike

Just be grateful we have a choice;;) and long may it remain so.

kennethcooke
20th December 2008, 06:46 PM
I use Ilford XP2 super in 35mm quite a lot. I get it processed at Peak Imaging who always do a good job, with no casts or any other obvious faults. I just get 6x4s and ake any bigger prints myself. It gives superb results once you get used to the rather odd grain effect. I'd be interested to know if Ilford do make fuji's film too - I've used Neopan 1600 a few times and it really is excellent, too.

Rob

Rob- CC imaging http://ccimagingftp.com/cci/index.html are Fuji's main lab and are based in Leeds. They might be able to give more background

Martin Aislabie
24th December 2008, 02:59 PM
Fuji, when they launched the film claimed to have subcontracted a large part of the films R&D to Ilford.

Fuji have never hidden the fact that its film is very similar to the Ilford equivalent - although they have of course not included such an own goal in their publicity material.

There is a lot more symbiosis in the photographic world than the manufacturers own up to

Martin

Mike O'Pray
24th December 2008, 08:59 PM
Thanks Martin. It never gets mentioned on the Ilford tour either for what now appears to be obvious reasons:D

It is intriguing however. It raises questions such as: What remit did Fuji give Ilford in contracting the R&Dto it and how far were ilford involved? Did it specify what it wanted as an end product and does these specs/aims ensure differentiation from XP2+?

Or and now we get down to important practicalities, is the Fuji version just XP2+ re-badged as Fuji? If so then for "homo economicus photographicus" lowest price should then dictate choice.

An analogy might be: Tesco and Sainsbury sell own-make cereals and toothpaste but have other well know cereal and toothpaste makers do it for them. So if Colgate make Tesco toothpaste,are you really buying Colgate masquerading as Tesco's or is there something missing in the Tesco paste that makes it different and if so, is it this way because Colgate won't make it identically or because Tesco decide that it shouldn't be identical?

I thought I recalled Simon Galley at Ilford on the 2006 tour saying that Ilford no longer made their products for anyone else under another re-badged name. If so, then I would conclude that Fuji must have had a big hand or complete hand in the emulsion research and Ilford has simply been contracted to produce such emulsion for Fuji as it has the capacityto do so.

The two products in that case would be quite different. The analogy here might be Toyota in Derbyshire having the capacity and machinery to produce Hondas so they are no longer made in Swindon but they are still in every sense of the word Hondas.

"Very interesting" as the guy in the Rowan and Martin Laugh-in (anyone remember him and the show in the late 60s?) used to say in a conspiratorial way.

Mike

Dave miller
25th December 2008, 07:28 AM
Mike, what Simon said was that they do not rebadge their products for anyone else. In salesman speak that is subtly different to saying that they don't sell their product to anyone else for rebadging.
I think speculation, whilst interesting, is futile. Surely the answer is to buy a roll of each product, expose, and develop them identically, and report back to us on any differences found; apart from the boxes, and name on the film rebate. We will then all know whether to buy in Tesco or Boots.

Bob
27th December 2008, 06:41 PM
The situation as I understand it is that Harman/Ilford no longer provide their own products (MGIV, FP4+ etc) for others to sell under a different label.

They do manufacture for others however; they make paper for Adox and film for Fuji for example but these are not Ilford/Harman products - Harman are just sub-contractors. They may admit to making paper for Adox (Adox themselves appear see this fact as a marketing tool and mention it on their web site) but will not admit to Fuji as it will be covered by an NDA between the companies (which is much more the normal state of affairs where one company does work for another).