[mccarvindh]

I just got into MF with a 645N and am loving the experience. I have a question on BW film:
I am undecided between the TMAX and XP2 Super. I see that the former can be used even at 800 speed, so gets a point for versatility. The Ilford is c 41 processing. My question is do the lab costs run different for these two types of films? Are there labs that cannot handle the TMax? Would appreciate any input.

[twitch]

Tmax is traditional B&W film. XP2 is C41 film. Places that do B&W processing are far fewer in number than those that C41 processing. However, home development of B&W film is easier than C41, so it depends on what you want to do. Develop at home? Then shoot traditional B&W. Develop at a lab? Then shoot C41 back&white.

Tmax should be compared to Tri-X, HP5, Neopan (amongst others).

XP2 is similair to Kodak BW400CN.

Note: I'm a film newbie, others here will have a lot more experience.

[mccarvindh]

Thank you twitch for your response. I think I may go with the XP2 (it looks like that film also has quite some exposure latititude to be used at ISO 800). I have to take it to a lab for developing, so C41 may give me a wider choice of film labs.

[Nesster]

Correct, if you want to rely on lab processing, then C41 is cheaper to develop than traditional B&W. Although (last time I checked) the C41 b&w film is more expensive per roll, paying a lab to develop traditional b&w more than makes up the difference.

[mccarvindh]

thank you Nesster for your reply. I am going to get familiar with xp2 super for now and have the same lab process it. Hopefully some day I will do my own processing.

[twitch]

Thank you twitch for your response. I think I may go with the XP2 (it looks like that film also has quite some exposure latititude to be used at ISO 800). I have to take it to a lab for developing, so C41 may give me a wider choice of film labs.

Wider choice of labs, narrower choice of B&W films. It's a trade off. I wouldn't bother shooting XP2 @ 800 unless you really have to. I've read () that it's best to shoot it at 320 or 400, and same for BW400CN.

I think Portra 400 may be more flexible in exposure and maintain IQ.

[Nesster]

400 to 800 is just 1 stop, so it's not so bad - under exposed the C41 b&w's get very grainy in the scans

[Wheatfield]

Neither of the films you mentioned do very well at above their rated speed. One of the problems we had with XP-2 is that it scratches very easily and is somewhat prone to fading.
T-Max OTOH, being a silver based image, is stable, and it doesn't scratch as easily.
It can also be processed at home in your kitchen sink.

[mccarvindh]

Thank you Nesster, twitch and wheatfield, I have now rolled the ISO back to 400. Nesster, it looks like I am not allowed to "like" your post yet (as i have only recently added to your reputation for your detailed info on loading 120 film into 645 cameras!). Thank you all for your input!

[tuco]

You can shoot 400TMY at EI800 no problem without pushing if you don't want to.

[cscurrier]

If you do plan on shooting at EI800 and push development, be advised that most drugstore or commercial photo labs generally don't push/pull development anymore. You would want to take it to a more capable photo lab.

[fs999]

I must say I prefer the rendering of XP2 and if you want you can keep the colour of the film when scanning...

[FrankC]

If you're ever looking for a slooooow film, I once used 120 Agfa Pan 25 for a semester photo class and loved it. 6x7 negs were grainless!!! Especially beautiful when developed in Rodinol or Acufine.

[mccarvindh]

Thank you cscurrier, fs999 and FrankC for weighing in.