Originally posted by KJon I don't think your experience is unique in that regard. Other people have posted that they've had better luck with the Ilford than the Kodak at 1 hour processors. I have my C41 stuff done at a small pro lab and the tech there really takes a lot of pride in his work. I've yet to be disappointed in anything he's done for me. When I was just starting to shoot film I had taken a couple rolls to a local Walgreens and must have gotten lucky because I was happy with the results I got there, too. Although I think quality can change a lot from store to store.
I'd add Fuji Reala 100 to your list of films to try - it's really great stuff.
Best,
Kevin
Funny, I've had just the opposite experience. Walgreens does a good job on the Kodak, but tore the heck out of Ilford C41 BW. I have not sent them any of the current formulation of XP2, though. I've always either processed the Ilford myself or dropped it off at the photo store. Their C41 process was fairly easy to do with great results, but you did not save money.
Emulsion damage aside, exposure is the key to chomogenic BW IMHO. I'll bet that the camera or technique or both you are using for exposure is responsible for most of the difference that the other poster prefers in your shots (which are great, BTW).
I shot tons of XP1 in the 80s and early 90s at ISO from 100 to 1600, and it was a different film at each setting. I used it in an MX body whose meter had died, so I sometimes saw these differences just because I was too lazy to pull out the old Sekonic.
Another huge variable on this site is scanner quality, scanning software and pp.
I can't find Reala locally, and it has only recently reappeared on line. I think it should be called Unreala, because of its saturation, but I like it.