Which film has a good latitude for indoor window light portraits?

[matt miller]

XP2 is made for people who needs fast development on high street but wants to make their own prints.

Which, I believe, is what he's after. I've heard that the Portra film does scan better though.

[modafoto]

Which, I believe, is what he's after.

Then XP2 is the choice

[modafoto]

You mean I should get a table light and a loupe? Or is there any other way to evaluate the negative before scanning/printing?

I use a light box (about 8x10 inches) and a loupe for my negs. Cost about $60.

[sterioma]

Thanks again from all your inputs!

Which, I believe, is what he's after. I've heard that the Portra film does scan better though.

My options for printing are either

1. Digital print from an online service from high rest scans
2. Print from the negative by a lab, after rough evaluation from low res scans

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the Portra BW film here in Italy (yet?). Only T400CN (which I take is discontinued by now) and XP2. On the other side, having traditional BW films developed is not an issue since my lab does that at a reasonable price (less than 2 euro for a 36 exp roll).

After all these suggestions, I guess I will try both XP2 and TriX/HP5 and find out which one I like most (both in traditional printing and in digital scans).

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Unfortunately, Portra BW has been discontinued. I really prefer it over XP2, as the skin tones it yields are simply amazing. I used XP2 far more frequently, though, because Portra costs fully twice as much. Kodak has discontinued both the Portra and the TCN (which I personally will not miss) which leaves XP2. Kodak's "replacement" film is nasty -- I find it to be flat and dimensionless, and actually is NOT recommended for B&W traditional printing. Go figure. A "B&W" film not intended for traditional printing. That's so backwards.

[Helen B]

I've started to use Maco Cube 400 instead of HP5 for indoor portraits under tungsten light when I want conventional 35 mm B&W film. It has better red sensitivity.

As all my work goes though a digital intermediate stage, I also use C-41 colour films for B&W. Their graininess is similar to, or less than, the graininess of the B&W C-41 films and there is the added advantage of being able to control tones using the channel mixer in Photoshop. Try Fuji NPZ or Portra 800. By the way, I suspect that this is one of the reasons Kodak reduced their line of B&W C-41 films.

Best,
Helen

[bobfowler]

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the Portra BW film here in Italy (yet?). Only T400CN (which I take is discontinued by now) and XP2. On the other side, having traditional BW films developed is not an issue since my lab does that at a reasonable price (less than 2 euro for a 36 exp roll).

After all these suggestions, I guess I will try both XP2 and TriX/HP5 and find out which one I like most (both in traditional printing and in digital scans).

T400CN scans very well and should do nicely if you can't find Portra 400. The C41 route is really your best bet if you're not processing yourself as it removes a lot of variables from the equation.

[Robert Kennedy]

The only problem with XP2, is that the LABS sometimes aren't bright enough to realize that they need to take it over to the B/W machine after processing!

No kidding. The big "Pro lab" in town is incapable of doing that. The smaller actually-a-pro-lab in town has no problem with XP2. It is a nice film.

[TPPhotog]

My vote for what you've asked would be XP2. As has already been suggested rate it at 250. It scans easily and prints very well on B&W paper.

[sterioma]

A lot of response, thanks everybody. I have ordered 4 rolls of XP2, and 3 each of TriX and HP5. I hope to be able to post some test here soon and get some feedback from you