About C41 B&W

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

Truth is beauty
Local time
12:22 AM
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
4,353
I develop and expose B&W negative differently depending if the roll was done under direct sun or on overcast days... I have never used C41 B&W, so I wonder what people do to make scenes' contrast higher or lower on negatives... Ask the lab for a push or a pull?

Cheers,

Juan
 
Just use different contrast paper in the darkroom, or adjust in Photoshop if you scan. Also, overexposing these films lowers their contrast, that sometimes helps.
 
Thanks, Chris... I guess as with B&W negatives, paper or filter grades and photoshop, are just mediocre cures, because results are a lot better when got on negatives... I was wondering if members using chromogenic B&W films were doing the same small but useful amount of developing time variations done with color negatives... I think on XP2 a bright, sunny scene and a lead gray overcast one, in the same roll and with the same development, must look totally different, and no matter the paper or filter used to print or the levels adjustment in photoshop, the final images won't look very well... So, not possible to change development times?


Cheers,

Juan
 
My local lab will "push" C-41 films 1 or 2 stops on request. I have not been happy with the results, which tends to blow out the highlights in those frames that have bright areas. If the whole roll is shot in low contrast light, and not overexposed, then it's satisfactory. Generally, C41 film highlights are almost "bullet-proof", so you can often burn in to pull out the detail there, but that's gone with push-processing... in my experience.
 
According to Ilford whether you rate XP2 at EI50 or EI800 it is not recomended to push process this film! Kodak also claims a wide latatitude on this film. I have a bunch of BW400CN I hope to shoot some at 800 just for the heck of it to see what I get!
 
Doug said:
My local lab will "push" C-41 films 1 or 2 stops on request. I have not been happy with the results, which tends to blow out the highlights in those frames that have bright areas. If the whole roll is shot in low contrast light, and not overexposed, then it's satisfactory. Generally, C41 film highlights are almost "bullet-proof", so you can often burn in to pull out the detail there, but that's gone with push-processing... in my experience.
Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

You mean you've done it with low contrast scenes on C41 B&W with good results, or are you talking about color negatives?

Cheers,

Juan
 
gb hill said:
According to Ilford whether you rate XP2 at EI50 or EI800 it is not recomended to push process this film! Kodak also claims a wide latatitude on this film. I have a bunch of BW400CN I hope to shoot some at 800 just for the heck of it to see what I get!
Click to expand...


Thanks, Greg! That's interesting... Maybe some other members used to wet print these films, could comment on longer and shorter development times...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Thanks, Greg! That's interesting... Maybe some other members used to wet print these films, could comment on longer and shorter development times...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...
Juan, from what little I have learned from these films is Ilford XP2 can be printed on conventional b&w photo papers & the Kodak is made for C-41 color papers. Here is the PDF for XP2. Check out the note in lower right on 1st page.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061301945161573.pdf
 
Dear Juan,

Don't bugger around with dev variations. XP2 Super is low contrast to begin with (grade 3 or even 4 is normal) but it needs to be an unusual scene before you can't get a good print on 4 or in extreme cases 5. If you don't wet print, it scans better than any conventional film I have used.

Think of a LONG, STRAIGHT characteristic curve.

We were less than 400 km from Barcelona yesterday. Maybe next time we'll drop in!

Cheers,

R.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Doug,
You mean you've done it with low contrast scenes on C41 B&W with good results, or are you talking about color negatives?
Juan
Click to expand...
Hi Juan -- With Ilford XP-1, which (unlike XP-2) worked best with the XP-1 home developing kit (a modified C-41), and came out a bit thin with commercial standard C-41 lab processing. So, still having some old hand-loaded XP-1 in the fridge, I tried asking the lab to push one stop in processing to see if that brought it up to the home-kit density level. Too much of a push, as it turned out. But fine for low-contrast scenes like these first two; well, maybe a bit hot on the second... (M2, 75mm Heliar.)

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 031116-24.jpg
    031116-24.jpg
    98.1 KB · Views: 0
  • 031116-32.jpg
    031116-32.jpg
    77.3 KB · Views: 0
Here are a couple others where the light was too contrasty and the brighter areas are blown out. Pushing XP-2, which gives greater densities with standard C-41 than XP-1, would make the effect even stronger. I'd keep it down to no more than 1/2 stop push for flat light. (Kiev IVa, 50mm J8)

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 031006-BW01.jpg
    031006-BW01.jpg
    93.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 031006-BW31.jpg
    031006-BW31.jpg
    84.7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Thanks all for the answers! Looks like those films are worth a try with both kinds of scenes in the same roll... Cool!

Roger & Frances: Next time you're near, of course it would be great to meet you here in Barcelona... We'll hang some cameras on, and everyone will think we're just tourists... I bet no one would dream the great shots we'd have in mind, the great little cameras we'd have on the table between lots of tapas, and the fine times we'd spend! Everything guaranteed, except hitting the shutters!

Cheers,

Juan
 
I know some people here at RFF cross process XP-2. Has anyone tried contrast control with b/w chemicals. Or is cross processing even worth it for what is acheived? I've never tried it so I don't really know anything about it.
 
hi. I use Arista Premium (Tri-x) and XP-2. And I use Rodinal with XP-2 in a simple 1 hour stand development.

I do not print, but rather I scan from negatives to TIFF format. I find that scanning produces low-contrasts images, and I usually need to mess around with the curves to get the right contrast that I want; there is a trade-off in terms of details vs contrasts when it comes to scanning negatives.

cheers!

raytoei
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom