B&w C41

[ernstk]

Their true speed is 200 ISO, but you can expose anywhere between 50 and 1600 ISO, but below 200 ISO the sharpness takes a hit, and above 200 ISO the grain eats up the shadows...

My experience is completely the opposite! I find the true speed of XP2 to be closer to 650 than 400. Even rating it at 400 I tend to find that the highlights can be over blown. I would agree with your grain comment but only with significant under exposure.

Regards
Ernst

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Simon: Yes my experience of Fuji CN 400 C41 was like old TriX too.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

The Fuji is a useful film Jon but as it's not stocked here in Bangkok i'll be back on TX400. Oh and it cleans up much faster than TX400 thanks to ICE!
There was once stock of a Konica 400 C-41 film in Bangkok, which i used just once it wasn't as punchy as the Fuji.

 

[Hiyawaan]

1:I use both color and bw c41 with the intension of printing in bw. Color film giVes you alot of leway with tones using PS. Scan eVery thing your self!
2: no 100 iso c41 b&w that i know off
3: easier, I don't haVe the time to deVelop film any more.
I prefer XP2. I had good results shooting at 50 iso, the grain dissapears and you get wonderful creamy skin tones but you haVe to print through the dense negatiVe.

I really got to fix my "V" key

 

[kuzano]

Well, I can see why all the advice to expose the 400 speed BW400CN at 200. I just shot my first roll in a recently acquired Kiev with a Jupiter8. Testing both the camera/lens and the first time I used the BW400. I broke a basic rule I have learned over and over. 1) Always test a new camera with a known film, and 2) Always test a new film on a known camera.

So after getting this roll back, I know a few things. The lens is incredibly sharp, the bokeh is very good, and the rangefinder is 100% on the money. But the pictures are dark. I shot the film at 400 and I think the reason is that I should have used the film as a slower ASA. Reason is that I've seen P/O pics from the camera and it exposed his pics properly.

But, because I broke the rules, my test results are suspect. I should have shot a couple of rolls of the BW400 with a known camera in terms of meter and contrast of lens. Or, I should have used a film I was familiar with. I am happy at what I know now about the Kiev and essentially happy with the acquisition, but this test was 50% a waste of time for shooting and processing.

 

[NickTrop]

Hmmmmmmmmm like that Fuji 400 CN.

 

[myoptic3]

Am I missing something here? These c41photos look like b&w digicam shots? I used C41 films for a long time when I was starting photography, and also did a lot of color 35mm conversions to b&w. After looking at my early work, all I can say is "what in the world was I thinking"? I shoot Hp5 now and sometimes Tri-X, rate them both at 320, and the results are beautiful. The grain is part of a b&w image, and since I don't shoot weddings, I don't have to worry about the bride's mother wanting everything all smoothed out. The tonal range of real b&w is so much better than the fake stuff.

 

[wray]

Am I missing something here? These c41photos look like b&w digicam shots? I used C41 films for a long time when I was starting photography, and also did a lot of color 35mm conversions to b&w. After looking at my early work, all I can say is "what in the world was I thinking"? I shoot Hp5 now and sometimes Tri-X, rate them both at 320, and the results are beautiful. The grain is part of a b&w image, and since I don't shoot weddings, I don't have to worry about the bride's mother wanting everything all smoothed out. The tonal range of real b&w is so much better than the fake stuff.

Wouldn't it depend on a person's preferences? I, for one, have spent a lot of time in the darkroom which I no longer care to do. When I was developing my own film I spent a lot time reducing the grain in my negatives. While I admire it in other's work I don't care for it in mine. Do you really think it looks like digital? Anyway, here's an old 35mm Tri-X image of mine.

 

[peterm1]

I have tried exposing these films at various iso settings. I have found that 100 or 200 gives best grain and nice handling of tones. I now usually shoot at 200 because the extra speed is handy over 100 I mean, but this is a personal preference. I never shoot these films at 400 iso anymore as I just prefer the result from the extra exposure.

 

[kuzano]

Test of New/Used Kiev (Kneb)

Test of New/Used Kiev (Kneb)

Using BW400cn... next time exposed at 200, instead of 400

 

[wray]

All right! It looks like my next roll is going to get exposed at 200. Thanks for the tip guys!

 

[jan normandale]

Kuzano.. I really like the Goody's sign sharp, crisp BW. Was this shot at the rated 400 or do you mean next time you'll shoot it at 200?

 

[kuzano]

Kuzano.. I really like the Goody's sign sharp, crisp BW. Was this shot at the rated 400 or do you mean next time you'll shoot it at 200?

Actually that one was metered with the meter set on 400 ASA and then I opened up one stop because of the overhang I was under. So, that one was shot as if the ASA were set at 200. Kiev II, Jupiter 8, BW400cn, at about 1.5 meters on the measured distance and showing on the lens scale (per the rangefinder)

 

[peter_n]

I like the Goody's one too, that's the contrasty look I personally go for.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Am I missing something here? These c41photos look like b&w digicam shots? I used C41 films for a long time when I was starting photography, and also did a lot of color 35mm conversions to b&w. After looking at my early work, all I can say is "what in the world was I thinking"? I shoot Hp5 now and sometimes Tri-X, rate them both at 320, and the results are beautiful. The grain is part of a b&w image, and since I don't shoot weddings, I don't have to worry about the bride's mother wanting everything all smoothed out. The tonal range of real b&w is so much better than the fake stuff.

I don't understand your comment? Xpan frames look like digicam shots when using c-41? My point was there is more grain in the Fuji 400CN than Tx400 at least it is using my equipment! What is fake about C-41? Perhaps all this comes down to be being viewed at 72dpi 800 pixels wide on a monitor. 😕

 

[NickTrop]

Perhaps you were using XP2 back when you were comparing traditional to C41. XP2 Super is a huge improvement over the early C41s.