C-41 B&W Film

[Stu W]

Has anyone used C41 process b&w film? What kind of results can I expect? I'm getting lazy and would like to have the film processed commercially, and if there are any keepers I'll print them on b&w paper. Thanks. Stu

 

[sockdaddy]

i've used the c-41 "Kodak Black & White" for the last year - i really like it

it seems to have moderate grain, and is above average in contrast. i use it all the time as my general 400 speed walk around film when i just need to have a roll in the camera. film base is orange though, so it often produces a color cast when printed at the lab.

 

[Marc Jutras]

I use Kodak's BW400CN a lot. You can see many examples of it in my gallery or on my website. I really like it for portraits. Outdoors, on a sunny day, it tends to be very contrasty. For portraits, I rate it at 250 and processed normally.

There's also Ilford's XP2 Super which has many fans here. I tried it once and found it didn't come close to Kodak's in similar situations. Others will tell you the opposite. It's a matter of personal taste.

 

[JoeFriday]

my experience is exactly the same as Marc's.. I really like BW400CN and think XP2 Super is ok but doesn't appeal as much to me

 

[aad]

This makes me ask a question-please be kind-

I've read several articles and threads on various forums where they'll say they "push" a film to several different ISO ratings on a single roll, or "push" it and have it processed normally without instructions to the lab.

Is this really pushing a film, or is it under-exposing a stop or two and allowing for the film's flexibility to compensate? I thought pushing meant exposing as if the film were faster, then developing it differently/longer to bring out the image.

Aaron

 

[GeneW]

If you'll be enlarging the negatives yourself, you may prefer XP2. The Kodak films have an orange mask, like col negative film, while XP2 is clear, like traditional B&W film. I've shot a little of both and preferred the look of XP2.

Gene

 

[richard_l]

The machine prints are usually much better from the Kodak film, but I prefer the XP2 negatives for scanning.

 

[Marc Jutras]

Rating C-41 films lower than their official rating helps getting more detail in the shadows. They usually have more lattitude in the highlights and if the shadows are a bit under exposed, they'll look muddy.

 

[dmr]

This makes me ask a question-please be kind-

I've read several articles and threads on various forums where they'll say they "push" a film to several different ISO ratings on a single roll, or "push" it and have it processed normally without instructions to the lab.

Is this really pushing a film, or is it under-exposing a stop or two and allowing for the film's flexibility to compensate? I thought pushing meant exposing as if the film were faster, then developing it differently/longer to bring out the image.

Lately I've been doing some night scenes by exposing Fuji 400 as if it were 800, thus intentionally underexposing a stop. The highlights are not as blown out and the dark solids seem a bit cleaner. I don't call this pushing. I call it intentionally underexposing for time, place, and circumstance.

However ... and I'm not the expert here ... I've always thought of "pushing" to mean intenionally underexposing and intentionally overdeveloping. Many labs will "push a stop" if you want them to. The local mini-lab at the supermarket probably won't know what you are talking about, however.

Today's negative films do have quite a margin of error, so if you underexpose a stop or even two, you'll probably still get usable pics in many cases.

 

[richard_l]

I've read several articles and threads on various forums where they'll say they "push" a film to several different ISO ratings on a single roll, or "push" it and have it processed normally without instructions to the lab.

Is this really pushing a film, or is it under-exposing a stop or two and allowing for the film's flexibility to compensate? I thought pushing meant exposing as if the film were faster, then developing it differently/longer to bring out the image.

Aaron

It's not "pushing" if it is developed as if it were shot at the normal speed. By the way, it is not generally recommended that C-41 be underexposed. Up to a stop of overexposure seems to improve contrast and (in the case of color film) color saturation.

 

[planetjoe]

Hey, aad.

I believe that "pushing", as it is, specifically refers to extended development time, usually in conjunction with a negative compensation during exposure (i.e., "underexposure"). This is equivalent to up-rating the film's ISO. Usually, if you hand over a film for developing (at one of the better labs) and state "shot at 1600" or whatever will result in

I've been shooting Delta3200 @1600 a lot with pleasant results, but of course that's a "pull". I've gotten a somewhat grainier result, which I like, but I'm not sure if that's typical. I seem to recall that pulling should yield better shadow detail, which I think I'm seeing. Folks will tell me - and they're correct - that Delta3200 is "really" an ISO1600 emulsion, anyway. Of course, this thread was about C41 films...

As for the original poster's question, I like XP2 Super very much - more than I originally did, when I used to think that it looked "plastic". Just like the orange cast problem when printing from Kodak C41 BW, XP2 prints looked purplish. I've since seen better results.

Hope this wasn't too much of a ramble.


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[aad]

Thanks for the information! I used to push TriX back in the day, and I was confused about some of the things I've been reading.

Aaron

 

[RichardS]

I like Ilford XP2. If you use it and take it to a lab and the prints have a color tinge to them, it means they printed the negatives on color paper. Take them back and tell them to use regular black and white paper.

Dick