More exposure latitude? B/W or Color film?

[kshapero]

Which has more exposure latitude? B/W or Color film? Follow up from another thread. Personally I think a lot of it depends on the brand. Generally speaking I find that Color negative film has the most latitude. Your thoughts?

 

[kshapero]

Take this for an example.

"FOMAPAN 400 Action is a panchromatically sensitized, black-and-white negative film designed for taking photographs under unfavourable light conditions or using short exposure times. The film meets high requirements for low granularity, good resolving power and good contour sharpness. FOMAPAN 400 Action has a nominal speed rating of ISO 400/27o, but due to its wide exposure latitude the film gives good results even when overexposed by 1 EV (exposure value) (as ISO 200/24 o) or underexposed by 2 EV (as ISO 1600/33o) without any change in processing, i.e. without lengthening the development time or increasing the temperature of the developer used."

 

[mfogiel]

If you look at the TOTAL latitude, i.e. regardless of what the box speed is saying, then I believe that chromogenic film wins, however, if we talk about USABLE latitude, then my tip would go to Tri X. The difference between the theoretical and usable latitude, is that as you move away from optimal exposure, you may still retain detail, but often at the cost of sharpness and grain.

 

[kshapero]

If you look at the TOTAL latitude, i.e. regardless of what the box speed is saying, then I believe that chromogenic film wins, however, if we talk about USABLE latitude, then my tip would go to Tri X. The difference between the theoretical and usable latitude, is that as you move away from optimal exposure, you may still retain detail, but often at the cost of sharpness and grain.

Isn't detail and sharpness kind of the same thing?

 

[Gareth Rees]

Surely black and white has the greatest latitude of all.

 

[Gumby]

Isn't that what the "Characteritic Curve" on film data sheets helps us understand? Steeper line = less lattitude; shallower line = more lattitude.

 

[thegman]

For me it's colour film, in particular Portra 400, I really think I've over exposed by maybe 5 stops, and it's still absolutely fine. Under exposure is a bit more dodgy, but I think that's the same for any film.

 

[Monochrom]

Like someone just already said...chromogenic film wins by far on latitude...i´ve used extensively xp2 and teh results are really WIDE...check one film under hard light conditions you´ll be able to get a pair or point on each extreme.
Also teh grain is very fine...

 

[Phil_F_NM]

XP2.

Phil Forrest

 

[charjohncarter]

I find Tmax100 (and even Tmax400) are hard to beat for tonal range; if properly exposed, developed, and agitated. I agree about good latitude with C-41 films, but I don't like the shadows. Maybe that is scanning but where can you get C-41 enlarged properly these days. I was going for highlights to be in the middle tones on this one. But I don't like the shadows:

 

[thegman]

I find Tmax100 (and even Tmax400) are hard to beat; if properly exposed, developed, and agitated. I agree about good latitude with C-41 films, but I don't like the shadows. Maybe that is scanning but where can you get C-41 enlarged properly these days. I was going for highlights to be in the middle tones on this one. But I don't like the shadows:

Maybe something like Neat Image could take the noise away on that. Looks like scan issue to me.

 

[charjohncarter]

I agree about a scan issue but I see a lot of under exposed areas on C-41 that have scan issues: especially, with 400.

 

[KoNickon]

I agree -- chromogenic film has lots of latitude, more so than b&w, especially for overexposure. I suppose the look of underexposed b&w is more acceptable than muddy chromogenic for most people -- looks "real" and "gritty."

 

[.... _]

basically it comes down to how many stops of straight line on the curve you can get before topping out at the shoulder of the film. B+W wins hands down with some film/dev combos going as high as 16 stops. Many get 14 stops. Slow T-Grain films top out sooner.
Colour doesn't have such great options for different developers and pulling as its designed for a specific process. And as has been said grain and sharpness also dictate what acceptable latitude is to each of us.
But for highest quality(grain/contrast/detail/sharpness etc) obtainable from any film/dev combo there is zero latitude so it comes down to what you're prepared to tolerate.

 

[BobYIL]

I do not regard wide exposure latitude as merely "tolerance for exposure errors" anymore; it's BS created by the film manufacturers. Wide exposure latitude, with correct exposure, must reveal itself as wide tonal ranges on the final output. Technically I look for how many stops the film can record. Manufacturers may claim their chromogenic films having more latitude than their other B&W offerings, however I am yet to see the XP2 or BW400CN delivering more gradations than the HP5+ or Tri-X. We decades long used to believe that the films having most silver laid also have more latitude and consequently longer tonal ranges; i.e. hi-speed films like the HP5+, Tri-X, etc, especially when pulled half a stop and developed in a soft working or compensating type of soup.

If you are after for the smooth and long gradations then concentrate on the top hi-speed films of today and experiment with developers. James Ravilious pictures are fine examples.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

XP2.

Phil Forrest

Definitely.

 

[Athiril]

In normal usage, I would probably suggest colour negative. It is a difficult call because many don't shown signs of even shouldering off yet on their published scales (but the non-T grain films have longer scales published by a few stops). There is also a quote from Salgaldo on Tri-X's page - "Tri-X supports a lot of light. Even when I overexpose it delivers truly beautiful tones", the original quote was something like "Even when I overexpose it by as much as 6 stops" (or maybe I am just remembering it that way? hm) while that might not be processed at standard times for Tri-X.. regardless, you don't have to worry about lost shots if you accidentally overexpose 6 stops (that would be quite an achievement), you just have to know to adjust processing.

But there's plenty of things you can do to get ridiculous dynamic range, and hence ridiculously long scale for highlights (or shadows if you expose up) for b&w.

Also the highlights don't just cut off at the end of the published scales (Tri-X shows about a 11 stop scale), generally all you derive from them is where the useful shadow detail ends.

The longest published scale in standard usage I've seen is for ECN-2 film, eg:

0 stops is whatever you set you exposure to.

Say f/5.6 and 1/125th, if you spot meter something at f/11 and 1/125th it'll place +2 stops above 0 given your exposure.

Isn't detail and sharpness kind of the same thing?

You can have a sharper film have much less detail than a film with less resolution.

IE: You lose 50% of the image to like no recorded shadow detail, or highlights reach a point of 0 contrast.

As opposed to the other film which records it, that film then is recording more detail.

Maybe something like Neat Image could take the noise away on that. Looks like scan issue to me.

Looks like way off exposure to me.

 

[Sparrow]

xp2 definitely the best I've found so far .... altho I often use Fuji superia 400 in the Mediterranean as it's so good at hanging on to detail/colour in bright skys against whitewashed buildings

 

[.... _]

It mustn't be forgotten that a lot of talk about "latitude" originated before the days of mass market film scanners when everything was wet printed. In that scenario the so called latitude is only as long as the paper will allow and that still holds true. But with scanning you can take a wider range from the film and easily compress it digitally thereby making the apparent so called latitude longer (providing film can capture it). But in reality compressing along the length of a curve is fundamentally altering the subject contrast ratio as seen so that comes down what each of us is prepared to tolerate. There really is zero latitude if you are seeking to reproduce as accurately as possible with the highest quality what you saw.

p.s. but if you want to alter or stylise what you saw then you can use as much latitude as you like in doing so.

 

[charjohncarter]

Tones and latitude are different. I once read (I have quote around here someplace) that films like Trix have great latitude while films like Tmax don't have great LATITUDE like traditional grain films. The reason given for traditional 400 films having greater latitude is that they have a larger mix of silver grain sizes. While Plus-X (Traditional) have only smaller size silver grains. So light hitting Trix will expose the large grains quickly and the smaller grains more slowly. This according to the author (either Phil Davis or Minor White) is the reason for great LATITUDE with Trix, and also the reason for less LATITUDE with 400 (or 100) Tmax type of films.

Kodak, way back, had a film called Verichrome and later Verichrome Pan. These films were really three films in one; they had three layers of silver. The Verichromes were for box cameras so needed great latitude and they really did.