most forgiving film - Color vs. B&W

[reagan]

**Forgive me if this has already been discussed to death. I really did search several times / words / phrases and found nothing. Any good threads on this subj. are certainly welcome.**

Comparing B&W vs. Color, and how much *range*, shall we say, each one has, I read this last week on istillshootfilm.org.

"Different types of film have a different range of stops that can be over or underexposed while still retaining information:
Black and white film: 5 stops (this means you can over or underexpose by 5 stops and still retain information in your negative… black and white film is very, very forgiving)
Color negative film: 3 stops (slightly less forgiving, but still a little breathing room)
Color slide film: 1 1/2 stops (here you really need to be precise with exposure, which is often why slide film is considered to be “professional” film)"

I thought it sort of a general blanket remark about all films and their range of usable exposure, and as I haven't that much experience with a wide variety of films, I just wanted to solicit any thoughts with films you use, B&W vs. Color.

I've considered the difference, but never put a number on it. 2 stops difference seems like a lot.

• Is that an accurate estimate of the difference between any brand and type of Color & B&W?

• Which brand / type of Color or B&W is the most forgiving for under- / overexposure, etc.?

Just curious ... Thanks All!

 

[Rayt]

I have always thought C41 film is the most forgiving and can handle 3 stops over but 1 stop under can look pretty bad. Black and white film has better latitude but you need to adjust development in accordance to exposure so you can't accidentally over or underexpose then process as normal and still get a good neg.

 

[ferider]

I look at it this way: every stop over/under exposure is the same as loosing 1 bit dynamic range. So I try to get the maximum out of my negatives when exposing/developing and scanning. Every stop counts, also in B/W, in particular if you want to adjust contrast when printing. Otherwise, what's the point of still using film ?

YMMV,

Roland.

 

[David Murphy]

I've heard that Kodak Ultra Max 400 and 800 were designed for exposure tolerance

 

[Tim Gray]

I've pretty much found Kodak's recommendations for exposure latitude for most of their films to be pretty good. Note that they don't mean you will get the BEST quality in that range, but useable quality. Best is usually somewhere around box speed, adjusted accordingly to your tastes and metering style.

That being said, a lot of their C-41 and B&W films are -1/+2 or +3. Any thing more than that can work out fine IF the scene lighting is appropriate. Low contrast scenes can handle more overexposure than high contrast scenes for example.

Personally, 5 stops of underexposure for B&W sounds like a bit of fib to me for acceptable quality.

I think it goes the faster the film, the more exposure latitude it has. Thus most 400 or 800 speed films are going to give you the most exposure latitude. When I say 800 speed films, I'm including T-Max and Delta 3200, which are nominally about ISO 1000.

 

[htimsdj]

I usually think of all negative film (color or black and white) as having three stops of over exposure latitude and one stop of under exposure. I always favor overexposure on negative film. And because of that, I always rate the film at half its box speed (Ektar 100 is treated as 50 ASA film). This puts the film at its midpoint, so I can have two stops in either direction.

Also, I'm not certain that slide film can handle 1.5 stops in either direction. More like 1/2 plus or minus.

 

[charjohncarter]

It is hard to compare, but C-41 seems to be good no matter what exposure. And B&W you have to work harder to get maxium latitude. This is from an end of roll shots (how do you meter this?) and all three came out good enough:

 

[reagan]

Thanks to all for the input. Just what I needed. Hadn't considered the difference in latitude between color & b+w. I found a couple of other old threads with some info (then lost 'em again.) I think I might try a couple rolls of Ilford's C41 stuff and shoot it @ 200, see how I like it.

 

[P.KC]

from the tests I have done, I can overexpose c-41 films by 5 stops and still make a successful print. I usually overexpose by 2-3 stops anyway to achieve the contrast I want.

 

[reagan]

from the tests I have done, I can overexpose c-41 films by 5 stops and still make a successful print. I usually overexpose by 2-3 stops anyway to achieve the contrast I want.

P.KC - is that color or b+w?

 

[PaulN]

Ilford's XP2 (C41 b+w) is my goto film these days - great latitude; I've made numerous exposure mistakes and the film has been pretty forgiving. When scanned in, I've been able to clean things up in post processing when required. When the over exposed, I've captured some great contrasty shots.

Don't get me wrong, I love tri-x, but don't have the time to process like I once did. When my kids are older, I'll no doubt outsource development to them, but in the interim, I'm stuck with C41 processed at the local camera shop.

 

[Steve M.]

I think charjohn's shot shows why we still shoot film (there's a lot of other reasons too). You could never in a million years get that shot in digital because the much brighter outdoor lighting would have been blown out entirely. People talk about dynamic range, but the USABLE range of film is much higher than digital shooters think.

Usually 1 to 11/2 stops off is a safe bet for a good photo. 2 or 3 may be pushing it, depending on subject matter, film choice, and lighting. I'm finding that good development is essential to really good photos, so even though both C41 and silver B&W films will give you great exposure latitude, that latitude can disappear if it isn't processed optimally.

I might also note that the closer I can get the shot metered correctly to begin with, the better the negs are (duh). They will "pop" on the light table, and scan or enlarger print a lot better, and easier. So-so metering and developing can destroy the characteristics of a great lens, and even a not-so-great lens can produce some great photos if the metering and developing are nailed. In other words, exposure latitude can often save a shot, but my best photos come from shots that were initially correctly metered and properly developed.

 

[rxmd]

from the tests I have done, I can overexpose c-41 films by 5 stops and still make a successful print. I usually overexpose by 2-3 stops anyway to achieve the contrast I want.

I've used XP2 a lot, whose actual sensitivity is in the ISO 250 range. Once I shot a roll at ISO 50, or 2 1/3 stops overexposure. The results were printable, but the results looked a lot like line drawings:

ISO 800 was possible, too, but you got dead shadows. So I'd rate exposure tolerance on that as +2 1/3, -1 2/3. And that's pretty much the most forgiving film I know. Colour film tends to behave worse to my eye.

Your 5 stops overexposure means taking an ISO 1600 film, whose actual sensitivity is in ISO 1000 territory, and exposing it at ISO 32. Really? What film was that? Do you have a scan of one of those successful prints?

 

[P.KC]

P.KC - is that color or b+w?

should of specified. this is color neg. I shoot with portra 400 now, but have had the same results with pretty much all kodak films.

 

[P.KC]

Your 5 stops overexposure means taking an ISO 1600 film, whose actual sensitivity is in ISO 1000 territory, and exposing it at ISO 32. Really? What film was that? Do you have a scan of one of those successful prints?

going to just have to take my word since I dont have any prints. this is coming from a test series I did a few years ago using ektar 100. closest thing I have is this shot that is 3 1/2 stops overexposed.


untitled by Iambillslefthand13, on Flickr

the cprint holds a lot more detail in the highlights. but yes the colors do start going very wrong at that level of exposure. while I can make a successful print from SOME negatives in the 4-5 range, the ideal one is at 2-3 for me.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I agree B&W is even more forgiving than C41... But only if the used development is really short... In other words, if you use a tiny part of your negative's tonal range or latitude... Once you do more normal developments, or longer ones for pushing, it's less forgiving than color negative... And slide film has no latitude at all: 1 1/2 looks like a joke! A slide is the clear best option from a bracketing when you see -1/2 and +1/2 surrounding it...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[rxmd]

going to just have to take my word since I dont have any prints. this is coming from a test series I did a few years ago using ektar 100. closest thing I have is this shot that is 3 1/2 stops overexposed.


untitled by Iambillslefthand13, on Flickr

the cprint holds a lot more detail in the highlights. but yes the colors do start going very wrong at that level of exposure. while I can make a successful print from SOME negatives in the 4-5 range, the ideal one is at 2-3 for me.

Thank you.

This looks quite cool, actually. A bit like cross development, but with warmer colours. Ektar is a very nice film.

 

[charjohncarter]

I think charjohn's shot shows why we still shoot film (there's a lot of other reasons too). You could never in a million years get that shot in digital because the much brighter outdoor lighting would have been blown out entirely. People talk about dynamic range, but the USABLE range of film is much higher than digital shooters think.

Usually 1 to 11/2 stops off is a safe bet for a good photo. 2 or 3 may be pushing it, depending on subject matter, film choice, and lighting. I'm finding that good development is essential to really good photos, so even though both C41 and silver B&W films will give you great exposure latitude, that latitude can disappear if it isn't processed optimally.

I might also note that the closer I can get the shot metered correctly to begin with, the better the negs are (duh). They will "pop" on the light table, and scan or enlarger print a lot better, and easier. So-so metering and developing can destroy the characteristics of a great lens, and even a not-so-great lens can produce some great photos if the metering and developing are nailed. In other words, exposure latitude can often save a shot, but my best photos come from shots that were initially correctly metered and properly developed.

Thanks, but as I said 'how do you meter this(?)' so I did three (brackets) all pretty much the same. The color temp was different but still inside-outside still worked well. I sometimes wonder when I read the architectural photographers musing over how to get the inside-outside balanced (using all kinds of lighting and gels for color correction and waiting 8 hours for the sun to just about go down), why don't they just buy some C-41, shoot and go home to the family and eat dinner.