teo
Well-known
Hello,
sorry to post such a noob question, but:
I've exposed a roll of BW400CN (kodak) at 800 ASA, making mostly night shots.
The lab has correctly (I think) pulled developed the film.
But the result is a grain festival, with big bloatches in shadows (strange, usually isn't grain more visible in medium and light areas?). The only way to make it disappear a bit is to close shadows in Photoshop...
These are some examples....
(sorry for the low compression, I had to make you see the grain without jpg artifacts...)
Is it normal to have such a high grain with just 1 stop pull? I had a roll of Scala pulled and they're silk smooth... I saw in the forum many pulled images, everyone with very low grain.
Thanks for suggestion...
sorry to post such a noob question, but:
I've exposed a roll of BW400CN (kodak) at 800 ASA, making mostly night shots.
The lab has correctly (I think) pulled developed the film.
But the result is a grain festival, with big bloatches in shadows (strange, usually isn't grain more visible in medium and light areas?). The only way to make it disappear a bit is to close shadows in Photoshop...
These are some examples....
(sorry for the low compression, I had to make you see the grain without jpg artifacts...)
Is it normal to have such a high grain with just 1 stop pull? I had a roll of Scala pulled and they're silk smooth... I saw in the forum many pulled images, everyone with very low grain.
Thanks for suggestion...
markinlondon
Elmar user
That's pretty typical for underexposed C41 film. EI800 for an ISO400 film is a one stop push. "Grain" will be increased. With chromogenic materials all you're really doing is underexposing. Pushing a conventional b&w film is done by underexposing and overdeveloping. with the right developer you can avoid excessive grain, with C41 you don't get the choice.
Mark
Mark
Graham Line
Well-known
My own experience is with Ilford's XP C-41 films, not Kodak's, but they are similar technology --- no, they don't respond all that well to uprating the film speed and cutting development.
You can overexpose two or three stops and get great results but underexposing really flattens out the contrast and builds grain, even with standard development.
For pushing B&W film, I stick with Delta 400 or similar films, not the chromogenics.
You can overexpose two or three stops and get great results but underexposing really flattens out the contrast and builds grain, even with standard development.
For pushing B&W film, I stick with Delta 400 or similar films, not the chromogenics.
venchka
Veteran
EDIT: Joe & Mark beat me to the punch. I agree with them.
BW400CN, and C-41 process film in general, HATES underexposure. Go the other way, shoot BW400CN between 200 & 400 and you won't see any grain.
Here are two images shot at 320.
BW400CN, and C-41 process film in general, HATES underexposure. Go the other way, shoot BW400CN between 200 & 400 and you won't see any grain.
Here are two images shot at 320.
Last edited:
S
Stephan
Guest
Thanks for mentioning this, I've been thinking about trying that myself lately but now I think I'll stick to pushed Tri-X 
matt fury
Well-known
The grain in the cherub head doesn't look bad to me.
teo
Well-known
thankyou very much people, informative as always
Well, probably it's one of the best that came out, but still I'd like to see more clearly the veins of wood insted of emulsion ;-)
matt fury said:
Well, probably it's one of the best that came out, but still I'd like to see more clearly the veins of wood insted of emulsion ;-)
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
hmmm if I am not mistaken XP2 can be exposed at EI800 without any need to push it. I personally tried it and as far as I remember - ended up with more or less usual grain but with some blocked shadows, as well.
phototone
Well-known
You really need to "pull down" your shadow end of your curves in Photoshop, and make the blacks really black. This would solve most of your problem. There isn't any real detail you need, that you would lose.
Shooting at an elevated ISO with any film is really a "controlled underexposure".
Also, the way any film is scanned, and on which scanner is doing the scanning, and at what dpi has a lot to do with how grain is visible.
Shooting at an elevated ISO with any film is really a "controlled underexposure".
Also, the way any film is scanned, and on which scanner is doing the scanning, and at what dpi has a lot to do with how grain is visible.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
teo said:
No, you're supposed to push to ISO 800 if you're using film rated at 400 when shooting at 800.
The grain exhibited shows that they may have not properly pushed the film. It certainly looks underexposed. If you're rating the film at 800, and the film is ISO 400, if it's developed at that speed (400), then you have yourself underexposed shots. Some may have had enough exposure for you not to notice it much, but others, like your second attachment, shows, at least to me, that this roll was processed "normally" (i.e. no pushing).
And for all that say that pushing XP2 isn't possible, here's my counterargument:
Leica M6 + 50mm Summilux pre-asph / Ilford XP2 rated @ ISO 800
P.S. phototone is right, also.
teo
Well-known
Uh, yes, I mean push, sorry for the mistake
To me the development seems right, I mean, I kept a bit down (-1/2, sometimes -1) the meter to keep the night.... nightly... however next time I'll use a real hi-speed film, the price they charge for push development takes away the economy of a medium speed film....
Phototone: yes, I've pulled down shadows for the "keepers" TIFFs, here I posted two less corrected images to better show the grain.
They were scanned on a epson 3170 (vuescan, 3200 dpi). The strange thing is that grain was less coarse in 16bit rbg scans than in 16bit gray scan (where vuescan auto-decided from wich channel make the gray... probably it took the one with most contrast = more grain....)
time to sleep for me now
To me the development seems right, I mean, I kept a bit down (-1/2, sometimes -1) the meter to keep the night.... nightly... however next time I'll use a real hi-speed film, the price they charge for push development takes away the economy of a medium speed film....
Phototone: yes, I've pulled down shadows for the "keepers" TIFFs, here I posted two less corrected images to better show the grain.
They were scanned on a epson 3170 (vuescan, 3200 dpi). The strange thing is that grain was less coarse in 16bit rbg scans than in 16bit gray scan (where vuescan auto-decided from wich channel make the gray... probably it took the one with most contrast = more grain....)
time to sleep for me now
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/XP2SGB_QX.pdf#search="ilford xp2 super"
Ilford says that XP2 Super can be exposed at EI50-800, sure grain becomes more pronounced when you go EI800. What is more interesting, usual processing (no push/pull) is recomended by Ilford for XP2 exposed in EI50-800 range - means less grain but affects megative density, could be problem to scan
Ilford says that XP2 Super can be exposed at EI50-800, sure grain becomes more pronounced when you go EI800. What is more interesting, usual processing (no push/pull) is recomended by Ilford for XP2 exposed in EI50-800 range - means less grain but affects megative density, could be problem to scan
Dougg
Seasoned Member
I have had XP pushed a stop in processing a few times, and I think it's usually too much, blocking up the highlights that are usually bullet-proof. This was with remaining rolls of XP1 (still have a few) that has lower natural contrast anyway than XP2, as it was intended for Ilford's own now discontinued XP1 home development kit. I've concluded it's best (unless perhaps for wet-darkroom printing) to just enhance the contrast in the scan.
I think every user of XP2 should at some point dedicate a roll to exposure experiments, just to see how one's own meter and other gear, and the chosen lab all contribute to the results. I set my meter to 250 for XP2, and for that matter any C41 ISO 400 film, for results pleasing to me. I really dislike the look of underexposed shadow areas!
I think every user of XP2 should at some point dedicate a roll to exposure experiments, just to see how one's own meter and other gear, and the chosen lab all contribute to the results. I set my meter to 250 for XP2, and for that matter any C41 ISO 400 film, for results pleasing to me. I really dislike the look of underexposed shadow areas!
mich8261
Well-known
Ilford X2 Super - EI50-800
Ilford X2 Super - EI50-800
I just want to make sure I understand what I just read in the Ilford brochure (see link above). Since they say that you do not have to push or pull process this film, it means that I could shoot a single roll and vary the EI according to the scene. I'm not dreaming, right?
Now I just noticed on the inside of the box that it says expose at 400 if printing on colour paper. I guess that means that if I use an EI different than 400, I shouldn't plan on processing through Walgreens or the like.
Ilford X2 Super - EI50-800
Igor.Burshteyn said:
I just want to make sure I understand what I just read in the Ilford brochure (see link above). Since they say that you do not have to push or pull process this film, it means that I could shoot a single roll and vary the EI according to the scene. I'm not dreaming, right?
Now I just noticed on the inside of the box that it says expose at 400 if printing on colour paper. I guess that means that if I use an EI different than 400, I shouldn't plan on processing through Walgreens or the like.
Last edited:
Dougg
Seasoned Member
Hi Michel -- It would be a very useful exercise, I think, to run a roll of this as an exposure test. Say, set your ISO to 400 and make three shots for each scene, framed identically but exposed "normal", then +1 stop and finally -1 stop. You could have the R3A on Auto and use the exposure compensation dial to get the +1 and -1 exposures. That would effectively try the film at 400, 200, and 800 speed. You'd have 12 or so scenes, each shot three times... Try for some high-contrast light and low contrast light, try indoors and out; a variety of situations. Then you look at your prints or scans and see what you think. You'll then be able to answer the question: How does this film, in general, work at these three film speeds?
Very curious that the box says anything about color paper. Most labs will use color paper of course, and given the absence of an orange mask in the negatives (common for color films), they'll need to adjust their printing film pack to minimize any color cast. Still might have a bit of green or brownish look, as getting it just right is difficult. Printing with true black & white paper is ideal, but more to be expected at a custom lab.
Very curious that the box says anything about color paper. Most labs will use color paper of course, and given the absence of an orange mask in the negatives (common for color films), they'll need to adjust their printing film pack to minimize any color cast. Still might have a bit of green or brownish look, as getting it just right is difficult. Printing with true black & white paper is ideal, but more to be expected at a custom lab.
mich8261
Well-known
I think that's a great idea, especially doing it in different lighting conditions. I'll try to make that a holiday project. Then I just have to get my scanning skills up to par to post the results. Regarding the colour paper, I know that Dwayne's Photo offers to print C-41 on colour paper or B&W. If you chose the latter, you pay the B&W processing fee.
MikeL
Go Fish
Very nice Gabriel. I hadn't pushed XP2 or Kodak's 400CN, but I might give it a try. I sure like the pre-asph 50mm.