Pushing Kodak BW400CN to 800 or above??

S

saiseto

Guest
Anyone have any experience on using the Kodak BW 400CN rated at ISO800 or above? Would that be causing any problem to develop in C41 photo lab.
 
I'm planning on shooting my next roll at 800 to find out for myself. I'll be sure to post what I learn.

William
 
C41 B&W when exposed more than the recommended speed will turn out grainy and very muddy looking! Maybe you should try Ilford Delta 3200 for low light situation without flash.
 
I made a series with 400BW starting at 50 up to 3200. 3200 is not high quality, but when in need it is a possibly good solution, at 1600 it' ok actually.
 
Hi Magnus,

Do you have scans for comparison purpose?

Regards,
Peter
 
Once read at Kodak's site that they claim that C-41 film has 3 F stop latitude.
Persoanlly I havn't done so with BW400CN, but I did with Color ProImage 100 rated @400, went to the lab and got developed straight at 100 asa. The images came out Ok but very grainy, I think this works well in a very desesparate situation.

Pablo
 
sockeyed said:
I find that Neopan 400 at 800 is gorgeous.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I think that what Saiseto needs is a B&W or color film that can be developed on a local lab. Pushing or pulling C-41 Film is an issue because the lab must be some kind of pro or B&W dedicated. There are labs that come out with sepia prints because they don't have the B&W (colour)paper.
 
Thanks for all the suggestion. I used to shoot 'real' B&W film (Ilford HP5 and Delta 3200) when I was studying in the UK. However, I've moved back to Hong Kong, where shop which would develop B&W film are rare and even some shops do provide these service, however, they are quite expensive and the quaility are not quite up to standard. Perhaps, many people has gone digital here. That's why i need to move to C-41 B&W film....

By the way, do anyone has similar experience like me and would you choose to develop a digtial darkroom instead?
 
Why don't you just process your own film? I think a lot of people here process their own film and scan the negs creating a workflow that gives them the best of both the analog/chemical and digital worlds.
 
Well, for me, I've been shooting a lot of C-41 BW simply because I don't have a working scanner (my old one just died) and I have no money for a new one. Or a dark space to print, so I'd end up with negs and no way to share them. Once I can get a scanner again, I've got my jugs of Diafine waiting... :D but in the meantime, the Walgreens a block away is very convieniant.

William
 
sockeyed said:
I bet it will be horrid. The stuff looks bad enough at 400.
Click to expand...


I'm curious why you say that, but not as a challenge...

I took some shot at a party with the G2- using the same film. I shot it at 320 as I do just about all other 400 speed films (XP2, anything color reversal) and found that I simply can't get good scans with my Epson 2450- the density range of the negatives is VERY slight. In other words, the histograms all showed something like: ____-_ on EVERY scan. I went pulled an older negative on Acros and it scanned just fine.

I'm not happy. There were some that though the pro shop could print, were really too contrasty- even their more professional equipment had trouble. I thought I screwed up somehow.
 
wlewisiii said:
Well, for me, I've been shooting a lot of C-41 BW simply because I don't have a working scanner (my old one just died) and I have no money for a new one. Or a dark space to print, so I'd end up with negs and no way to share them. Once I can get a scanner again, I've got my jugs of Diafine waiting... :D but in the meantime, the Walgreens a block away is very convieniant.

William
Click to expand...

That is a viable workflow, one that I still use, especially with color. My local Long's Drugstore does a great job. They process, print, and supply a cd for a very reasonable price, allowing me to get my images into PS and up into my gallery spaces very quickly.
 
Sounds quite odd, JD... It's difficult to have overly-contrasty C41 negs without push processing. But having an essentially flat histogram with data in only one small area should be a very low contrast scan. I've seen that happen, though, if a lot of clear film border is included in the scan file. Once the area outside the actual image area is cropped off, the histogram looks normal...

How does such a C41 neg look to the eye? How does it look compared to the Acros neg? If there's an orange mask that makes it harder to assess. Shooting at EI 320 should result in a neg with good density range.
 
I can't explain it either- execpt the negatives look much as I'd expect from the histogram- almost clear or almost black. In other words the thin areas were too thin, the thick areas were too thick.

Compared with the Acros, PanF, or XP2, the film just doesn't look right.

I can post a scan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom