Rating for Kodak C41 400CN?

[Stu W]

I have a few rolls in the fridge and was going to try Ilford when they're gone. Iit seems that the Ilford users recommend that asa400 be treated as 200. Does that hold true for the Kodak C41 B&W also? Stu

 

[Richard Black]

Stu W,
I can't speak to this issue directly because I generally rate the 400cn at 400. I do overexpose and underexpose as I feel like it. I haven't noticed a great enough difference to be able to tell you. I believe the culprit is the developers. They tell me they scan each negative and adjust the levels accordingly. I may have to shoot a roll and have them set the scans according to the first and then compare the rest. I love the film though.

 

[peterc]

I've used both the Kodak and Ilford C41 B&W films and have found the Ilford to have more latitude. You can pretty much expose it anywhere from 50 to 800 (all on the same roll) and get usable results. I found the Kodak was happiest at its rated ISO and somewhat less forgiving.

Peter

 

[Doug]

I give all Process C41 films 2/3-stop extra exposure to give me a bit more margin for error and ideally to give a little more shadow detail. These films tend to be unforgiving of underexposure. Ilford XP has been a long-time favorite...

 

[rover]

I have had good luck rating at 200 and at 320.

 

[Pherdinand]

400 and auto exposure in my yashica gsn worked just fine.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Another vote for rating Kodak C41 B&W at 200.

Bob

 

[richard_l]

I usually rate all ISO 400 C-41 film (color as well as B/W) at 320 or 250.