Fast C41 B&W Film?

[piblondin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone,

 

I've been out of film for a while and am just getting back into it. I'm wondering if there's a fast B&W C41 film that's out there. I want something that's C41 because I find scanning Tri-X and silver-based film to be quite a pain. Is there anything out there or do I have to push 400CN to 800 or 1600? Does that work okay?

 

Thanks!

[adan]

Are there "B&W" C-41 films natively faster than 400? No.

 

Are there color C-41 films faster than 400 (that can be scanned as B&W, if you're scanning anyway)?

Fuji still sells 800Z in their pro line

Kodak sells UltraMax 800 KODAK 35mm Print Film and Portra 800

 

Both used to sell ISO 1600 CN films in their photojournalism lines, but those are long dead.

 

[EDIT: Actually, There is a Fuji 1600 Superia apparently still available: http://www.adorama.com/FJCU36.html - and also a Fuji Natura 1600 (available from Japan: http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=24&products_id=67]

 

Can C-41 films of any kind be push-processed? Yes. When my former newspaper still shot film, the Noritsu processors we used had a "pushing" dial that basically just slowed the motor so the film got more time in the dev. Up to 3 stops, in theory. Kodak says 2 stops is (or was) the limit for their Supra 800 (R.I.P.)

 

A local lab will push C-41 up to 2 stops: Color Film Developing - Processing E6 and C41

 

Ilford, however, recommends just using the latitude of their C41 B&W film (XP2) without push processing. ILFORD PHOTO - Push Processing I've heard some users here also say they prefer to just underexpose and recover when scanning than push-process C-41.

 

Chromogenic neg film - i.e. C-41 - tends to behave like digital when pushed. The noise or grain goes up in the shadows first. Whereas silver films tend to pick up the grain most in the highlights. It's due to the same structural difference that makes C41 easier to scan - dye clouds vs. silver chunks.

[piblondin]

Andy, thanks so much for the overview. Any chance you could point me towards any examples of those faster Fuji films scanned as B&W? I'm not sure how much I like the idea of deliberately underexposing XP2 and then trying to recover it through the scanning/printing process. I may just stick with good, old Tri-X and let someone else take care of the scanning.

[StS]

I just had BW400CN pushed to 3200 ASA and found the result fully useable.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/architecture/138633-heinrich-hertz-turm.html

 

Stefan

[ndjambrose]

I just had BW400CN pushed to 3200 ASA and found the result fully useable.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/architecture/138633-heinrich-hertz-turm.html

 

Stefan

 

With that image I'm not sure you're exploring the problem areas because it's a high key image. The effects of underexposure are seen in shadows - and your image doesn't have any.

 

I've experimented with C41 doing my own processing. From what I've found there is basically no accurate means of pushing dye film.

 

It's not like silver, where there's a linear relationship between development time and exposure. C41 is much more seat of the pants - more time always means more development, but not within limits that are easily controlled or predictable. C41 films of all box speeds get the same dev time in normal circumstances (ISO 64 and ISO 800 go in the same tank together) - so you can see that the chemical relationship between time and exposure is minimal.

 

I think this is why labs won't push more than 2 stops - basically, results are highly variable and those two stops are within the normal film latitude, so the processed film will still be broadly usable regardless of success - even if nothing happens.

 

You can underexpose XP2 by two stops and you won't really notice if it's scanned correctly. There's reasonable film latitude but not much scope for push processing compared to silver processes.

[StS]

With that image I'm not sure you're exploring the problem areas because it's a high key image. The effects of underexposure are seen in shadows - and your image doesn't have any.

(...).

 

Please have a look here.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/139818-two-boring-images-follow-technical-discussion.html#post1442254

 

Stefan

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

 

The Kodak CN41 400 can be exposed at 10000 ISO but the quality of prints will suffer.

 

Try a few frames at 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400.

 

Noel