Any C-41 B&W Films at slower speeds???

[Michael L. Dunlap]

I've been enjoying C-41 B&W films lately, particularly Ilford's XP2 Super (It's much better than the Kodak version), and I've only been able to buy these films in ASA 400. I was wondering if anyone knew of a C-41 B&W film in a slower speed such as 100, 125, or even 200. Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[Dave Parker]

What format, I don't remember seeing it in any other speed.

Dave

 

[Michael L. Dunlap]

Sorry, I didn't mention format. Mostly 35mm, but if I could get it in 120, that would be nice as well.

 

[Dave Parker]

A quick search on goggle did not return any information on anything other than ISO 400 speed..

I thought I remembered seeing a 125 years ago, but am probably wrong..

Dave

 

[Helen B]

Have you tried overexposing the 400 stuff? It doesn't go grainy like overexposed silver-image neg film, quite the opposite. Is using a slow colour film like Ultra 100 a possibility for you?

I've never seen anything other than 400 C-41 B&W.

Best,
Helen

 

[pentaxuser]

Sorry, I didn't mention format. Mostly 35mm, but if I could get it in 120, that would be nice as well.

You can get it in 120 at least in the U.K. FWIW Roger Hicks in his "Film" book rates this as second only to Delta 100 for quality and in terms of versatility there was no contest. It has a standard development time and C41 chems so no dithering and swithering as to whether it should be X dev for Y mins or A dev for B mins etc depending on the particular advocate for X or A dev.

As far as i am aware, it is the only film that you can shoot at anything from at least 100 to 800 on the same roll and not worry. In fact given its advantages I cannot think why it isn't the film of choice for more B&W shooters and yet it gets very little mention here on APUG.

OK I am playing devil's advocate here, in the hope of getting the downside from those much more experienced than I, like Helen, whose words are always worth reading. The bit about Helen is not of course tongue in cheek or in devil's advocate mode but honestly expressed.

Pentaxuser

 

[srs5694]

It has a standard development time and C41 chems so no dithering and swithering as to whether it should be X dev for Y mins or A dev for B mins etc depending on the particular advocate for X or A dev.

You're not thinking creatively enough! Any C-41 film can be developed in standard B&W chemistry. The results aren't likely to be great, but it can be done. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that you'll get the best results by overexposing by a stop or so, but I've never tried this myself and so can't offer any personal tips.

There are also a few oddball chemistries for C-41 film, such as (there was a url link here which no longer exists) which is a divided developer designed to be used at 75F rather than the more common 100F. My one attempt with NCF-41 and XP2 Super, though, produced negatives that were way too thin. Maybe that was just bad luck, but I advise caution for anybody thinking of trying this combination. I had better luck with Kodak's chromogenic B&W film in NCF-41, FWIW.

As far as i am aware, it is the only film that you can shoot at anything from at least 100 to 800 on the same roll and not worry. In fact given its advantages I cannot think why it isn't the film of choice for more B&W shooters and yet it gets very little mention here on APUG.

I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other, but one objection I've seen to XP2 Super (and other chromogenic B&W films) is that their long-term archival properties are unknown at best, with a suspicion that they may be worse than those for traditional B&W materials since the images are formed by dyes rather than silver particles. A query on this point: Do these films benefit from stabilizer in the same way as color C-41 films? Or could the stabilizer be safely skipped?

As you say, on the plus side they've got a wide tolerance for under- or over-exposure. They also scan well and are compatible with IR dust- and scratch-removal ("digital ICE"). XP2 Super is designed for printing on conventional B&W paper, so you can still have fun with conventional B&W printing. (Kodak's and Konica's chromogenic B&W films are designed for printing on color paper, but can be printed on conventional B&W paper. I've done so with good results -- or at least, results that I consider good; your opinion may differ.)

The grain pattern of the chromogenic films is different from that of conventional films. That could be a plus or a minus, depending on your preferences.

 

[Magnus]

As far as I know you can expose these 400asa C41 films at 100asa and the results will be totally satisfactory.

 

[Lee L]

I recall that XP2 was introduced as a multi-speed film with a very wide range of EIs, and that reviewers came down to best quality/speed balance in the ISO 200 range. That's what I've always used for the half dozen or so rolls I've shot. I've never done a lot of printing from it.

Most color C-41 films aren't any slower than 100 ISO, and I heard at one point a number of years ago that Kodak's 100 ISO C-41 was the same emulsion as the 200, but with a neutral density mask built in to slow it down. I can't substantiate that. Maybe P.E. could address that point.

The point I'm making is that there's apparently not a lot to gain with a slower than 100 ISO C-41 film in terms of grain or accutance. (Although Royal Gold 25 and Ektar 25 would contradict that to some degree.) So if that's your goal, there may not be much advantage in a slower C-41 film over shooting XP-2 Super at lower EIs. If you just need the exposure options, there's always an ND filter.

Lee

 

[roteague]

Both Helen and Lee L are right, you can shoot it at 100. Back in the days I shot B&W, I used XP2 frequently. Could you tell us why you fell that you need a 100 speed film in place of the 400? If the 400 is too fast, then use neutral density filters.

 

[rfshootist]

I've been enjoying C-41 B&W films lately, particularly Ilford's XP2 Super (It's much better than the Kodak version), and I've only been able to buy these films in ASA 400. I was wondering if anyone knew of a C-41 B&W film in a slower speed such as 100, 125, or even 200. Thanks in advance for your input.

Many shoot them at 200 anyway to open the shadows a bit. And even 100 can work, but it does not always work.
Kodak once recommended for the former T400CN a "push 1" dev time for 800 and a "push 2" time for 1600 and AFAIR there was also a pull time for 100, i unfortunately have lost the source of that information now, was on the Kodak homepage.

bertram

 

[Michael L. Dunlap]

Thanks for all your replies. The reason I want a slower speed is because I want to make some enlargements to frame and hang in my den and I was concerned about the graininess with a big enlargement (say, 16x20) on a high speed film. Does your suggestions about shooting at a slower speed help that situation any?

 

[Dave Parker]

When I used to work in the store here locally, we used to do quite a few enlargements of this size from the CN400 B&W that were quite nice, if viewed from the proper distance they were very good.

Dave

 

[Lee L]

Does your suggestions about shooting at a slower speed help that situation any?

It's hard to say without knowing what your personal preferences are, but in general the dye clouds (as opposed to grain) appear less grainy at lower EIs as Helen mentioned:

It doesn't go grainy like overexposed silver-image neg film, quite the opposite.

It's certainly cheap and easy to test. Try EIs between 50 and 200 on the same scene. The higher density exposures may need some "printing through" to get the scale onto the paper, but you should find your own sweet spot in short order.

Lee

 

[roteague]

Back in the days when I used XP2, I used to blow them up to 11x14 all the time, I don't see any reason you couldn't get a 16x20 out of it, even at 400.

 

[Paddy]

I've used XP-2 Super with varying results, mostly O.K. though. For printing on B&W paper, it usually requires at least 40M or more. Here are another few important points that haven't yet been addressed:

Re: "graininess" -- whenever possible, use a pro lab over the "one hour" type. Why,...a pro lab will use dip&dunk instead of a mini lab roller transport. So film is far more likely to be scratch free. Secondly, most dip& dunk machines take longer to process the film at lower chem temps, and this affects granularity.

Re: film speed -- it's a very common practice to overexpose neg films (e.i.), relative to the manufacturers rated ISO. Anyone who's calibrated their meter/film will usually find this to be true, to some extent. I certainly have. On Kodak's site, for their C/N 400 film, they even provide target density values. this of course is a very efficient method of determining your film speed. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4036/f4036.jhtml#judgeneg

Scroll down to the "Judging Negative Exposures" I only wish that Ilford would provide similar data.

 

[rfshootist]

Thanks for all your replies. The reason I want a slower speed is because I want to make some enlargements to frame and hang in my den and I was concerned about the graininess with a big enlargement (say, 16x20) on a high speed film. Does your suggestions about shooting at a slower speed help that situation any?

Not related to grain, because there is no grain in C41. Changing ISo at C41 influences tonality primarily.
bertram

 

[sanderx1]

Not related to grain, because there is no grain in C41. Changing ISo at C41 influences tonality primarily.
bertram

So when we shoot reala instead of superia 800 the reduction in the amount of what must be "not grain" is all an illusion?

 

[Dave Parker]

I have processed alot of C41 over the years and always thought that was grain...hmmm learn something new every day...

Dave

 

[rfshootist]

So when we shoot reala instead of superia 800 the reduction in the amount of what must be "not grain" is all an illusion?

Yes, you see dye clouds, no grain(s). Nonetheless we speak of a "grainy look" at C41 films. A similar sloppy handling of technological terms as digital imaging = photography. ;-)

bertram

 

[htmlguru4242]

XP-2 Super will shoot fine at ISO 100; the negatives a LITTLE dense, but they still print great, even on the crarppy machines at drugstore photo labs.

XP-2 Develops well in B&W chemistry, and could get you ISO 200 with proper processing time.

As to someone saying that there was an ISO 125 chromogenic color film, I'm pretty sure that the original Ilfor chromogenic stuff (XP-1) was slower than 400.

 

[Helen B]

Bertram,

You wrote: "Yes, you see dye clouds, no grain(s). Nonetheless we speak of a "grainy look" at C41 films. A similar sloppy handling..."

I don't think that it is sloppy to refer to 'grainy' or 'graininess' when referring to dye-image film. I think that the use of those specific words acknowledges the distinction between 'grain' and 'grainy' - ie having a granular appearance as the OED defines the photographic use of the adjective 'grainy' and the noun 'graininess'. If you read through this thread, I think that you will find that nobody has used the word 'grain' incorrectly - though if they had, I suspect that we would have known what they meant.

'Grain' is rarely, if ever, the technically correct word when we look at the granular appearance of film when printed. I don't think that I've ever seen a print from a normal photographic enlarger that reveals an image of a silver grain.

Best,
Helen

 

[roteague]

As to someone saying that there was an ISO 125 chromogenic color film, I'm pretty sure that the original Ilford chromogenic stuff (XP-1) was slower than 400.

XP-1 was also 400. I still have a box of it in the refrigerator (exp 11/91). I also used to shoot Agfa Vario XL, which was also 400.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't know what I've been seeing, but I am fairly convinced I see a less apparent grain structure when I overexpose the XP2. (or dye clouds or whatever you want to call it).
I regularly stay in the ISO 100-200 realm when I use it, and only when I need it due to lack of light, I'll shoot at 400 or 800. All those negs come out printable, even very good, but especially so in ISO 200.

All I can say is try it. It takes one roll. Expose the same object, on a tripod, from EI 50 to 800, print them and see what happens. If you don't want to make a 16x20 of all of them, crop like crazy and print 1/4 of the neg on an 8x10 to see how it looks.

- Thom

 

[Jordan]

Just another plug for XP2 Super. I'm using some three-years-expired material that is still just fine (except for a little base fog that is easily printed or scanned through). I often get "grainy-looking" negs from underexposed C-41 materials. To avoid this, I usually set my camera's meter to 200 when I use XP2 Super -- erring on the side of caution.

To my eye, this film has a "smooth" look to it, and in my experience the closest conventional B&W film to it (of those I have used) is actually Efke 25. With XP2 Super you get the benefit of all those extra stops of speed. Taking it to a store to be developed is a convenience for some and a limitation for others. I've developed it at home with a C-41 kit with no problems, and when I don't have one around, off it goes to the local Future Shop (like Best Buy in the USA) for $2 processing. No scratches so far.