Well frankly you haven't actually given a reason(s) you have made statements without citing evidence. I am simply looking for an explanation as to why, per se, C41 chromogenic film gives a greater exposure latitude when developed in C41 as compared to the same film when developed in B&W chemicals.I just did, but here is something more:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120810
"Like someone just already said...chromogenic film wins by far on latitude...i´ve used extensively xp2 and teh results are really WIDE...check one film under hard light conditions you´ll be able to get a pair or point on each extreme.
Also teh grain is very fine.."
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/182236-dumb-film-question-xp2-exposure-latitude/
The "latitude" is mostly toward over-exposure.
Simplifying tremendously:
Dye clouds get smoother when they become more dense.
Film grain gets "Lumpier" when it becomes more dense.
Caution: "Lumpier" is not a generally accepted technical term.
The "latitude" is mostly toward over-exposure.
Simplifying tremendously:
Dye clouds get smoother when they become more dense.
Film grain gets "Lumpier" when it becomes more dense.
Caution: "Lumpier" is not a generally accepted technical term.
Well frankly you haven't actually given a reason(s) you have made statements without citing evidence. I am simply looking for an explanation as to why, per se, C41 chromogenic film gives a greater exposure latitude when developed in C41 as compared to the same film when developed in B&W chemicals.
I am simply seeking reasons and more knowledge of how "thing work"
pentaxuser
maybe another reason the OP is processing it in b/w chemistry is because the OP doesn't want to deal with color processing ? ...
Incorrect.Then why use it at all? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to use it in this way. There is no advantage whatsoever over conventional B&W film.
I agree with Nihil Abstat. OP is processing his own film (post #1), and technically there is a disadvantage developing XP2 in B/W chemicals. So, why doesn't he use a decent B/W film. That is still the question.
Bill, what is the technical disadvantage that you're talking about?
The answer to that is in your own question in post #1.
I am simply looking for an explanation as to why, per se, C41 chromogenic film gives a greater exposure latitude when developed in C41 as compared to the same film when developed in B&W chemicals.
The "latitude" is mostly toward over-exposure.
Simplifying tremendously:
Dye clouds get smoother when they become more dense.
Film grain gets "Lumpier" when it becomes more dense.
Caution: "Lumpier" is not a generally accepted technical term.
I gave it already. Callier effect absent.
Ian and AgX put my concerns to rest. See #5 and #6.
Because it's there, to quote a famous Englishman, or, because it's there in his fridge, to quote the OP
Then why use it at all? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to use it in this way. There is no advantage whatsoever over conventional B&W film.
who cares if there is no " advantage " .. or "makes no sense" the OP likes his results.
I've had some success developing Ilford XP2 Super ISO 400 film in Obsidian Aqua, a staining developer designed by Jay Defehr. Though XP2 Super is a film designed for C41 process, I prefer to develop it as traditional B&W film as I need not rely on commercial labs for developing the film and I can use the developer I've brewed at home. In both 135 and 120 formats, I've got negatives that have good contrast, fine grain at ISO 100, and nice tonality.
One concern I've now is about the colour couplers used in XP2 Super film. In C41 process the couplers would react with the developer and form a dye cloud around the silver grain that was exposed to light. When developed in B&W developers such as Obsidian Aqua I'm not sure what happens to these couplers. I suspect they remain in the film even after fixing and washing. Can the couplers cause any harm to the negative over a period of time?
Another concern I've is about the risk of fungus attack on XP2 Super negatives developed in B&W developers such as Obsidian Aqua. In C41 process the negatives are bathed in stabiliser which contains fungicide. As the negatives have no silver, the stabiliser bath is a must to protect them. On the other hand, my XP2 Super negatives have silver in them and I don't use a stabiliser. Is the silver in XP2 Super adequate to protect the negatives from fungus attack?
Gerald:The judgement of the marketplace is better than that of single APUUG members. This film was discontinued due to lack of sales. I don't know about others but this fact shouts in my ears. Now were it not for a similar Ilford film I would say that this idea is more appealing. Like a film then buy lots of it or it will go away. Law of Acquisition #153.
Gerald:
XP2 Super is a current Ilford film. Processed in C41 chemicals it yields black and white negatives without any orange mask. Those negatives print well in an enlarger, and they are excellent for scanning too.
The Kodak version is the discontinued film. When processed in C41 chemicals it yielded black and white negatives with the characteristic orange mask, which were easier to print using the colour paper found in most mini-labs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?