Why B&W c-41?

The title is my question.
Why does one choose a c-41 B&W film, other than because you don't have any B&W chemicals?

For convenience. The photo dealer only needs to use one process for all film. But, it never really caught on.

PE

PE said it. I could never find a use for it.

Photo Engineer said:

For convenience. The photo dealer only needs to use one process for all film. But, it never really caught on.

Click to expand...

Sirius Glass said:

PE said it. I could never find a use for it.

Click to expand...

When I started shooting for a then new skateboarding magazine here in Brazil, in the early 90's, black and white film was cheap, but processing was expensive, as only a few pro labs offered the service.

Color processing, on the other hand, was cheap and available. We used a lot of Ilford XP-2 back then.

The magazine was printed in black. We scanned the prints, as film scanners were unavailable to young entrepreneurs.


Cheers,
Flavio

There are a couple interesting attributes: Wide latitude. Little grain since the silver is removed.

I think the orange-masked variety may be difficult to print in the darkroom.

I used it because it gave me 4x6 proof prints from the 1-hour photo place. I could make larger "real" prints of anything that looked like it was worth it.

Some of the chromogenic B&W films also had very wide latitude and could produce good negatives over wide ISO range. For example, Agfa Vario-XL was supposedly usable between 125 and 1600.

In the good old days when everyone was still shooting colour film (instead of digital) C-41 processing was available almost everywhere. Nowadays, not so much, so the main reason for using C-41 B+W (convenience/ease to have it processed) has disappeared.

Shoot a roll with a range of exposures for the same light levels and you will observe how the "grain" appears to become finer as the exposure increases,
If scanning is part of your workflow, the dye clouds that form the image may be easier for some to deal with than the silver grains that form the image in standard B&W film,
It can be very nice for portraits,

Was bw c41 meant to replace the traditional BW process?

No. Nothing can replace traditional B+W process just as nothing can replace painting. Just as a convenient alternative, I believe.

fwir, it works well for cameras with limited or zero adjustments like the box Brownie as it is difficult to overexpose.

Remember that when these films were introduced, and for a good while after, there was a C41 one hour photo shop practically on every shopping street in every town in the developed world. For peanuts you could get a C41 B&W film processed, and printed if you liked. You could then take those negatives and print them yourself later, if you preferred.

There were several possible uses.
A pro who needed B&W developed quickly for a deadline
An amateur who used B&W only occasionally. No sense buying equipment and chemicals if you only shoot 4 rolls a year B&W.
An amateur who wasn't able or who didn't want to process film at home. Lots of people think it is more difficult than it is. Lots of wives/parents don't like having chemicals about.
A tourist away from home wanting to do B&W quickly before they return home.

They were never intended to replace traditional B&W films, but many photographers don't have access to a darkroom, or might have only occasional access to one (commercial or educational darkroom). They were used by much the same people who today have a serious digi camera and who use software to produce B&W photos from it. It was certainly an option to have the film developed quickly, then visit a darkroom at a later date to make prints.

It was an option, especially when cheap and reliably good C41 processing was available practically everywhere. Nowadays, it makes less sense for most people. I tried the Kodak variety a couple of times, it certainly worked and the negatives can be printed OK as colour negatives....better as B&W and they also scan. But I prefer traditional B&W film and home developing.

I tried teh agfa Vario film whe it was released but didn't like the results, Xp1 was quite different and could be pish processed but the labs didn't like it as it used a nonstandard C41 process time. I did my own C41 processing so that didn't bother me particularly as I was almost always pudh processing it to get the best results at 1600 EI.

XP2 was released and was compatible with standard C41 process times, this overcame the labs reluctance to processing, Ilford dropped the recommended push process times from their datasheets becase labs didn't want to push process the film. I revised my process times and kept push processing with XP2 and later XP2 Super. I remember discussing this on a business vist to Mobberly with a senior Ilford research chemist.

For my use shooting rock concerts XP1/2 push processed gave me far better results than HP5 push processed.

Ian

It was for people like my Mother.

Mom had a decent autofocus SLR and liked to take family pictures. She has a good eye and good photo sense. Ma though has no clue what shutter speed, aperture or ISO is. Sure she knows that 800 is better for indoors but that's what the popup flash is for! When b&w c-41 came around she bought a bunch of rolls, it was nice looking film and gave a vintage look that she wanted without having to pay the shop an extra x amount to drop in a b&w filter.

95% of film shooters back in the day were casuals. Film was the ONLY way to take photos, everyone who had a camera shot film. There was nothing else. And of those 95% they ALL shot c-41 and maybe maybe some E-6. Hobbyists and pros shot the other stuff.

When I worked in a C41 lab I shot a lot of it, I still like it but don't trust any of the current local one hour labs with my stuff (since a couple of huge failures on their part).

I shot a lot of Ilford XP1 (in the 1980's) for one local paper that insisted on B&W prints for publication. All the other papers would accept a colour print (a good colour print, no colour casts). There was Agfa Vario XL also but it appeared to be discontinued after a few years. I must admit I liked the Agfa over the Ilford at the time but Ilford was more widely available locally.

Konica had a chromogenic film as well VX400 ( I think) but if I remember correctly it had the orange mask, so I think it probably repacked Kodak BW400CN. (I remember in the early 1970's Konica bought their colour emulsions from Kodak). And then there was Fuji Neopan 400CN made for them by Ilford.

The popularity of one hour colour processing in the 1980's and 90's drove the market for C41 B&W film. Also there was a generation who hadn't seen a B&W print since all holiday snaps were in colour since the early 1970's, so it did have a slight novelty about it.

I also remember Konica and Kodak offering minilabs RA4 (colour paper process) B&W paper (again probably the same paper repacked) so the lab could offer true B&W rather than sepia or colour cast prints on colour paper. Remember labs were still printing optically then.

Am I the only one shooting it just for the look of it?

I shoot dozens of rolls, take it down to the store I have used for 50 years and print my own prints. The only bad is the new cost of scanning and printing 4x6's (as opposed to the old automated optical prints) rules out using them as work prints. Now I print proper contact sheets.

OptiKen said:

The title is my question.
Why does one choose a c-41 B&W film, other than because you don't have any B&W chemicals?

Click to expand...

- Very wide latitude
- Overexposure reduces grain (instead of what happens on conventional b/w films)
- Quick processing on the 1-hour photo lab, in my country C41 processing is cheaper than B/W processing.

I like Ilford XP2. On the other hand i feel conventional B/W films are sharper-looking.

- great for pinhole (latitude)
- easy to get processed (have no darkrrom, but only a not so dark room
- can print tradtional baryt
- easy to scan (you can use IR dust removal)
- creamy look if you want to

I tried C41 B&W at one time, just out of curiosity. Didn't like the bland look, mushy edges, or lack of serious contrast control.

May I know what will result if C-41 B/W film developed using traditional B/W developers?

Printing in darkroom may be a problem because of orange mask but how about scanning?

Photo Engineer said:

For convenience. The photo dealer only needs to use one process for all film. But, it never really caught on.

PE

Click to expand...

frank said:

Nothing can replace traditional B+W process just as nothing can replace painting. Just as a convenient alternative, I believe.

Click to expand...

Chromogenic b&w films yield freedom in design not available in classic b&w films, that was made beneficial to the user.

baachitraka said:

May I know what will result if C-41 B/W film developed using traditional B/W developers?

Printing in darkroom may be a problem because of orange mask but how about scanning?

Click to expand...

you'll get a black and white image. I developed a few rolls of xp2 in Rodinal and got pretty good results.

not all the c41 monochrome films have an orange mask.
the discontinued kodak bw400cn did but xp2 and fuji neopan400cn don't.

I've printed from kodak negs to ordinary silver b&w paper and it was fine.

Corrected.