Why B&W c-41?

The __assumption__ was that C-41 is a well-defined and closely controlled process.
It was much more repeatable than a wet B&W line.

Also, with the decrease in film photography, it was __assumed__ that color would survive longer than B&W, so it was more likely that a shooter could find a lab to process the C-41 film.

Just my __assumptions__.

- Leigh

I will give a try and develop it in Rodinal. May be @1600 and see how the grain is.

Leigh B said:

Also, with the decrease in film photography, it was __assumed__ that color would survive longer than B&W, so it was more likely that a shooter could find a lab to process the C-41 film.

Click to expand...

Chromogenic film was introduced in 1981.
By Agfa.


And in their marketing they had no word on conveniance.

No so, Leigh. Similar roll-film processing machinery is still in use for conventional black and white films, and the developer choices tend to be less complex and more stable. A pro lab down the street routinely does high-quality automated Noritsu processing with conventional developers for those without their own darkrooms. The whole marketing scheme behind this seems to have been alleged convenience: just take the film to one of those
ubiquitous wretched drugstore mini-labs characteristic of the era.

DREW WILEY said:

No so, Leigh. ...
A pro lab down the street routinely does high-quality automated Noritsu processing with conventional developers for those without their own darkrooms.
The whole marketing scheme behind this seems to have been alleged convenience: just take the film to one of those ubiquitous wretched drugstore mini-labs characteristic of the era.

Click to expand...

Hi Drew,

Of course, a real pro lab can do whatever you want. That's why ($$$) they exist.
They're few and far between.

The "average" customer is quite happy with his 20-cent C-41 print from mom's print shop and pharmacy.

- Leigh

It may be considered undesirable.....but one can actually make fair B&W prints from C41 colour negatives (orange base and all) with VC paper or high contrast paper. The orange base of Kodak's C41 B&W wouldn't be a big problem if you wanted to make B&W optical prints.

The C41 B&W films were introduced way before anyone foresaw a fall in film photography. In the early 80s, when chromogenic films appeared, there was no digital...if you wanted to take a photograph you used film. Really your main choice was colour, B&W or Polaroid instant.

C41 B&W films made some sense if you rarely used B&W...as another poster has said, by 1980 B&W was actually quite unusual for things like family or holiday photos and shooting a roll or two of B&W alongside the colour once in a while was something people who had no desire to process B&W could do. Yes, pro labs can process B&W wonderfully....but every shopping street had a C41 lab...to get a pro lab I'd have to post my film off. And most of those high street labs did a good job in those days. Certainly your chances were better than today...they hadn't even invented digital printing so your automated develop+print service included proper optical prints.

Rather oddly...today in my town there is only one C41 "mini lab" and there is also a pro lab doing B&W.

AgX said:

Chromogenic film was introduced in 1981.
By Agfa.


And in their marketing they had no word on conveniance.

Click to expand...

Yes, but this is because the advertising was in German, thus no word like "convenience", perhaps something like "Agfa Vario-XL verleiht Flügel und macht Hipster glücklich".

The very name of that film, "Agfa Vario-XL" and the fact that it was advertised as a "variable film speed" type, to be usable from ISO 125 to 1600, implies a "convenience" factor.

Agulliver said:

It may be considered undesirable.....but one can actually make fair B&W prints from C41 colour negatives (orange base and all) with VC paper or high contrast paper. The orange base of Kodak's C41 B&W wouldn't be a big problem if you wanted to make B&W optical prints.

Click to expand...

True. I did that -as an experiment- when I was something like 13 years old and had my first enlarger. It worked surprisingly well, much better than I expected. Of course, this depends on the colors of the image itself. I think i used single-speed Kodak paper, normal contrast perhaps.

flavio81 said:

Yes, but this is because the advertising was in German, thus no word like "convenience", perhaps something like "Agfa Vario-XL verleiht Flügel und macht Hipster glücklich".

The very name of that film, "Agfa Vario-XL" and the fact that it was advertised as a "variable film speed" type, to be usable from ISO 125 to 1600, implies a "convenience" factor.

Click to expand...

I know american adverts for that film too. No marketing with conveniance in the meaning of just dropping the film at the drugstore. (And this is what was referred to as conveniance in this thread so far.)

But yes, they emphazised that this film could do what otherwise neccesitated several films.
You could interprete that as conveniance too, as not schlepping around several bodies, change film midways etc.

Hi Leigh - Another advertising enticement which I remember from that era was the high amount of detail these films were capable of handling, at least if you wanted something medium speed instead of Pantomic X or Tech Pan. But around the same time, if I'm correct, the T-grain revolution was happening too. And hypothetical "detail" doesn't mean much if the acutance is disappointing. A niche market, at best.

I like to use it in old cameras that have gimpy shutters, pinhole cameras, etc. XP2 Super is versatile and looks just fine for my purposes in my old folders and junk store cameras.

i'd shoot a ton of super xp2, great stuff, and it cost me very little
to send to fuji labs through sam's club. i used to get it by the hogshead
short date through hunt photo, along with superia400, really convenient and if i wanted
to print on b/w paper it didnt' have that horrible cn400 orange mask.
beautiful fine grain, smooth tones, great for portraits
couldn't have been happier with it.

bvy said:

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

Click to expand...

I started shooting XP2 Super 120 because it was significantly cheaper to do 120 C-41 development over B&W at my local lab, but I also just love the look of it. High key daytime shots at ISO 100 just have a certain cremyness about them I love.

I'll probably be dropping it for a B&W film though as I home develop now (much cheaper than the lab) and my lab has also had some quality control issues with vertical streaks lately (aggravatingly annoying in sky gradients).

OptiKen said:

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

Click to expand...

Different colour/detail translation/rendition characteristics ... Anyway, it is difficult for me to think of having Colour Chemicals and not B&W Chemicals, but it is a possibility of course.

I always thought one of the advantages of those films is that they scan better than real b/w film, which is the worst to scan if you compare slide, color negative and b/w.
Regards,
Frank

I seem to be the minority here in actually liking it. I throw an orange filter on there and meter it for the box speed. I do not develop at home for environmental and safety reasons (I have a 2 yr old and a more than curious Beagle) and use my local camera shop. XP2 Super is cheap to buy and much cheaper to develop than true B&W film is. I love it for family shooting, especially in 120. I scan at home using a Canoscan 9000 MKII. Here are two examples:





For shooting cars, I tend to go with actual B&W film, like Delta or TMax.