- This topic is empty.
800 ISO B/w???
-
Does anyone know what is better for nice grain…
c-41 b/w 400iso pushed to 800
or
color 800 film (converted LAB)?
And if film is pushed for instance from 400 to 800. Should I still leave the camera ISO settings to 400?
Just looking for nice really grainy film, without waiting a decade to get it back, hence the c-41 b/w. And do people have any examples of film they’ve used with nice grain?
If you really want nice grain then you’re better off using a traditional black and white emulsion rather than a chromogenic emulsion. There’s a big difference between the two. The chromogenic emulsion consists of colour dyes whereas a traditional black and white emulsion use silver halide as the light sensitive material. It’s the silver halide crystals that give black and white fil it’s characteristic grain. And as for waiting ages to get it back, you can develop your own black and white film in less than 30 minutes!
It’s just having to wait a week or so for dev, that I can’t do, cos I don’t have access to b/w chemicals. Will enquire with Repro35 I guess.
If you want nice grain, there are still some single layer emulsion fims around (EFKE 50). As Thorsten says, the dye clouds aren’t as nice as real silver.
Si
JohnnyMcMillan wrote:
It’s just having to wait a week or so for dev, that I can’t do, cos I don’t have access to b/w chemicals. Will enquire with Repro35 I guess.
Gunne’s used to do BW processing, perhaps they still do. Might be worth giving them a shout. To be honest, if you don’t like the idea of having to wait you have two options. DIY, or shoot digital. :wink:
Gunnes still do the B&W processing, get it in before 5pm and they should have it ready the next day. Definitly go for traditional B&W if you want nice grain. Kodak TX 400 works really well pushed. I’ve pushed it to 3200 ISO before and the grain isn’t too harsh even when pushed that far. If you want to push it to 800, set your camera’s ISO to 800 and that will underexpose it. Alternatively you can leave it at 400 ISO and deliberately underexpose every shot by 1 stop. setting the camera’s ISO to 800 is much more simple in my opinion.
Just make sure to tell Gunnes that you pushed the film by 1 stop or they’ll process it like regular 400 ISO!!!!
Johnny,
Have seen some nice work on Ilford Delta 3200. This photographer uses it, have a look http://www.lauraburlton.com/
Johnny, I’ll have a look through my negs and see what would be TX 400 pushed and then go find the prints, scan them and post them. It’s hard to tell from the prints because I was using Delta 3200 pushed to 12800 ISO. I was using Kodak 3200 as well sometimes and my prins ae in no particular order. It was all for live gig shoots so I wouldn’t have to use a flash gun if possible. I actually found the Kodak TX 400 looked nicer with a finer grain than regular Kodak 3200. I was using Kodak developer too (I think It’s Kodak TK or TX, I can’t remember offhand).
I think I also read somewhere that the Kodak 3200 is actually rated alot lower than 3200 ISO (something like 1200 ISO equivelant) and the underexposure is worked into the processing time to pull it back. this would explain why the Kodak 3200 never worked as well when pushed compared the the Delta 3200.
I’d go for Tri-X pushed to 800 or Delta 3200 at 1000 (which is actually closer to its real speed).
JohnnyMcMillan wrote:
Does anyone know what is better for nice grain…
c-41 b/w 400iso pushed to 800
or
color 800 film (converted LAB)?
And if film is pushed for instance from 400 to 800. Should I still leave the camera ISO settings to 400?
Just looking for nice really grainy film, without waiting a decade to get it back, hence the c-41 b/w. And do people have any examples of film they’ve used with nice grain?
I’ve read that traditional silver halide film has better longevity for archival storage when compared to chromogenic film on account of the dyes, which wouldn’t really surprise me. However these days the convenience of digital scanning allows the ‘keepers’ to be scanned & archived digitally, instead of keeping stacks of prints. But then as Thorsten mentioned, it’s the silver halide crystals that give b&w it’s characteristic grain.
With my purist tendencies I’d say ‘go for the black & white option’ but have myself recently fallen for the C41 option for similar reasons as yourself; speed and convenience (plus availability issues with Kodak b&w film!). Grain wise I prefer shooting Kodak, and really loved P3200. Their BW400CN has a pretty nice feel about it too IMO. Not tried the BW400CN at anything faster yet.
I echo comments above, if you intend to shoot at 800, change the ISO to 800 on the camera and tell whoever is developing it that you shot it at 800.
Here are some recent examples for your interest, more examples on the gallery page they’re on. The films were exposed that their proper rating.
Hope it helps :wink:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
