r.t. dowling Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I'm wondering if anybody here has tried push processing BW400CN (or its predecessor, Portra 400BW). The Kodak Q&A and Tech Pub for this film do not mention anything about pushing. I realize that C41 pushing is a bit controversial, but I know it can be done and I have access to a lab that can do it properly. I'm just curious to see if anybody here has tried it with this particular film. It has very fine grain and relatively low contrast to begin with, which makes me think that it ought to, in theory at least, respond well to pushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickpro Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Hey mate, why don't you try it? I bet it will be fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted September 7, 2005 Author Share Posted September 7, 2005 I'm planning on trying it at some point. :-) I always enjoy hearing others' experiences, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_watson Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Since it's all C41, you might try Fuji NPZ pushed one stop. Just get it grayscaled. I've found a 2-stop push to be a bit much for Kodak's chromos. There's also the issue of lab competence/consistency involved with push processing, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 I do like NPZ pushed, but I figured that since BW400CN has much finer grain than NPZ, it might look better when pushed to 1600 than NPZ looks when pushed to 1600 and converted to grayscale. I've heard that some labs flat-out refuse to push XP2. I haven't heard of any refusing to push the Kodak counterpart, though. I'm sure I'll try it at some point, but there's gotta be somebody on here who has already done it and can give me some advice. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben z Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Superia 1600 coverted to grayscale looks better to me than any other means of getting 1600 b&w that I've tried, and that's a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 Konica Centuria Super 1600 converted to grayscale is pretty good as well, and a bit less grainy than Superia 1600. I've done that a few times at nighttime high school football games and the results are very usable. However, given that BW400CN has grain and sharpness comparable to many ISO 100 color print films, it stands to reason that it ought to look pretty decent at 1600. I just wish I had some idea of what to do about the development... i.e. push 2, push 2.5, push 3, etc. I know I should try it for myself, and I will, but the labs in my area that do push processing are quite expensive, and with gas at $3.50/gal, my photography budget has taken a major hit (not that it was very well funded to begin with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_worthman1 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I've pushed BW400CN to 1600 once before. I know it's not much help, but I can't recall the results. I know it worked, but I'm not sure how it compared with BW400CN not pushed. I thought I saw some Kodak documentation that said it could be pushed to 3200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_worthman1 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 <p>I found the Kodak page with the film specs and push processing info: <p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f2350/f2350.jhtml">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f2350/f2350.jhtml</a> <p>------------------<br> PUSH PROCESSING <p>T400 CN Film can be rated at higher than normal exposure indexes for photography in dim light or where fast shutter speeds must be maintained. Push processing in Process C-41 results in acceptable negatives from exposure indexes as high as 3200. <p> Exposure Index / Approximate Developer Time in Process C-41 <br> 400 to 800 / 3:15 <br> 1600 / 3:45 <br> 3200 / 4:15 <br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 Yes, I just came across the old data sheet for T400CN and noticed the push processing information. However, BW400CN (and its predecessor, Portra 400BW) are a slightly different emulsion, and their respective data sheets do not mention anything about push processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad_worthman1 Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I just realized that page is for T400CN, which is discontinued. There's a BW400CN page that doesn't mention pushing... Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtdnyc Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Don't T400CN, BW400CN and Portra400BW all have the same emulsion, the difference being that the latter two have an orange mask in the base to make them more easily printable on color paper, while the now-discontinued T400CN didn't have the mask to make printing easier on traditional black & white papers? If they are the same emulsion, shouldn't the same times/temps apply for pushing any of them? Don't you wish that Kodak still made a chromogenic b&w film without the orange mask so that those of us who want to both scan and print traditionally could do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Doesn't Ilford make such a film (chromogenic without mask)? I get really great scans out of BW400CN which to me seems to have a little finer grain than Portra 400BW (I have some of both so it's easy to compare). Portra was a really nice film for printing on conventional color paper (or its black and white color process paper). BW400CN prints too flat conventionally IMHO and I just scan everything and adjust before printing. I convert the image into 16-bit grayscale, then do the curves adjustment and print on an R800. Fabulous stuff, to me it is alone worth keeping film equipment around, although I also shoot other stuff with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I think there are subtle differences between the films - don't assume that things are the same with a different name. They all produce slightly different results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Go with the Konica it will be around longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtdnyc Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Ilford does make a chromogenic b&w film without the orange mask...but the results I've gotten with the Kodak chromogenics have been just a touch sharper and finer-grained. To be honest, I haven't done any controlled testing of one film against the other. I'm just stating an impression I've gotten from shooting with the two brands. If someone who has done controlled testing of XP2 Super vs. Kodak's current offerings can report that Ilford matches or beats Kodak in grain, sharpness and tonality, I'd be very happy to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 <I>"Don't T400CN, BW400CN and Portra400BW all have the same emulsion, the difference being that the latter two have an orange mask in the base to make them more easily printable on color paper, while the now-discontinued T400CN didn't have the mask to make printing easier on traditional black & white papers?"</I> <P> Not quite. T400CN had an orange mask, but not as dark as Portra 400BW. Some people thought they were otherwise the same emulsion. Certainly T400CN scanned and printed with less contrast than 400BW. BW400CN is purportedly finer grained, but not so much that I really noticed. I find it more similar to 400BW than to T400CN. <P> R.T, I'm looking forward to your comments on pushing. My suspicion is that new Portra 800 will produce better results at EI 3200, but I'd like to be proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam_laher Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I love low light photography and despise flash, so I tend to use high speed films a fair amount of the time. With colour, I get excellent results from Superia 800. I get very mixed results from Superia 1600 - sometimes good but sometimes washed out and unattractively grainy. Generally, I find B&W is a better way to go with high speed. I have gotten average results from TMAX 3200, and have yet to try Delta 3200. I've been experimenting with Neopan 400CN recently. I usually use it at 800, which Fuji actually recommend (100 - 800), and get some really nice results - fine grain and good shadow detail. I've tried exposing it at 1600 and 3200, and at both speeds I've gotten useable but slightly disappointing results. I was hoping for some interesting grain, but it was still pretty fine at 7"x5" - some may regard this as a plus of course. The loss of shadow detail I found most unacceptable. Mind you, 1600 was better in this regard than 3200. I have no experience of BW400CN, so I can't say whether the results would be similar there, just giving my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted September 9, 2005 Author Share Posted September 9, 2005 Neopan 400CN is allegedly the same emulsion as XP2 Super, which Ilford also claims can be rated between 100 and 800 with no change in developing time. I've never seen Neopan 400CN in my area or at B&H, but I've shot a fair amount of XP2 Super and don't like to rate it faster than 320. I find it very usable at 200-250, and acceptable at 320, but annoyingly grainy and murky at 400 or higher. On the other hand, I've shot a ton of T400CN and a few rolls of "Black & White" (the consumer version of Portra 400BW/BW400CN) and both look quite good at 400. When I shot T400CN at 800 (and processed normally), it looked more like XP2 Super shot at 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted September 9, 2005 Author Share Posted September 9, 2005 Now here's something interesting: I just took a look at the data sheet for Kodak "Black & White" -- their consumer-level, grocery store C41 B&W film, which supposedly is the same as, or very similar to, Portra 400BW and BW400CN -- and it has information about push processing. Go figure! The push guidelines are the same as those found in the old T400CN data sheet. So... I guess it's probably safe to assume that if this consumer-level film can be pushed, the pro version ought to be pushable as well. Funny that Kodak wouldn't include that info in the data sheet for Portra 400BW or BW400CN, but oh well. They recommend a 1-stop push for 1600 and a 2-stop push for 3200. If I rate it at 1600 and go with a 2-stop push, will I get higher contrast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Maybe Kodak just feels that the pushing results are not up to professional standards, whatever that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I pushed some CN to 800 recently and the results weren't great. Next time I would do the desaturated 1600 as mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now