160 color neg film for B/W output: long exposures?

[ralph_jensen]

So far I've only scanned transparencies and b/w negatives (my end product is b/w

prints after scanning). But multiple persons here and in the other LF forum have

recommended (for exposure latitude advantages) shooting color negative film for

scanning rather than transparency film.

 

Checking the data sheets at Kodak's and Fuji's websites, it seems that none of

their finest-grained (ISO 160) sheet films were designed with the expectation of

typically exposing them longer than 1/8 of a second (Fuji) or 1 second (Kodak).

 

Obviously it's possible to DO long exposures with either film - I think both

companies say "At longer exposures, do your own testing to calculate reciprocity

corrections" - but before I rip through a couple of $80 boxes of 10, I'm curious

what those who have used these films in LF have found wrt multi-second (or even

multi-minute) exposures.

 

All comments regarding favored practices for scanning toward B/W output are welcome.

[bob_sunley]

Why not just use B&W film?

[ralph_jensen]

"Why not just use B&W film?"

 

Because I'm not persuaded that B&W scans better than color film does, because there are many more filtration/tonality options when scanning color and then converting, and because I can't say with certainty that I won't ever want to print any of the photos in color.

 

Before scanning, it clearly made sense to shoot b&w for b&w prints; I was never happy with b&w darkroom prints from color film. But with digital, if one can have both options from a single sheet of film without loss of quality, it's at least worth considering shooting color, scanning in color, and keeping one's options open.

[bob_sunley]

That makes perfect sense. Well, have you tried using using the same emulsion in 35mm format for testing? It could be close enough to get you in the ballpark exposure wise.

[frankz]

It would make sense in that the present day b&w C41 process (same as color) film acts like color in regards to exposure - that is a little extra smooths things out rather than b&w, where overexposure makes things grainier.

 

Is this what you were taking about?

[ralph_jensen]

Actually, it was a question about the 160 films' reciprocity characteristics, pure and simple, and I probably should have said so in the Subject line!

[rodeo_joe1]

Since you're only interested in B&W output, why not use L or T rated film. Tungsten balanced film is usually manufactured with longer exposure times in mind, and generally has better reciprocity characteristics, up to a few seconds exposure at least.

 

No need to use a colour-balancing filter for B&W, although you'll get results more similar to an ortho film than panchro without using a filter in daylight.

[ralph_jensen]

Well, yes, RJ, that's a good point - but isn't all tungsten film transparency? I'm happy with the [daylight] transparency film I'm using but started this thread because I thought I should try negative film. Frank is right; I should just buy some 35mm and start experimenting.

[jimsimmons]

Fuji no longer makes their Tungsten NPL colour neg film, but it would be what you're looking for - Long exposure times, although requiring an 85B if you want accurate colour in daylight, effectively dropping the ISO to 80. This place MAY still have some: http://www.silverprint.co.uk/colf6.html

[roger_smith4]

Fuji 160C in 35mm does well out to several minutes (I usually shoot 2-5 min), but I can't comment on larger formats. Color correction is forgiving at the printing stage. I like this film as contrast is high enough that it doesn't look muted or washed out and it makes for good B&W conversions. Its reciprocity characteristics seem decent but I always give negative films plenty of exposure and latitude is great enough that it's quite tolerant of overexposure.