C41 black and white film in bright sunny conditions

[kimpywooflickr]

<p>I am going to southern Spain soon, where it is (hopefully!) very bright and sunny. I love C41 black and white film (heresy!) but I'm a bit concerned about taking it into bright conditions. In the past I have had results with too much contrast for my liking, with the darks being too dark in particular.<br>

Reading around a bit it seems like I should shoot it at 200 (or +1) to try to avoid this and I was wondering if that would indeed be the general recommendation? If it's very bright could it take going to 100 (or +2)? I wouldn't be getting it pushed or pulled in the lab, so I'm relying on the latitude of the film.<br>

I usually use Ilford XP2 (British company), but open to Kodak BW400CN or Neopan C41 if there is a feeling that any of them are better than the others in bright conditions.<br>

I haven't quite decided what camera/s to take yet but will most likely be shooting with a Pentax ME Super.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Probably a useful thing for you to have is a ND filter which would effectively reduce the ISO of your film. They come in various strengths, I usually keep a 1 stop and a 3 stop on hand.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>C-41 process monochrome films like XP2 Super and Kodak's various films (BW400CN, and a confusing array of names over the decades) typically handle contrasty lighting very well. But if the light exceeds the film's ability to handle without special methods, I doubt that setting the exposure index lower than 200 will help and may make scanning more difficult. And these films do not respond to push/pull processing in the same way as silver halide b&w films to control contrast.</p>

<p>You might consider three types of filters:</p>

<ul>

<li>A simple "contrast control" filter like yellow, orange or red can darken blue skies to bring the sky within the desired overall dynamic range so it appears balanced against the foreground. If I had to choose one it would be orange, or the deepest yellow available. I find lighter yellow does practically nothing useful and the red tends to be too much. These work as well with C-41 process monochrome films as with panchromatic silver halide b&w films.</li>

<li>A polarizer can help, but can also be a bit tricky to use well. Polarizers work only when the light is at a certain angle - you can see this effect by looking through the polarizer and turning it slowly while also noting the effects on reflected light and the sky at various angles. And polarizers have no discernable effect on overcast skies or some other conditions.</li>

<li>Graduated density filter typically help bring the sky down to a reasonable level to avoid excessive contrast between foreground and sky. But the typical graduated density filter works best with a level horizon with no significant protrusions above, otherwise there are telltale halos. But, frankly, most folks don't notice this effect, or don't find it objectionable. There are some rather sophisticated graduated density filters that can help minimize this effect. But it will still be noticeable in, for example, photos in which tall buildings or trees project into the sky. The upper end of the buildings, trees, etc., will be darker than the lower part, along with the sky.</li>

</ul>

<p>A simple density filter won't help control contrast, but will help bring exposure within the range of cameras with limited shutter speeds - typically leaf shutter cameras like TLRs and compact rangefinders. But any camera with a 1/1000th or faster maximum shutter speed should be able to handle daylight when combined with aperture adjustments.</p>

<p>Finally, when all else fails... find a better lab. In fact, find a good lab first. The quality of minilabs has declined sharply over the past decade and it's very difficult to find a good one nowadays. The typical lab may be able to handle film development well enough, but I haven't found a minilab in several years that can do a decent job with scanning or printing. The only way to get really good scans is to find a professional lab with proper equipment. And some minilabs have switched to "dry" printing, which I've found vastly inferior - the results are usually murky, flat, and worse with b&w than color. It takes a good lab to get the best from dry process printing and so far I haven't found a good one in my neighborhood. I rarely bother with C-41 color or monochrome films anymore because there is only one competent minilab in all of Fort Worth, at Fort Worth Camera. A decade ago I could get good quality film processing and printing at any nearby Walgreens, CVS or Walmart, but no more. All of those same stores have switched processes and their results now are inferior and overpriced.</p>

[DWScott]

<p>I don't like using Ilford XP2 Super for exactly that problem -- I find that the contrast is too high, the blacks block up and the whites blow out, and there's not enough tone left in the middle.</p>

<p>I much prefer Kodak BW400CN. In fact, it's my favourite black & white film. It handles extreme contrast very well, and the results on skin are very pleasing -- lots of luminous detail. I only wish they still made this film in 120 size. Oh well, I keep shooting it in 35mm and it looks so good in bright light that it almost looks like 120.</p>

 

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>I wouldn't overexpose as a general rule. There are probably situations where this would help, but there are just as likely to be situations where it would be detrimental, particularly scenes where there is a lot of visible sky. You'll probably end up with a large area of white space if you overexpose in such a situation. Evaluate each situation on an individual basis. If you are worried about losing shadow detail, you can always bracket exposures.</p>

<p>I've never used XP2, but I've used BW400CN several times. I find it has a rather pleasing scale and scans well. It scans better than most of the other B&W films that I'm using now.</p>

<p>Something to consider is who's doing the scanning. I quickly gave up on using the scans from the drugstore mini-lab because they were way too contrasty for my liking. I've gotten much better results from scanning the film myself. For reference, here's a couple of old threads I posted on another forum. Different cameras were used, but both were using BW400CN. </p>

<p>In this thread, the pictures were from the drugstore scans. I even tried a little shadow recovery on them.<br>

<a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00ZsrS">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00ZsrS</a></p>

<p>In this thread, I scanned the film myself on an Epson V600. (Ignore the purple-ish tint. That was a mistake on my part)<br>

<a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00b5yJ">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00b5yJ</a></p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Kimberley, I am in roughly the same conditions as Southern Spain (in southern Italy), and I use BW400CN and XP2 somewhat regularly. I can echo what other said about their rendering, though I prefer the contrast of XP2, and found BW400CN a bit too flat when shot as if it's ISO400. As ISO200, it looks a lot better to me. Note that I use the normal lab via a local photo shop, so nothing abnormal should occur during development.<br>

With both, I find they become more contrasty when used as ISO 200 films - so if anything, I think you'd better stick at ISO400 if you dislike the contrast. And that is a very serious problem this time of the year. From about 11 in the morning till 5 in the afternoon, the light is extremely bright. Not photogenic light by any means, and very harsh. While not film, this is <a href="/photo/10976495">an example of the light conditions</a>. So, most of the day, ISO400 is way too fast, and even ISO200 you will need a ND filter to shoot apertures wider than 4, or have speeds above 1/2000th.<br>

And then when the sun sets, it sets fast. You get about one hour between ISO200 and 400 while the sun sets, and then it's ISO800 and beyond (assuming handheld a normal lens at medium-wide apertures).</p>

<p>So, it's not an ideal choice. Maybe Kodak BW400CN works a tiny bit better because it's a bit less contrasty, but all in all largest part of the day, the light is just too much.</p>

[savagesax]

Just a reminder about the airports. Don't put your film through those x-ray machines. Give the film to the

security folks in a clear plastic bag. They may say the film is safe to scan, however I've had a few

situations when the film got wrecked. Even the low ISO/ASA film.

[kimpywooflickr]

Thanks everyone.

 

Not concerned about the hand luggage X-ray - have been through them many times and never had a problem so far!

(Touch wood!)

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I was in southern Spain a couple of years ago and just got back from Greece, including Athens and Santorini. The sun is roughly the same distance from any point on the globe, so it's not any brighter in Spain than it is in New York or London. There are just fewer clouds to break it up. Film speed isn't relevant -- exposure for ISO 400 in bright sun is still f/16 at 1/500. The problem isn't that the light is too bright but that direct sunlight in mid day is bad light. The answer is to avoid shooting in the bright glaring light of midday regardless of where you are. Light is almost always better in early morning or late in the day. If you are shooting in mid-day, try to shoot in places in the shade, again the same that you would do anywhere.</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"The sun is roughly the same distance from any point on the globe, so it's not any brighter in Spain than it is in New York or London. "</i><br><br>But it indeed is, Craig. That's why it's hotter at the equator than at the poles. It's not the distance that's responsible, but the angle of incidence.<br>New York and Madrid are on the same latitude, so no difference there. But London is over ten degrees north of both, so less bright (even when there are no clouds).