Which C41 film stock prints well with a B&W process?

[lowleft]

I have a 35mm enlarger right now and would like to try and print with some of my color negatives. Which film stocks would do the best with printing in b&w, either with Foma or Ilford paper.

 

[tcolgate]

For most I think the individual negative is a bigger factor than the stock. Harman phoenix would probably be the exception (and not in a good way)

 

[lowleft]

For most I think the individual negative is a bigger factor than the stock. Harman phoenix would probably be the exception (and not in a good way)

Ok that's a good point. What would I want to look for or avoid? I do have a few rolls of Phoenix, but I'll make sure I avoid to not waste paper haha

 

[Paul Howell]

The orange mask makes it difficult to print black and white from color negatives. Kodak did offer a black and white to print color negatives called Panalure (sp?) which worked best. It does show up on ebay, if the price is right you take a fling, given that the paper is now 30 years or older fog will be risk.

 

[Paul Howell]

Thinking about a bit more maybe Kodak movie film, the ram jet acts as a orange mask which is removed as the intent was to copy the master for projection.

 

[tcolgate]

Ok that's a good point. What would I want to look for or avoid? I do have a few rolls of Phoenix, but I'll make sure I avoid to not waste paper haha

People do do this (ilford youtube even has a video on the topic), but I think the only answer is to just try. Even a few test strip should give you an idea. It's certainly worth a sheet worth of strips.

 

[tcolgate]

Ok that's a good point. What would I want to look for or avoid? I do have a few rolls of Phoenix, but I'll make sure I avoid to not waste paper haha

I have also been guilty of a bit of a photrio'ism here. I've never tried B&W wet printing phoenix. I've done xp2, both c41 and b&w processed and that works fine (same base as phoenix).
My thinking was that the purple base would interfere with contrast more that an orange mask, but evidently that's not a huge problem with xp2, so it might even be easier (though I can, having done it, state that phoenix is a bastard to ra4 print)
This is definitely a case of To Hell with the Paper and Just Try It. But I don't think any one stock will guarantee you better results.

 

[koraks]

Which film stocks would do the best with printing in b&w

Technically...none. But if you must, then try a maskless film like Phoenix or Kodak Aerocolor. Exposure times will be more sensible. Phoenix, especially the original version, was also very high in contrast for a CN film, which should make it behave a bit more like a B&W negative when enlarged onto variable contrast paper.

Thinking about a bit more maybe Kodak movie film, the ram jet acts as a orange mask which is removed as the intent was to copy the master for projection.

Is it possible you're confusing things? It's 'remjet'; a 'ramjet' is a type of jet engine. Remjet is a carbon black pigment that's suspended in a polymer/resin that softens when exposed to alkaline conditions, as in a remjet softening bath, or a normal film developer. It is unrelated to the orange mask. Remjet is intended to be removed during processing, as it serves no purpose afterwards and in fact its presence renders the film unusable, since it's virtually opaque. It's therefore also impossible to expose through a remjet layer, so for copy work, any film that still has remjet backing would be entirely useless.

 

[MattKing]

XP2 - the Ilford black and white film designed for C41 process - prints really well in a black and white print darkroom.
You can also develop it in black and white chemicals, but it loses a lot of its strengths there.
It has the added advantage of scanning really well too - and you can use dust removal tools!
I haven't used it a lot, and I don't have digitized much of what I have used, but this is a quick post process of a 15 year old scan.

 

[Paul Howell]

Technically...none. But if you must, then try a maskless film like Phoenix or Kodak Aerocolor. Exposure times will be more sensible. Phoenix, especially the original version, was also very high in contrast for a CN film, which should make it behave a bit more like a B&W negative when enlarged onto variable contrast paper.


Is it possible you're confusing things? It's 'remjet'; a 'ramjet' is a type of jet engine. Remjet is a carbon black pigment that's suspended in a polymer/resin that softens when exposed to alkaline conditions, as in a remjet softening bath, or a normal film developer. It is unrelated to the orange mask. Remjet is intended to be removed during processing, as it serves no purpose afterwards and in fact its presence renders the film unusable, since it's virtually opaque. It's therefore also impossible to expose through a remjet layer, so for copy work, any film that still has remjet backing would be entirely useless.

Of course the ramjet is removed during processing, the dedicated chemistry made by, or was made by Kodak is designed for movie film removes it. If using C41 or cross processing in E6 there are methods to use. The ramjet backing is an anti halogen layer. Kodak movie does have the orange mask, as it was intended to be copied for projection. As I understand it Kodak will stop using the ramjet backing on new runs, not sure it was have an orange mask or not.

 

[koraks]

the dedicated chemistry made by, or was made by Kodak is designed for movie film removes it

Not quite; the remjet removal prebath softens it. The actual removal is done mechanically.

The ramjet backing is an anti halogen layer

*remjet
It serves several purposes, *anti-halation is one of them. Others are protection against static discharge, lubrication and scratch-protection, which are relevant when the film is fed at high speed through a motion picture camera.

Kodak movie does have the orange mask

Yes, and it has nothing to do with remjet!
There's indeed also a newer remjet-free group of Vision3 motion picture color negative films. It has the same mask as the remjet-backed Vision3 film. Again, the remjet is unrelated to the orange mask; they serve different purposes, are technically entirely separate entities and just don't have anything to do with each other.

I have shot (and still do) hundreds of rolls of remjet-backed Vision3 cine film. I'm quite familiar with it.

 

[lamerko]

Some time ago I used to print color negatives onto black-and-white paper (made in Bulgaria), but the prints never turned out very well. More recently, I tried some Vision3 in a friend's home darkroom, developed as black-and-white, and it produced very crisp prints. Honestly, they came out great. But I'm talking about the older Vision3 with remjet, not the newer version with AHU.

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

@lowleft Just give it a try. You will get as many different answers as there are replies on a thread like this. I print color C41 negatives on black and white paper in the darkroom all the time. It will take more exposure time because of the orange mask and there will be less contrast, but just do test strips and adjust. Some work fantastic, some don't.

Good luck,
D.

 

[mshchem]

Yeah Panalure was great, especially Panalure Portrait a double weight fiber paper. Back when a color (Ektacolor Professional) and black and white (Panalure Portrait) final print would be offered by professional photographers. Those were the days! The Panalure papers were panchromatic so you couldn't use a normal safelight.

 

[pentaxuser]

. Those were the days! The Panalure papers were panchromatic so you couldn't use a normal safelight.

Except maybe a DUKA or whatever the equivalent is called in the U.S. - a Thompson, is it or is that a sub-machine gun?

I will retreat into my foxhole now awaiting the barrage from the 88s, having mentioned the sodium light

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

Except maybe a DUKA or whatever the equivalent is called in the U.S. - a Thompson, is it or is that a sub-machine gun?

I will retreat into my foxhole now awaiting the barrage from the 88s, having mentioned the sodium light

pentaxuser

Thomas

Thompson see below.

 

[MattKing]

Except maybe a DUKA or whatever the equivalent is called in the U.S. - a Thompson, is it or is that a sub-machine gun?

I will retreat into my foxhole now awaiting the barrage from the 88s, having mentioned the sodium light

pentaxuser

What @mshchem said.
There is even a song:

 

[mshchem]

What @mshchem said.
There is even a song:

OMG, we are dating ourselves

 

[MattKing]

OMG, we are dating ourselves

Warren Zevon's small venue concert was a live music highlight for me - so the song kind of stuck with me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Color neg films are miserable for black and white prints because their low contrast level just isn't engineered for that purpose. Sure, I've done it a number of times, when that was all I had to work with, making both a color print and black and white version of exactly the same image. In my case, I'd get the best result by generating a b&w sheet film interpositive via contact from the color neg, and in turn making a high contrast printing neg fom that on Ortho Litho film.

But I've never bothered to do this with a 35mm shot. Just big film.

 

[Dr. no]

The orange mask makes it difficult to print black and white from color negatives. Kodak did offer a black and white to print color negatives called Panalure (sp?) which worked best. It does show up on ebay, if the price is right you take a fling, given that the paper is now 30 years or older fog will be risk.

Most of my answers are here in part, but summing up:
1. color negative films are low contrast when looked at in terms of b&w printing, but some images, with high contrast filtration (4-5) will look just fine. Color differentials may be off, depending on the subject matter, as currently available photo paper is orthochromatic. With b&w film that step (color conversion to grayscale) is typically done with the film (since virtually all commercial b&w film is panchromatic) (yes, I'm aware this is one of the few places to find people that can feed a camera with ortho roll film, I'm one of them, but it's not common). In printing a color negative onto b&w paper that step is in the enlarger and the conversion is difficult to predict intuitively (or visually with the mask), so you may not get the results you envision.
2. In the old days there was Panalure, a b&w paper with a panchromatic emulsion, like most film, so you had to handle it like film/RA4 paper, in complete darkness. It worked a treat, though. I doubt any of it is very good now.
3. Get in the darkroom and try it! Let us know the results!

Thinking about a bit more maybe Kodak movie film, the ram jet acts as a orange mask which is removed as the intent was to copy the master for projection.

4. Already been beat on, but every ECN thread must have a ramjet thrown in to accelerate the discussion.
5. Already been beat on, function of remjet--not a mask, and ECN film has the mask too.

In my case, I'd get the best result by generating a b&w sheet film interpositive via contact from the color neg, and in turn making a high contrast printing neg fom that on Ortho Litho film.

6. That's what I would do for something I really wanted the same range of tones from, but not for casual printing.
7. Get in the darkroom and try it! Let us know the results! ds al coda

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I have a 35mm enlarger right now and would like to try and print with some of my color negatives. Which film stocks would do the best with printing in b&w, either with Foma or Ilford paper.

None. The orange mask makes it work poorly. Kodak Panalure B&W paper (now discontinued) was designed to print from color negatives.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I didn't mean to phrase it in the hypothetical, Dr. no. I HAVE done it numerous times via the two-step method. Using pan film for the inter-positive allows the scene to be manipulated just like using a colored filter for an ordinary b&w shot (but with special modifications to evade the orange mask and reinterpret the scene ratios).
Then once that's obtained, the contrast gets significantly boosted during the subsequent actual printing negative
phase, which can be done on ortho film instead if helpful.