B&W prints from colour negs

[pentaxuser]

Why not phone Calumet they have a shop in Manchester (061-2740500) I have dealt with them before and found them very helpful. If you do locate Kodak Panalure Paper, please take care it is a panchromatic paper, and like film MUST BE HANDLED IN COMPLETE DARKNESS!! I Just wanted to warn you because although its nearly fifteen years since I used it, I had visions of you getting a box of 100 10x8 and opening the box with your safelight on !!

Thanks. It's worth a try. I have tried e-mailing twice with no success. The UK site has no Panalure in stock but anyway could presumably get it in quantity from the U.S. Whether there is sufficient call for it may be the key. Another member in the U.K. who is a regular user and advocate of Panalure gets his from the U.S. so the omens for getting it direct from Manchester may be poor. Still nothing ventured nothing gained. My DUKA 50 light is OK for panchromatic as I use it for RA4 but the warning is well heeded as some might assume that as it is processed in B&W chemicals then it is the same as B&W paper.

Pentaxuser

 

[Woolliscroft]

Calumet in Manchester don't stock Panalure, I got mine there for years but they say they can't get it in the UK anymore. Kodak's UK Pro helpline don't seem to have a clue whether they still distribute it here. I got a yes, then a no. However Calumet in New York do have it, and will do mail order to Britain if you're happy to pay the postage. I got 200 sheets a few months ago with no trouble. Retro in Britain had a Chinese substitute a while ago. I bought some, but haven't used any yet so can't say how good it is.

David.

 

[nworth]

After my previous post, I recalled that Kodak recommended using Dektol to check exposure with the early Type C materials. As psvensson suggested, I thought it might be worth a try with RA-4 materials. The many comments about using Multigrade, especially the comment that Ilford said satisfactory prints could be made from color negatives, prompted me to re-explore that area, too.

The results were, in a word, terrible.

I used Fuji Crystal Archive CDII paper for the RA-4 tests. I exposed it exactly as I would for color. First I tried developing in Formulary BW65, which has given good results for black and white papers. The print showed that the exposure was exactly correct, but the print was extremely flat. RA-4 papers are high in chloride salts and do not have an incorporated developer. This suggests that developer manipulation may be possible. I tried a longer developing time. Except for some development fog, the results were the same. Next I tried using Agfa 108 developer, known for high contrast with print materials made in the 1930s. The results were better, but I could still not get a good black. An even stronger developer may produce acceptable results, but I am doubtful. It may be that the RA-4 papers just do not have enough silver for good black and white results. After all, silver is just used to trigger the color coupler reactions in them, not for the actual image.

The results using Multigrade IV produced good blacks, but the prints were still bad. I used BW65 developer again, which I've found works well with Multigrade. The best print came using about grade 3-1/2 filtration from my color head. Shadow separation was poor, however. I did not have much highlight detail in the negative to judge highligh separation. Unfortunately, the color sensitivity problems also produced bad results. The print looked like the picture had been taken on non-color-sensitized film. There was very little separation between the sky and the clouds, the sky was very light, and the red rocks were extremely dark. Bad, bad bad!

 

[Ed Sukach]

I have produced "acceptable" black-and-white prints from C41 negatives using Ilford MGIV and Multigrade Portfolio. Not easy, however; all Ilford suggested Dichro head starting color filtration seems to be considerably "off" due to the negative's unique coloration.

I've found the best method to be a comparison of the analysis of a black and white negative on a "regular" color negative printing channel in my ColorStar 3000: Take an averaging reading and "balance" a black and white negative using the color negative mode. NULL that channel. Place the C41 negative in the carrier and adjust the dichro settings to balance the ColorStar display on that channel.

I've found that those settings will approximate a Grade 2. With experience, and some "squinting" at the recommended Ilford filtration for various contrast grades, contrast can be controlled - at least within partial limits.

I hope the above procedure makes some sense. I also recognize the fact that I am "burned" and "fried" after a couple of weeks of unusual stress. I need a couple of days of R&R including lots of sleep (even minimal amounts will do) and fine Scot's Whisky.

Be that as it may, I'll be more than willing to give "clarification" a shot if necessary.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have produced "acceptable" black-and-white prints from C41 negatives using Ilford MGIV and Multigrade Portfolio. Not easy, however; all Ilford suggested Dichro head starting color filtration seems to be considerably "off" due to the negative's unique coloration.

I've found the best method to be a comparison of the analysis of a black and white negative on a "regular" color negative printing channel in my ColorStar 3000: Take an averaging reading and "balance" a black and white negative using the color negative mode. NULL that channel. Place the C41 negative in the carrier and adjust the dichro settings to balance the ColorStar display on that channel.

I've found that those settings will approximate a Grade 2. With experience, and some "squinting" at the recommended Ilford filtration for various contrast grades, contrast can be controlled - at least within partial limits.

I hope the above procedure makes some sense. I also recognize the fact that I am "burned" and "fried" after a couple of weeks of unusual stress. I need a couple of days of R&R including lots of sleep (even minimal amounts will do) and fine Scot's Whisky.

Be that as it may, I'll be more than willing to give "clarification" a shot if necessary.

Thanks Ed but I am going to have to take you up on your offer of clarification.

I take it that the Colorstar 3000 is a colour neg analyser which has yellow magenta and cyan dials which have been calibrated for an ideal print with known YM and exposure from a colour test neg. Once the dials on the analyser have been set to the correct YMC for the test print then altering the YMC on the enlarger head for each neg to null the dial for the YMC buttons on the analyser gives a balanced print from each colour neg. My analyser is a Philips one with just such dials. The Cyan one being used for exposure. Not sure what a regular colour printing channel on your analyser equates to on my Philips. By averaging do you mean taking an integrated reading using the diffuser under the lens.

If I have followed you up to now then good but even if I have I then get completely lost. You seem to use a B&W neg to obtain a comparison for setting the dichroic head to obtain the correct setting for the colour neg that you wish to make a B&W print from but I haven't grasped how you do this.

Can you take me through it slowly on a step by step basis. Please risk insulting my intelligence by making it as simple as possible. Once I can picture in my mind's eye the correct sequence and understand the "how", I may grasp the "why" or at least be able then to ask sensible questions.

Thanks

Pentaxuser

 

[OldBikerPete]

I have made some prints from color negs onto panalure paper and was disappointed with the result. A color print of the neg. in question was a good print with good contast and saturation but the panalure print off the same neg. was flat, muddy and generally lacking in contrast. I gave away the idea and started using B&W film when I wanted a B&W print - much better control over the end result. Someone here has suggested making an interpositive (a B&W reversal transparency on panchromatic film).
That sounds like the way to go if you have some color negs that you really want B&W prints from. Of course you probably have to make up your own developers from individual chemicals. I don't thing that there are any off-the-shelf B&W transparency processes.
Good luck.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Kodak and Foma both sell B&W reversal kits -- the Kodak is intended for T-Max 100, the Foma for Fomapan 100R (reversal-only B&W movie/slide film), but both will work with any B&W film after finding the correct first dev time and film speed.

BTW, B&W reversal also works for prints; you could as easily make a film positive from the color negative, and then reverse the resulting negative prints to positive (though doing so would use a lot more chemicals than reversing the film back to a negative).

 

[pentaxuser]

Calumet in Manchester don't stock Panalure, I got mine there for years but they say they can't get it in the UK anymore. Kodak's UK Pro helpline don't seem to have a clue whether they still distribute it here. I got a yes, then a no. However Calumet in New York do have it, and will do mail order to Britain if you're happy to pay the postage. I got 200 sheets a few months ago with no trouble. Retro in Britain had a Chinese substitute a while ago. I bought some, but haven't used any yet so can't say how good it is.

David.

David. I have had a reply from Retro. I had mentioned that An APUG member had said that he had obtained a Panalure equivalent from Retro. I assume this will be the same Retro. I think there is only one in Britain. It's bad news. See below for Retro's reply. Looks like it's Calumet U.S. or nothing.

Retro's reply:

After trying various sources I have to report that I can't find any of the paper you mention (it was, in fact, Oriental Panchro-F from Japan) - we've sold out long ago.

Sorry we can't be of help this time.

Regards

Nigel Dear
retro photographic ltd

Pentaxuser

 

[steve]

Panalure was a fine product, but required a bit of work with the developer (type and dilution) in order to get good prints.

I've never gotten what I consider acceptable prints from color negatives with standard photo papers because of the problems mentioned previously with negative dye colors versus paper spectral response.

There are several solutions I can think of:

1. Find a lab that uses a DeVere 504 DS enlarger. Scan the film, convert to B&W and print on the conventional photo paper of your choice.

2. Have a high quality color print made and copy the print with B&W film. If done carefully, this would give you better results than attempting to print directly to standard (non Panalure) B&W paper (my opinion).

3. Scan the film and make a digital negative and contact print the negative onto conventional photo paper.

4. Scan the film and print via pigment inkjet. With the new Epson K3 Ultrachrome printers and a RIP, this can give good results.

5. Look for some Kodak Digital B&W paper. This was made for use in digital imaging systems but there's no reason you couldn't expose using an enlarger. I have no experience with this product, and it was really made for exposure in machines like a Chromira, Lightjet, etc.

6. Look for Portra B&W paper as suggested previously. The work I've seen done on this is a bit difficult to describe as it has ranged from good to just plain awful. It does not (to me) look like a really good B&W photo, it truly looks like color paper that's been printed in B&W if that makes any sense.

 

[psvensson]

As psvensson suggested, I thought it might be worth a try with RA-4 materials. The many comments about using Multigrade, especially the comment that Ilford said satisfactory prints could be made from color negatives, prompted me to re-explore that area, too.

The results were, in a word, terrible.

I used Fuji Crystal Archive CDII paper for the RA-4 tests. I exposed it exactly as I would for color. First I tried developing in Formulary BW65, which has given good results for black and white papers. The print showed that the exposure was exactly correct, but the print was extremely flat.

Interesting test. I think you're right in guessing that the paper doesn't have enough silver. I've reversal printed on RA4 paper using a first bath of B&W developer, which clearly produces a very flat print. This was also Fuji CA.

 

[PeterB]

Macbeth colour chart onto Ilford MG via a colour neg.

I was looking at the Ilford website last night in the multigrade paper section and it said something like " Ilford paper could be used to make acceptable B&W prints from colour negs" No mention of lengthy exposures or difficulty of converting certain colours to authentic tones.

I know this thread has probably run its course, but for those interested in a comprehensive look at exactly how printing a colour neg on Ilford MG will look, check out the following B&W photos of a Macbeth colour chart from Ctein:
http://ctein.com/postexp1.htm scroll down to the section titled
"Making Black and White Prints from Color Negatives and Slides"


regards
Peter

PS don't forget to adjust your monitor's contrst and brightness as per these directions http://ctein.com/howtovue.htm

 

[dfeuer]

Use graded paper!

A number of commenters suggested and discussed using Ilford Multigrade to make B&W prints from color negatives. Since the color dyes will act as contrast filters, this cannot give a natural-looking result. I strongly suggest that you instead print on graded paper with a color enlarger or gel filters. Use the manufacturer-supplied paper response curve to guess filtration (as mentioned you will need a big red boost). Then compare test prints against a color print to adjust filtration. The correct light mix will vary from negative to negative. The color print will show you what color needs to be adjusted to change the tones of particular regions in the black and white print. If overall (color-independent) contrast is too low, switch to a higher grade of paper. If overall contrast is too high, switch to a lower grade. Obviously this method takes much more time and effort, and usually gives less control, than taking the photo in black and white to begin with, but it should give better results that the other suggestions, and may not take as long as making internegatives. As for control: you're limited in scene filtration to whatever the negative sensitizing dyes liked, but you can adjust these in ways that are impossible with commercially-available photographic filters. For example, yellow, orange, and red filters are all-or-nothing affairs (what they block they really block). From a color negative you can simulate partial filtration.

 

[pentaxuser]

I know this thread has probably run its course, but for those interested in a comprehensive look at exactly how printing a colour neg on Ilford MG will look, check out the following B&W photos of a Macbeth colour chart from Ctein:
http://ctein.com/postexp1.htm scroll down to the section titled
"Making Black and White Prints from Color Negatives and Slides"


regards
Peter

PS don't forget to adjust your monitor's contrst and brightness as per these directions http://ctein.com/howtovue.htm

Peter. Thanks.One of the best things about APUG is its members' knowledge of good websites. If I hadn't have joined I'd never have been able to find these by myself.

Unfortunately my conclusions from what I saw is that Panalure is the best answer but is only obtainable at a high price here in the U.K. via Calumet in the U.S. Illford Multigrade looks to be a non starter. Ctien does mention a Kodak RA4 paper. Has this now been superceded by Kodak Porta paper for conversion to B&W? Unfortunately Ctien's examples are all from Panalure which was once in several contrasts but I don't think are obtainable now.

A great shame about Kodak and Panalure.

Pentaxuser

 

[dfeuer]

Hmm... Konica 2G-H datasheet suggests that Konica makes, or once made, a panchromatic paper. I don't know if that's still around.

 

[pentaxuser]

Hmm... Konica 2G-H datasheet suggests that Konica makes, or once made, a panchromatic paper. I don't know if that's still around.

Thanks. Well the data sheet is still there but I wasn't able to get any further. There doesn't seem to be any way to ask the question " Does it still exist and if so where can it be obtained?" A google search revealed nothing except plenty of inkjet paper. Each time I was taken to the Konica website there was no sign of this paper.

Anybody out there know anything?

Pentaxuser

 

[CharlieM]

Hi there,
I've read this thread with interest, and I'm wondering if someone can tell me if some, or any, of these issues apply to any degree when printing Ilford XP2 onto B&W paper?

 

[Woolliscroft]

Hi there,
I've read this thread with interest, and I'm wondering if someone can tell me if some, or any, of these issues apply to any degree when printing Ilford XP2 onto B&W paper?

No, there is absolutely no problem in printing chromogenic B&W films on normal paper.

Sorry to Pentaxuser. The Oriental paper was what I got from Retro. It's a shame they have run out. I had been using quite a lot. It wasn't as good as Panalure, but was a lot cheaper. I used it mostly for contact printing.

David.

 

[benjiboy]

As David says Charlie,XP2 is meant to be printed on B&W paper, although I can see the logic of your question since it is C41 process, You can take it to your local minilab and have it processed like colour film and printed on colour paper, as I sometimes do for proofs, they usually have a sepia caste, but for proofs it's fast and cheap, then anything worth printing is printed on B&W paper.

 

[srs5694]

As others have said, XP2 prints fine on conventional B&W paper; treat it just like a conventional B&W film for making prints. Kodak's chromogenic B&W film has an orange mask that should make it easier to get prints without strong color casts on color paper. The effect when printing to B&W paper is that you'll need to use longer-than-average print times. My experience is that normal filtration settings usually work fine with VC paper, but some prints need heavy filtration to look good. XP2 lacks this color mask, so these issues don't apply to it; I just thought I'd mention the issue for the sake of completeness.

 

[CharlieM]

Thanks for your replies. I was wondering if there might be a filtration issue, thanks for clearing that up.

I do find when scanning XP2 I get an annoying colour cast which has to be dealt with (but that's probably a comment for the 'grey area' - pardon British spelling)