developing color in d76

[ampguy]

This is the 2nd roll I've developed in d76 1:1, this time for 13 minutes @ 74 deg. F. Film was shot at 100, and was Reala 100. Shot in a Hexar AF:

Curious what results others have with developing C41 in traditional b/w developer?

here

 

[Stuggi]

I'm quite amazed at the results. Should this work with just about any C-41-film? How about C-41 B&W film?

 

[ampguy]

not sure

this was only my 2nd roll. Scans of my first roll at 11 min @ 74 deg. F had more variations, but still very interesting compared to regular b/w:

original scans of roll 1 of Reala 100 @ 11 min d76 1:1 here

and converted to b/w here

I'm quite amazed at the results. Should this work with just about any C-41-film? How about C-41 B&W film?

 

[ann]

years ago, i had a student develop some xp c41 film in the lab. The film had a serious magenta color but it printed.

 

[pentaxuser]

I take it these are neg scans rather than print scans? Have you done any prints from any of the negs. While a print is the ultimate test I can see no reason why the prints shouldn't be very good.

What are the other stages after the B&W developer? Did you do this just to see how a colour neg film would look after a B&W process or is colour film in N Calif cheaper to develop as B&W than buying a traditional B&W film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Aurum]

years ago, i had a student develop some xp c41 film in the lab. The film had a serious magenta color but it printed.

If you look on the digitaltruth big dev list, it gives times for this, D76 stock at 20 deg C is quoted at 14 mins, or aculux 3 (1+9) at 15 mins.

I've done Cheapo film from a disposible camera at With Ilfosol 3 (1+14) for 20 minutes. Not bad results, but I don't think Ilfosol 3 is the optimum developer for this.

I've got a load of ID11 that needs making up I might try that instead

The attached is a straight scan, no correction

 

[ampguy]

yes, just negative scans, no prints yet

just water stop, and kodak fixer (1:1) for about 4 minutes. It is cheaper than any b/w film I'm aware of (outdated Reala 100 in bulk), and also looks quite a bit different than the Neopanss 100 I've been using.

I take it these are neg scans rather than print scans? Have you done any prints from any of the negs. While a print is the ultimate test I can see no reason why the prints shouldn't be very good.

What are the other stages after the B&W developer? Did you do this just to see how a colour neg film would look after a B&W process or is colour film in N Calif cheaper to develop as B&W than buying a traditional B&W film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a few rolls of dollar store Samsung, might try a roll and develop in Edwal 12 or FG7.

 

[pentaxuser]

ampguy. Thanks for the explanation. I notice that the most recent negs seem to be normal i.e. look like B&W negs whereas the first set had various casts but were then converted. How did you do the converson and what explains the difference between the first scans of the cat and the later scans of it?

Incidentally I thought some of the casts on the first set of scans of the cat negs were interesting. Pity that in normal B&W paper prints they couldn't be directly translated into toned prints. I wonder if the residual colour in the cat scans of the original negs would produce nice ones on RA4 paper?

pentaxuser

 

[randerson07]

Ive done a couple rolls of C41 in Black and white chemistry now. The first set looked pretty good and scanned well. The second roll did not clear what so ever.
You can see the results here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/randerson07/sets/72157606509378000/
and what the negs looked like here
http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&w=82308981@N00&q=bad+negs&m=text

Ive got a few more disposable cameras im going to run through, they are all expired.

 

[nickandre]

I've never tried this but you should end up with a mask which will throw off contrast when printing if you use VC paper. The couplers won't have been activated so I assume they'll just sit there.

 

[ampguy]

some guesses

on the 2nd roll, I knew that it needed some more time, so the exposure is more even, and the frames are more visible than in the first roll where the negatives were very hard to read, even the frame #'s. Yet, the 2nd roll, still needed Epson Scan 3 to specify color negatives, vs b/w negatives otherwise it couldn't track the frame precisely and crossed over the edges.

About the first roll and the cat, the first 8 or so photos were taken using the HX14 flash unit that works with the Hexar AF, I took about 4 in the "Full" flashmatic mode, and 4 in the A-auto mode, possibly over-exposing some of these first cat ones, therefore having them come out better than others on the roll as I realized after examining the first roll that it could have just used another couple of minutes (over the 11 min. used for the first roll).

Interestingly, unlike others, with Reala I get a brown/sepia tone, not a magenta cast on what the negatives look like.

ampguy. Thanks for the explanation. I notice that the most recent negs seem to be normal i.e. look like B&W negs whereas the first set had various casts but were then converted. How did you do the converson and what explains the difference between the first scans of the cat and the later scans of it?

Incidentally I thought some of the casts on the first set of scans of the cat negs were interesting. Pity that in normal B&W paper prints they couldn't be directly translated into toned prints. I wonder if the residual colour in the cat scans of the original negs would produce nice ones on RA4 paper?

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

I found a very old roll of exposed Kodak Max 800, I developed in Dinafine 4mint in A and 4 mint in B, the roll was fogged, but I got clear images, to dense to print on paper. I defrosted a roll of Samsung 200 from the dollar store, I plan on shoting it tonight at ISO 400 and develop in Dinafine. Print on Salvich #2.

 

[pentaxuser]

Interestingly, unlike others, with Reala I get a brown/sepia tone, not a magenta cast on what the negatives look like.

I think you are saying that there is still a brown/sepia tone in the negs.- even the second set of negs. This is what I would have expected with C41 but what threw me was negs which look just like B&W negs.

I think you are saying that they only look like B&W negs because you have converted them on the scanner. In reality the cast is still there and might or might not interfere with a conventional darkroom print on B&W paper.

However the sepia cast using RA4 paper might well translate into a B&W print with a sepia cast.

If you ever get round to trying this I'd be interested in the results.

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've developed Fuji Superia 200 in b&w chemistry. It works, but it's really hard to print due to the color of the film base. I think they scan better than they print, which renders it useless for me.
- Thomas

 

[ampguy]

Here is some Kodak MAX 800 developed for 15 min. in d76 1:1 @ 72 deg. F.:

here

 

[Dennis S]

Well now that is something that is definitely on my MUST DO list. It looks like high contast effect on the prints. Printed on graded RC paper should work out fine.

 

[Akki14]

The C-22 developed as B&W I've done and tried to print on B&W paper were impossible to print. Exposure times over 90 seconds long for a simple 8x10 enlargement. They came out very low contrast and while increasing magneta on the colour enlarger head helped a bit, it never came out with true blacks and just looked muddy and gray and horrible.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The yellow mask of color films make them difficult to print onto B&W papers especially VC papers. The best route is to scan and print or scan to a digial negative and print. I'm very sorry to report this, but Akki has the right story on this.

PE

 

[ampguy]

probably right

I have not tried wet prints from any of these, only digital scans and prints from them (these are fine on an HP 8250).

One thing I've noticed is that the development time, and C41 film used has a lot of variables. Not all films are magenta and non-opaque, some are brown toned, and as opaque (around frames) as commercially processed films. If you're only getting magenta dark framed negatives, I'd recommend developing an extra minute or two, and trying Kodak MAX 800 (generally a film I don't prefer for color use), and Agfa 200 Color (previously Wagreens 200 - made in Germany).

C41 times, can also be pushed and pulled - note the pdfs on the freestyle site for the 2 kits packages they sell for C41 processing in regular tanks, although all of my experiments so far have been with D76 1:1, and just today D76 straight, but derated 2 minutes.

 

[Dennis S]

I guess I'm the trial and error type of person. IF I don't try I will not be convinced of the out come,

 

[ampguy]

the photos from reala 100 with d76 straight (no dilution) for 12 min. @ 68 deg. F. came out a bit over exposed, but contrasty (added in picasa 3) here

 

[Dennis S]

high contrast. Maybe do a Lith print ??

 

[Stuggi]

I did BW400CN in ID-11, and got the following results; http://www.flickr.com/photos/sstorholm/sets/72157607227367097/

 

[Stuggi]

I just did another roll, this time the really cheap Kodacolor 200. It's going to be interesting to see how it turned out...