Is it possible to print Portra 160 on llford Multigrade ?

[ezphotolessons]

Sure. I do understand the pessimism though. Mucking about making two generations of pos/neg intermediates is something many people won't want to bother with to make a print.

mucking about is fun, and it opens-the-eyes too the original-postmaker that anything is possible, and it's all fun. i hope the original-poster gets-addicted to making-prints, there's nothing like it

 

[logan2z]

In the video they show strips of Phoenix (I) negatives.

I'm not sure what film that is, but I don't think it's Phoenix as that film was introduced in 2023 and the video is 4 years old. There's also a comment on that video from Ilford Photo in response to another poster's comment that reads:

Obviously we'd prefer it if everyone only shot our black and white films and stayed away from colour

That's probably not something Ilford would have said after the introduction of their own color negative film

 

[tcolgate]

In the video they show strips of Phoenix (I) negatives. That's a bit of an oddball because there's no orange mask to contend with, and contrast is far higher than on any normal CN film.

I hadn't noticed it was phoenix, I can see that maybe working a shade better, but I have seen others try with regular orange masked films too.

The main thing though is it doesn't hurt to give something a try. Getting used to just trying things seems pretty central to darkroom work. Results that are unacceptable to one person may be fine, or even desirable to another.

Creating an interpisitive might be a bit of a stretch for a beginner, but even then, it's all learning (I'd try the straight print first though, and try and understand the results).

 

[mshchem]

I'm not sure what film that is, but I don't think it's Phoenix as that film was introduced in 2023 and the video is 4 years old. There's also a comment on that video from Ilford Photo in response to another poster's comment that reads:

Obviously we'd prefer it if everyone only shot our black and white films and stayed away from colour

That's probably not something Ilford would have said after the introduction of their own color negative film

I was wondering about timing as well. The negatives shown do look like Phoenix at first glance. Probably some odd stuff.

 

[koraks]

Well, whatever it is, it's not a regular CN film:

mucking about is fun, and it opens-the-eyes too the original-postmaker that anything is possible, and it's all fun.

...some of the time. "Try anything once", people sometimes say. Without taking it literally, I'd say 'sure'. But I think many people consider it more fun to just head into the darkroom with a set of negatives that work for the print process they have in mind.

 

[tcolgate]

I think the colour grading on that thumbnail is deceptive. The sheet she holds at the start a clearly orange masked. As are the ones on the light table

 

[mshchem]

Well, whatever it is, it's not a regular CN film:
View attachment 412789


...some of the time. "Try anything once", people sometimes say. Without taking it literally, I'd say 'sure'. But I think many people consider it more fun to just head into the darkroom with a set of negatives that work for the print process they have in mind.

Possibly? now we know the secret source of Adox Color Mission I

 

[koraks]

I think the colour grading on that thumbnail is deceptive.

You're probably right; the edge markings remind me of Fuji:

 

[Don_ih]

No, Don.

Yes, I'll remember that. When I want to take a b&w photo of a red car on a grassy field, to cancel out the red, I'll put a red filter on the lens. I'll expose for the grass. I'll let myself be surprised.

 

[tezzasmall]

Exactly what @AZD says. Long exposure times, high contrast grade; results are hit & miss. If the print must be a darkroom print, then it can work this way. But for a technically better print, scan the color negative and then output in whatever way desired.

I too have developed AND printed an old C41 film in b/w chemicals. The negatives were a bit thin but I was able to print them on RC MG paper at grade 5. The exposures weren't too long at all when printed as 7" x 5" prints.

The film was found after an old camera was bought in a charity shop. The purchaser of the camera then approached the photography club to which I was then a member, and as I was the only person who still used a darkroom, I volunteered to give it all a go, with no promises. Yes, the prints lacked a bit of contrast and the grain was a bit more obvious, but the receivers of the prints were more than happy with the results.

This story was then reported by a local newspaper, of which was later picked up by another paper. The biggest surprise of all, was that the family in the pictures were traced and the now grown up children were very grateful for the prints. So all I can add, is to give it a go.

And if you get it in your head to search out some Panalure, don't bother. None of it will be any good.

Koraks' advice is likely the best and easiest way to go.

As for Don's advice, I would say it's down to the individual. Lots of older papers are being bought up by lith printers, like myself, and we find the majority of it to be fine to print lith on, although older papers have a tendency to have fog, so it's a chance one takes if it's going to be used for its original purpose. But, there is a LOT of panalure paper on eBay, at quite low prices. It's the p+p that hurts the most. But, if I did it again, I'd definitely look at purchasing a pack with fingers crossed.

And yes, as said, scanning and then printing the negatives on an inkjet is probably the easiest route, but I for one would definitely try to make a print or two in the darkroom first, with or without some panalure paper.

Terry S
UK

 

[koraks]

I too have developed AND printed an old C41 film in b/w chemicals.

That's a different scenario though. When developing C41 negatives in B&W developer, you can end up with very pronounced grain and a lot of additional density due to the silver-based yellow filter that won't be bleached out in this approach. These negatives can be even harder to print in terms of overall density, but you don't have to deal with the issue of the somewhat unpredictable spectral response of a color negative on multigrade paper. I've also done this; i.e. develop Fuji 200 CN film in something like Rodinal or so and then optically enlarged. Worked OK-ish; very long exposure times and a bit grainy, but the prints came out fine.

 

[Frank53]

Is it possible to print Portra 160 on llford Multigrade ?

must be possible.
When I set my Heiland controller to Portra 160 and Ilford MGIV, I get grade 3.4 at 21sec and aperture 4.0. Size 20x30cm. Bit longer than most b/w negatives.
Never printed color negatives myself.

 

[tcolgate]

A boy off topic, but I did quite like Ilford XP2 in id11, and have printed from it fairly easily..

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oooooh, it's sooo hard to use two sheets of film, when one can simply waste several boxes of paper and countless hours trying to do it the futile way instead! Is all of what was once basic going to down the drain in this era which demands "instant everything"? For some of us, darkroom work, and even darkroom challenges are fun and interesting. And this kind of challenge isn't particularly difficult. It was routine knowledge at one time. And it offers a great deal of control, including, crucially, over contrast, which trying to print color neg film directly onto non-Pan black and white paper does not.

 

[Don_ih]

Lots of older papers are being bought up by lith printers, like myself, and we find the majority of it to be fine to print lith on, although older papers have a tendency to have fog, so it's a chance one takes if it's going to be used for its original purpose.

I was speaking specifically about Panalure. I use lots of old papers. My experience with Panalure is every pack I've tried has been useless. It has lost contrast and gained fog and mottling from whatever is incorporated into the developer. Also, you can't develop it under a safelight - it needs total darkness - so it would be quite a challenge to lith print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The gal on that brief Ilford flick made quite an understatement when she said the contrast might come out a little low. Color neg film originals tend to have far less contrast than black and white film, then you've got that orange mask to boot. Then, using VC paper, every tweak you make to increase the contrast by controlling the light color ends up skewing the native tonality of the original, chasing one's tail. Ole Panalure solved only half the problem. If my foggy memory serves me correctly, it never did have much contrast snap to it.

 

[loccdor]

I had a friend try to print some of my negatives as black and white back in the day. B&W negatives had great results, Color C-41 were poor and not really usable. She was pretty experienced at printing. It's not easy.

 

[ezphotolessons]

Oooooh, it's sooo hard to use two sheets of film, when one can simply waste several boxes of paper and countless hours trying to do it the futile way instead! Is all of what was once basic going to down the drain in this era which demands "instant everything"? For some of us, darkroom work, and even darkroom challenges are fun and interesting. And this kind of challenge isn't particularly difficult. It was routine knowledge at one time. And it offers a great deal of control, including, crucially, over contrast, which trying to print color neg film directly onto non-Pan black and white paper does not.

U would have someone with minimal d.room experience buy a box of film, make inter negatives? The film only comes in 300$USD boxes and it is prbbly a gang d.room, pbably making a regular enlgr print will werk..

 

[DREW WILEY]

What kind of so-called teaching darkroom doesn't have a little sheet film on hand, at least to explain what it is. And it doesn't cost $300 a box unless its color 8X10. For a tenth of that one could get something in 4x5 appropriate for b&w interpositive and internegative work. As for the rest of your argument, why would anyone with minimal darkroom experience want to fool around printing color CN film onto b&w paper anyway? Its more likely to be a frustration than incentive to learn more. But some people learn quickly. I wasn't even shooting black and white film yet when I already successfully learned how to make b&w internegatives from color chromes, quite early on. It's not like trying to build the Eiffel Tower by yourself.

 

[ezphotolessons]

And it doesn't cost $300 a box

bh hp5+ is 250$USD, + tax + shipping maybe more than 300$. 4x5 less useful. transglobal inflation make world expensive

What kind of so-called teaching darkroom doesn't have a little sheet film on hand, at least to explain what it is.

moost. unfortunately we are 2026 and world from our most glorious yuth is gone .

 

[DREW WILEY]

That doesn't make sense. Why would a beginner be shooting 8x10 color neg film anyway? And unless they are, they certainly don't need large 8x10 black and white film to make contact interpositives.

Incidentally, FP4 is way more suitable for interpositives and internegatives than HP5.
A 25 sheet box of 4x5 of FP4 costs about $70 in the US right now. But a single sheet of 8x10 color film including processing costs nearly $50. I'd imagine most of the learning curve is going to be done using small formats anyway.

 

[GregY]

bh hp5+ is 250$USD, + tax + shipping maybe more than 300$. 4x5 less useful. transglobal inflation make world expensive

moost. unfortunately we are 2026 and world from our most glorious yuth is gone .

HP5 4x5 is $276 USD for 100 sheets ...... Tri-X is $195 for 50 sheets...... BH ships free.....
this has nothing to do with "transglobal" inflation....

 

[ezphotolessons]

perhaps post originator will come back and say if they have a darkroom with 4x5 enlargers, otherwise 4x5 contactprint from their internegative will be minisscule.
the cost I quoted from b_h was 8x10 blackened white film, not color film. is it free shipping no tariffs, no import fees to no VAT TAX type tax to turkey? that is where post starter lives, plus will take until class ends for it to arrive. maybe 8x10 and 4x5 films cheeper-in-turkey.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I'm shooting 8x10 color film that I paid $60 a 10-sheet box for a little more than a decade ago. Now that same film is around $350 a box. I'd call that serious inflation. Around the same time, I was paying $55 a box for 8X10 TMax; now a 10 sheet box of 4x5 TMax costs more than that. Glad I have a stash of all the above in my freezer.

 

[ezphotolessons]

Well, I'm shooting 8x10 color film that I paid $60 a 10-sheet box for a little more than a decade ago. Now that same film is around $350 a box. I'd call that serious inflation. Around the same time, I was paying $55 a box for 8X10 TMax; now a 10 sheet box of 4x5 TMax costs more than that. Glad I have a stash of all the above in my freezer.

yes. I yearn for 1980 prices