Printing color negatives via monochrome process

[Omid_K]

Hello all,

I haven’t yet gotten into RA-4 printing but I have a question regarding my monochrome printing setup. If I want to use Ilford MGFB or MGRC paper with the corresponding chemistry to produce images from color negative film, how would the paper behave? Would there be less contrast? More contrast? Some other change all together?


Thank you,
Omid

 

[Ian Grant]

There was special Panchromatic paper for making B&W prints from colour negative, Kodak Panlure was one, it had to be handled in total darkness.

Most colour negatives will print poorly on normal B&W papers, poor contast, weird tonality. It's not worth wasting time and paper, only the ocassional colour negative will print OK, forv someone with a lot of experience.

Shoot some B&W film then learn to develop and print those.

Ian

 

[Don_ih]

Generally, less contrast and longer exposure times.

Shoot some B&W film then learn to develop and print those.

What makes you assume @Omid_K can't and doesn't do that already?

 

[Carnie Bob]

One thing I learned over the last few years is the ability to make digital neg from colour files and print via contact process on silver paper. I works very well for
me and if the OP has the PS skills to do a great BW conversion taking advantage of reducing or increasing local contrast when converting the process is quite good.
I tried printing on panalure years ago with mixed results .

 

[Don_ih]

I tried printing on panalure years ago with mixed results .

And it's all dead, now. I have several packs of that and they're all age fogged. Now that I think of it, those would probably be best used as paper negatives....

 

[Ian Grant]

What makes you assume @Omid_K can't and doesn't do that already?

That's true, but if Omid does have B&W experience then the step to RA-4 printing is not that difficult and would be a better option. It's relatively simple compared to earlier processes, I started with a Paterson Pavelle kit, and Ferrani for reversal, later E3/4, then C41, RA-4, & E6 which are are so much easier

If I had to make a B&W print off a Colour negative now I'd use the same route as Bob Carnie. I have a box of Panlure, it came in a job lot about 25 years ago, but I have very few colour negatives (except family snapshots).

Ian

 

[Don_ih]

the step to RA-4 printing is not that difficult and would be a better option

It's not difficult, but it does involve buying paper and chemicals. And if there is just a couple of rolls to make prints from, you end up with waste. Also, figuring out how to make RA4 enlargements can burn a lot of paper, especially with no one to show you.

You find out fairly quickly if your C41 negatives enlarge to your satisfaction on b&w. Density is definitely not your friend in that endeavour.

 

[pentaxuser]

Some of my 1970s colour negs have deteriorated to,the point that makes them unsuitable for RA4 printing but I have some family shots of people who have now died but only on colour neg so I tried to make a b&w print on the basis that anything was better than nothing and expected to get at best a very poor rendition on b&w darkroom paper

To my delight I was impressed at what I got. Yes the exposure was longer and the contrast was lower but the print was only a straight print with no attempt to ímprove it by split grade, dodging and burning etc

Would I routinely use colour negs instead of b&w negs for b&w prints - No but the results pleasantly surprised me and on showing the prints to those relatives who remember the deceased and just "looked at the picture" as most members of Joe Public do, none ever said that the print was not as it should have been

We here are a photography forum with collectively a great deal of knowledge who , dare I say ít, have standards, expectatíons and judgement levels that are way above what say 99% of the population have about prints

OP, give it a go and then decíde for yourself. If you possess the right levels of PS skills, which I do not, then apply that and you may be able to produce b&w prints that even those wíth exacting standards will fínd acceptable

My standards may be low and are certainly lower than many of those here. I have no idea where your judgement of an OK print lies but only you will know if colour negs on b&w paper meet your standard if you give it a go

Just a thought

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

You find out fairly quickly if your C41 negatives enlarge to your satisfaction on b&w. Density is definitely not your friend in that endeavour.

I'm mostly a large format photographer, and some medium format. However, I did shoot 35mm colour negatives, always on Fuji 200 in later years, and was always amazed at the image quality of enlargements up to 16"x12"

Colour paper is usually cheaper than B&W, and chemistry is not very expensive. Struggling printing B&W from C41 negatives is not remotely helpful to learning to print RA-4, which is really just learning to judge filtration, and colour balance.

Ian

 

[Don_ih]

Struggling printing B&W from C41 negatives is not remotely helpful to learning to print RA-4, which is really just learning to judge filtration, and colour balance.

Well, let's put it this way: the original question was

If I want to use Ilford MGFB or MGRC paper with the corresponding chemistry to produce images from color negative film, how would the paper behave?

The answer to that question is not "Go get some colour paper, RA4 chemicals, a proper filter pack, etc., and start making colour prints." That won't even result in b&w prints, will it?

The answer to that question is "less contrast and longer exposure times".

 

[MattKing]

The biggest challenges you will encounter if you go to use "regular" B&W paper with colour negatives are:
1) you will need to add contrast - sometimes more added contrast than is easily accessed; and
2) the response to the different colours in the negative may be somewhat strange, will be somewhat unpredictable unless and until you have done a lot of it, and probably be difficult to visualize ahead of time.
You may very well find that for any given roll of film, some shots will print well, some shots will print okay, and some shots will disappoint.
I'd suggest starting with some B&W contact proof sheets - they will give a sense of how the results might come out. You will need to boost the contrast.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

As an option you could make an interpositive on panchromatic b&w film, and then make an internegative on any type of b&w film, which should print like any b&w negative. We used to do just that about 30 years ago whenever we received a colour negative for which a quantity of b&w prints were required, typically for a press kit. Dust can be a major problem, though.

Another method I used to use was to make a direct duplicate of the colour negative on Ilford XP1 film (or was it XP2 film?), which is a C-41 process film, but would reverse it by processing it in our E-6 line. We had to give the film extended first development, the equivalent of pushing it 4 stops.

 

[DREW WILEY]

To get sufficient contrast and good tonality, I take the double negative route. First, I generate a black and white interpositive using an appropriate film like TMX100 or FP4, either by contact or enlargement from the original color neg, also factoring any needed color correction in my settings, including nulling out the orange mask (can be explained in more detail if necessary).

Then I take the b&w interpositive and use it to generate the actual printing negative using some reasonably high contrast film/dev combination, like Ortho Litho film and HC-110. (Don't use AS&B litho developer in this case, or paper developer - you don't want either extreme contrast or surge marks). In the past I used Tech Pan.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well, let's put it this way: the original question was



The answer to that question is not "Go get some colour paper, RA4 chemicals, a proper filter pack, etc., and start making colour prints." That won't even result in b&w prints, will it?

The answer to that question is "less contrast and longer exposure times".

That misses the point, entirely

I haven’t yet gotten into RA-4 printing

Which begs the question of why waste time & money making B&W prints from C41 negatives. The OP is not going to learn anything in the process, except how poor quality the results are from most colour negatives.

@Terence Brennan has the best approach.

As an option you could make an interpositive on panchromatic b&w film, and then make an internegative on any type of b&w film, which should print like any b&w negative. We used to do just that about 30 years ago whenever we received a colour negative for which a quantity of b&w prints were required, typically for a press kit. Dust can be a major problem, though.

Another method I used to use was to make a direct duplicate of the colour negative on Ilford XP1 film (or was it XP2 film?), which is a C-41 process film, but would reverse it by processing it in our E-6 line. We had to give the film extended first development, the equivalent of pushing it 4 stops.

Simpler though to just rephotograph the C41 negatives with a slide copier and reversal process a B&W film like FP4.

But again, why, it's not a step towards RA-4 printing, and that's what being missed.

Ian

 

[koraks]

how would the paper behave? Would there be less contrast? More contrast? Some other change all together?

As indicated above, C41 negatives are low in contrast. Expect to be printing at grades 4-5 with rather long exposure times. You can sometimes get OK-ish prints that way. But I agree with @Ian Grant in general that it's more satisfying to print them in color. Color paper is relatively cheap, chemistry isn't very expensive either, and 'in a pinch' it can be done quite satisfactorily in trays at room temperature (with extended development time). The only drawback is that you have to work in the dark, and that you have to learn how to color correct your prints. It's not awfully difficult to learn how to print color decently well.

 

[Carnie Bob]

The biggest challenges you will encounter if you go to use "regular" B&W paper with colour negatives are:
1) you will need to add contrast - sometimes more added contrast than is easily accessed; and
2) the response to the different colours in the negative may be somewhat strange, will be somewhat unpredictable unless and until you have done a lot of it, and probably be difficult to visualize ahead of time.
You may very well find that for any given roll of film, some shots will print well, some shots will print okay, and some shots will disappoint.
I'd suggest starting with some B&W contact proof sheets - they will give a sense of how the results might come out. You will need to boost the contrast.

2- Matt has hit it here, the response in colours need to be balanced , this is why filters were developed for BW exposure in the field to lighten and darken response. The only way I can do this is what I describe in my response above about BW custom conversionn.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Customize? - Yes. That's a good way to think about it.

A black and white rendition doesn't necessarily have to match the tonal values represented by a color negative any more than it does in a visible scene. You have options to suppress of enhance density values as you wish. Colored contrast filters can be used just like when out shooting panchromatic b&w film. It's just that in this case, when working with a color negative, you have to think backwards or counterintuitively, on the opposite side of the color wheel, when creating the inter-positive.

Then the orange mask has to be nulled, likewise counterintuitively, by ADDING the same amount of orangish as the film mask (a blank piece of film processed from the same CN roll or film batch does this correctly, placed in the light path).

To determine how much the orange mask affects overall contrast, put your original color negative on a light box and view it through a moderate blue filter, like a common 80A or 80B tungsten conversion filter. Then your other hues will be easier to distinguish (in reverse negative fashion, of course).

I also slightly rebalance to correct for the slightly depressed green sensitivity of the pan film involved, or whatever other minor spectral sensitivities are present; but that's less important.

 

[mshchem]

Just try it. You will get a print. Kodak made Panalure paper for this purpose, long gone. Old Kodak data books on Printing Color Negatives will point out the oddities.

I would simply try printing it without any filters and see if you like it.