Red meat: Conventional B&W vs. C-41 options

[Paul Verizzo]

First, let me say that I've had a thirty year passion for working with, playing with, conventional B&W films and photochemistry. I love it! The needle is in my arm, regardless of changes in the film industry.

OTOH, I've been intrigued with, and have done experimenting with, the C-41 film, developing, and further workspace options. I'm not talking the Ilford/Kodak C-41 monochrome options. (How many remember that Agfa had a brief foray into this type of film?) I'm talking plain vanilla C-41 negative films.

Like the monochrome versions, color C-41 has the same very wide exposure latitude. It has grain finer than any conventional B&W by at least two f stops. It scans w/o issue, the image being dye based.

Acutance? A hypothetical argument could be made there, one layer vs. three or more. You probably aren't aware that Kodak made a consumer, 24 exposure only film with higher acutance and finer grain that anything other than Ektar. It was 400HD, and since it wasn't "professional," it died in the marketing Kodak death march.

Even w/o that particular film, how bad is, say, Fuji's best color negative film? Portra?

I think that a lot of folks here, especially David Lygra, have shown that C-41 has a lot more flexibility for the home processor than previously thought.

Personally, I will continue my love with both conventional B&W films and developers and my new(er) buddy, C-41 films and developers.

I'll guess in advance that there will be many closed minded APUG'ers. Regardless, what say you?

 

[peter k.]

Paul.. I'm sorry, I'm not following you, are you talking about cross-processing C -41 with B&W developers?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Scanning is not analog. It is fooling around film. Full game starts in the darkroom.

 

[John Bragg]

Paul. All I can say to this is try a few and see. For me and my tastes, HP5+ or Tri-X are my thing. Colour films and C41 Black and White are dye cloud images rather than conventional grain and are too smooth for me. I like grain and micro contrast, and there is no point trying to make a square peg fit a round hole, unless all I have is a colour neg to work from.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm not sure what you are asking or intending either. What about it?

The problem with shooting color C41 film for black and white is that there isn't a good and easy to way to print it without going to hybrid modes and scanning. Printing on graded papers yields very weird results that, among other things, look very grainy (from the gaps where other colors don't print) because graded papers are only blue sensitive and other areas don't expose - totally unacceptable. VC papers look a little better but still weird as they are only sensitive to blue and green and contrast varies with color. The old panchromatic Panalure looked and worked great, at least the last incarnation, Panalure II I think it was called, but it only came in, IIRC, two grades of RC glossy. I actually have an unopened 8x10 pack I snatched up off eBay and stashed in my fridge but the point is, it isn't made anymore.

Sure you can scan it and convert to black and white and it works fine for that, but I have a darkroom and I want to use it. If I wanted to make digital prints I'd personally just shoot digital originals, or mostly anyway (one exception might be my beloved slides for projection for which hybrid mode is now the easiest and arguably best way to make prints with type R and Ilfochrome both gone. Yes you can reversal process RA4 with some crossover and some scenes work and some don't - per PE as I haven't tried it - and yes you can make internegatives but that's a lot more trouble than a direct positive paper.)

But that's not what you mean here. You seem to be asking something about shooting color C41 to make black and white prints but I don't understand what you are asking.

Bottom line is that I'd say if you are going to scan anyway, sure, why not? But for optical printing, no.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Scanning is not analog. It is fooling around film. Full game starts in the darkroom.

Right outta the chute.....................

The wet darkroom, hey, I grew up in one, it is not an option for everyone. So why just dis scanning automatically as a reaction? Wouldn't you rather people shoot film to start with?

Personally, I find the hybrid workflow the best of both worlds. I can get done in moments things that I could never do, or only after days of hard work in the darkroom. But yeah, that's hearsay to many.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

Yes, I was thinking in terms of hybrid work flow. I know that's sacrilege to the purity patrol, but if it keeps people shooting film of any kind, what's not to encourage? RIP, panchromatic B&W paper.

Being able to shoot one film and get both color and B&W is pretty awesome, no?

No, you can't get the same image as traditional B&W, but even with monochrome C-41 it was generally thought that the exposure latitude and fine, fine grain were positives. I don't recall many, if any, kvetching.

But each to their own, and if you have come to understand anything about me, that's what I believe.

Even Hollywood is doing hybrid, since there is no more 35mm B&W stock. Some semi-major flick was released in B&W. They used ECN and desaturated it. OTOH, there was an artsy release that was shot in 16mm B&W, Super 16 format, then enlarged to 35mm via digital processing. Not uncommon, very expensive. They wanted the "real" look of "real" B&W.

If you aren't aware, Kodak and the heavy hitters in Hollywood came to an agreement in the last few months. Kodak will keep making ECN products for some (unknown to me) time into the future. Good film news, just in principle.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Paul

like you I have discovered the hybrid approach to be very compelling ... But until Sean agrees to open up the discussion I think you may find lots of resistance . I have tried my best not to
push this topic. (too much) here on APUG as I appreciate its purpose and I enjoy the site tremendously .
Some of the work I am doing right now ( I feel is the best I have ever done in over 40 years of printing for others) does involve a hybrid approach .There are not
too many good wet process sites out there that could be a resource for those working in both camps so to speak. I hope it will be APUG as I have been here for 10 years
and have learned a lot here.

Bob

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Paul

like you I have discovered the hybrid approach to be very compelling ... But until Sean agrees to open up the discussion I think you may find lots of resistance . I have tried my best not to
push this topic. (too much) here on APUG as I appreciate its purpose and I enjoy the site tremendously .
Some of the work I am doing right now ( I feel is the best I have ever done in over 40 years of printing for others) does involve a hybrid approach .There are not
too many good wet process sites out there that could be a resource for those working in both camps so to speak. I hope it will be APUG as I have been here for 10 years
and have learned a lot here.

Bob

I do understand that APUG is adverse to thinking about hybrid, but I guess that's where I inadvertently wandered whilst actually talking about film.

I'll shut up now.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

All the scans that I have seen on APUG were unsatisfactory for one of more technical reasons. Evidently it requires a very good quality scanner to get good results.

 

[markbarendt]

Hey Paul,

The easiest way for me to frame the issue is this:

I don't ask plumbing companies to fix electrical problems in my house. The skill sets involved are truly different.

C-41 processing is essentially a standardized industrial process. Sure you can push or pull but the negative isn't the issue: the efficacy of push and pull, exposure changes, and any other manipulation is fully dependent on the output method; enlarger, scanner, software, paper, whatever.

That is a point that many conventional B&W shooters don't even get. Variable grade paper eliminates most of the need for changes in film developing: yet many still believe they have to develop film like Adams did for his graded paper. Advice based on graded paper is only somewhat valuable for VC paper users and almost irrelavent in the hybrid world.

When I do hybrid work and want to know "how to" I ask the lab I'm using. They are the electricians. They know their tools, and some even have two sets of tools and each (scanner) provides a different result. The only way for me to know is to ask "them", the electricians.

 

[michr]

I've been thinking about c41 color negatives myself, or even ra4 paper in a view camera, then scanning the negatives into the computer. Monochrome gets a little boring after awhile, and I like the idea of the wide latitude of C41 negatives vs. color reversal film. Not everyone on APUG is against hybrid workflow, so don't dismiss all of us because of a vocal group of purists.

What do you hope to get out of using color negative film and scanning vs. a digital-only workflow?

 

[markbarendt]

michr,

Shooting C-41 is fun! I love it's latitude too, that latitude is available regardless of the output system.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I've been thinking about c41 color negatives myself, or even ra4 paper in a view camera, then scanning the negatives into the computer. Monochrome gets a little boring after awhile, and I like the idea of the wide latitude of C41 negatives vs. color reversal film. Not everyone on APUG is against hybrid workflow, so don't dismiss all of us because of a vocal group of purists.

What do you hope to get out of using color negative film and scanning vs. a digital-only workflow?

markberandt, below your post answered your question! It's fun!

I was an early adapter of digital cameras. (BTW, many people don't know that not long before he died, Ansel Adams was shown a digital camera - tethered to a computer! - and he thought it was mighty fine!) I stepped out of the digital camera rat race about nine or ten years ago with my last purchase, a Konica-Minolta A2. I owned all of the Minolta and K-M series before Konica just pulled the plug on cameras.

Now, everyone with a spare $1K thinks they are a photographer. I have taken relative's images from an allegedly pro photographer and did a simple batch autolevels adjustment and they improved immensely.

Time to get back to film. "Can't get no respect" 1980's Richoh P cameras, I love them. Now, when people see what I'm doing, they are as amazed as when I was showing the instant picture on the back of my digital camera in 2000!

 

[MattKing]

There are a whole bunch of people here on APUG who happily co-exist in the analogue and digital world.

For most of us, digital is okay or even useful.

The objection for most isn't about digital.

It is about digital on APUG.

 

[Jager]

I think the biggest challenge with C41 films - whether color or B&W - is their processing. Difficult to manage at home. And many/most remaining labs have sketchy QC, resulting in spotting hell (post-scanning) that makes my own efforts seem like the music of angels in comparison.

Conventional B&W film is much easier to control in a home environment.

No question, though, that C41 can produce lovely, beautiful pictures.

 

[Roger Cole]

Right outta the chute.....................

The wet darkroom, hey, I grew up in one, it is not an option for everyone. So why just dis scanning automatically as a reaction? Wouldn't you rather people shoot film to start with?

Personally, I find the hybrid workflow the best of both worlds. I can get done in moments things that I could never do, or only after days of hard work in the darkroom. But yeah, that's hearsay to many.

I don't "dis" it but I don't do it. It's not my thing.

And I really honest to goodness do not see the point in shooting film if you are going to scan it anyway. I'd just shoot natively in digital and be done with it. I'm not against that, nor am I against hybrid, I just don't bother myself because I personally don't enjoy it. YMMV

 

[Roger Cole]

I think the biggest challenge with C41 films - whether color or B&W - is their processing. Difficult to manage at home. And many/most remaining labs have sketchy QC, resulting in spotting hell (post-scanning) that makes my own efforts seem like the music of angels in comparison.

Conventional B&W film is much easier to control in a home environment.

No question, though, that C41 can produce lovely, beautiful pictures.

Actually it's pretty much stone simple at home. I have a Jobo now but I've done many dozens if not hundreds of rolls of color with a big tub for a water bath and just putting my chems in aluminum cans for easier temperature adjustment. I don't bother with C41 (or E6 for that matter, which is just as easy only it has more steps) these days because I don't do that much and am happy to pay a few dollars to have it done for me. But if I shot more I would. There's not a lot of creativity involved though. It's not like B&W where you can choose from a huge range of developers each with their own traits. You can push a bit or pull a bit, and that's about it.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Actually there is a wonderful look to be had by scanning colour film and printing.. specifically 4x5 colour negative films. Open shade soft light there is something really special.

I don't "dis" it but I don't do it. It's not my thing.

And I really honest to goodness do not see the point in shooting film if you are going to scan it anyway. I'd just shoot natively in digital and be done with it. I'm not against that, nor am I against hybrid, I just don't bother myself because I personally don't enjoy it. YMMV

 

[David Lyga]

I will reiterate: when I first started processing C-41 I was invested with a fear that would not, could not, be placated. I feared disaster if the processing temperature was even half a degree off. Over the years I became more curious and dared to deviate. I am not challenging PE here with his, and Kodak's, requirement for theoretical exactitude, but I am stressing the fact that I got high quality results even when profoundly deviating from the norm, both with regard to temperature and developer dilutions.

For example, I cannot tell the difference in print hue and contrast with processing film at lower temperatures, even though the negative does look a bit different. It is 'wrong' to do so but I find that quality results are easily attainable if one adjusts the C-41 development time accordingly. (Try using a Fahrenheit factor of 1.05 when deviating with temperature. In other words, in your calculator enter 1.05, then 'X', then the normal time for the normal temp. To find the new time, press 'enter' once for each Fahrenheit degree of deviation.) Printing filtration will be slightly different, but high quality results will be attainable with C-41 temps as low as even 75 F.

Also to be considered: increasing contrast for far bolder color with low contrast scenes. Expose your film a stop or two less, then develop for up to even as much as twice as long as would be required for 'normal contrast'. You will be amazed at the poster quality of the colors attained when printing those negatives. I had no problem with 'cross colors', but, again, the original scene must be low contrast, like open shade or other diffuse light. (Of course, if you try this with high contrast scenes, like bright sunlight and shade, you will be met with disaster.) Sometimes doing this will result in the most beautiful renditions of the color palette you have ever seen.

In sum, do not be afraid to experiment. Again, assuredly, this is a deviation from the norm. But is the world going to come to an end as a result? Treat C-41 as an artistic tool and learn how to, and what will result from, such deviations. Think of processing C-41 similarly to the creativity allowable with processing traditional B&W. I do not think that you will be disappointed with your acquired results. - David Lyga

 

[RPC]

Printing filtration will be slightly different, but high quality results will be attainable with C-41 temps as low as even 75 F.

Don't know exactly what you are seeing, David, but I have tried various temperature variations from the norm and always found that the further away you go from the standard 100F for C-41, the worse the crossover which was quite visible in side-by-side comparisons of prints with the real thing, and confirmed by measurements taken with my densitometer. Many others including PE have reported similar results. At 75F what I see is anything but high quality.

Yes I encourage experimentation too but at the outset one should be forewarned that low temperature processing is not meant to, and does not give the same quality results as the standard temperature as has been confirmed by many.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As long as real black & white film based on silver is available I am not interested in the C-41 pseudo faux black & white.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Big plus one ...

Don't know exactly what you are seeing, David, but I have tried various temperature variations from the norm and always found that the further away you go from the standard 100F for C-41, the worse the crossover which was quite visible in side-by-side comparisons of prints with the real thing, and confirmed by measurements taken with my densitometer. Many others including PE have reported similar results. At 75F what I see is anything but high quality.

Yes I encourage experimentation too but at the outset one should be forewarned that low temperature processing is not meant to, and does not give the same quality results as the standard temperature as has been confirmed by many.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I can remember when black and white chromogenic films had a very brief moment in the sun in terms of being taken seriously. The whole point was to offer something which could be readily commercially processed, for those who didn't have their own darkroom. But dye clouds
just don't look the same as silver grains, and you can't do very much in terms of contrast flexibility when processing. The look is rather flat and mushy with poor edge acutance. But whatever. Try some. I even tried it once - just once.

 

[David Lyga]

Don't know exactly what you are seeing, David, but I have tried various temperature variations from the norm and always found that the further away you go from the standard 100F for C-41, the worse the crossover which was quite visible in side-by-side comparisons of prints with the real thing, and confirmed by measurements taken with my densitometer. Many others including PE have reported similar results. At 75F what I see is anything but high quality.

Sorry, RPC, and I do believe that you are trying to impart truth here, but perhaps your attempts involved scenes with vast contrast (sun and shadow detail mandatory). THAT, in conjunction with excessive development time, could have forced the shadows to become overly blue. I maintain that proper hue relationships are entirely possible and my post a couple of years ago delineating processing at lower temps, with concrete examples, proved this point.

I will try, again, within a week, to post a print from a negative newly processed at a low temp. - David Lyga