jan normandale
Film is the other way
I've done this with some really poor colour C41 film and I thought the results were better than the colour film itself. The film was Fuji Super G and it's a nasty film to shoot and process in C41. Results were inconsistant and all over the place.
I had a cache of it and decided to shoot it but process it at home as a traditional negative. It worked but I'm not sure if it was possible to get better results from C41 using a decent film and not a "crappy one like the Super G" that I used
To the point, I've been shooting Kodak's Portra 400 BW C41 film and taking it into the lab for processing. Today I dropped off a roll of 220 Portra BW and the cost is double the 120 cost (... the shop's logic is it's twice as long, don't get me started)
As far as I know only Kodak and Ilford make C41 BW. I have developed Scala as a negative and it's wonderful. Has anyone developed Kodak Portra BW C41 as a negative and do you have any images to share.
I had a cache of it and decided to shoot it but process it at home as a traditional negative. It worked but I'm not sure if it was possible to get better results from C41 using a decent film and not a "crappy one like the Super G" that I used
To the point, I've been shooting Kodak's Portra 400 BW C41 film and taking it into the lab for processing. Today I dropped off a roll of 220 Portra BW and the cost is double the 120 cost (... the shop's logic is it's twice as long, don't get me started)
As far as I know only Kodak and Ilford make C41 BW. I have developed Scala as a negative and it's wonderful. Has anyone developed Kodak Portra BW C41 as a negative and do you have any images to share.
Last edited:
Finder
Veteran
Because it takes twice as long and uses up twice the capacity of the chemistry, you are upset that it costs you twice as much? Would you think if you brought in two rolls of film at one time, you would get the second developed for free?
martin s
Well-known
Sadly this logic doesn't apply to 12/24 frame rolls of 35mm film, but in this case it's of course the labor involved not the chemistry.
Wait - and why does it take twice as long?
martin
Finder
Veteran
Because the roll is twice as long--they don't speed up the rollers for the film.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
hi finder ... why? Because the other two pro labs here in Toronto don't charge extra. Would that be a good reason? It is for me. If you like I'll give you an address for the ones that don't charge.. or the one that does. Your choice
BTW : you're miles OT
cheers Jan
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
So no one answered your original question. 
But ... I don't really understand the original question. 400BW is a negative film, designed for C41 chemistry. So are you maybe referring to cross-processing an E6 film in C41? Or 400CN in E6 to get a positive? I've done the former, but not the latter.
But ... I don't really understand the original question. 400BW is a negative film, designed for C41 chemistry. So are you maybe referring to cross-processing an E6 film in C41? Or 400CN in E6 to get a positive? I've done the former, but not the latter.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
I am pretty sure he means developing it as B&W... Say in something like D76.
It should work fine. I have no idea about the mask, though. I imagine it will stay on the film, so traditional printing is out.
I understand that XP2 can be handled this way, quite well.
It should work fine. I have no idea about the mask, though. I imagine it will stay on the film, so traditional printing is out.
I understand that XP2 can be handled this way, quite well.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Have you tried converting Fuji 400 to B&W? The amount of latitude is great and the ability to target color groups for lightening/darkening with PS makes for a wonderful solution for me, who is tired of shelling out 2 to 3 times the cost of color C-41 for B&W C-41.
gurkenprinz
Member
Hi Jan, to get back to your initial question:
I think it will work out fine (just like any other C-41 film). I like to do it in Rodinal 1+100 without too much agitation (almost stand development). What I find important is to pre-soak the film - something I never do with regular b+w. That might be just voodoo, though, and I cannot even really explain why I do it.
You will also find that some images will print very well in the darkroom, others: not so much ;-)
Unfortunately I do not have any samples to show as I disklike scanning almost as much as digital post-processing.
br, gurkenprinz
I think it will work out fine (just like any other C-41 film). I like to do it in Rodinal 1+100 without too much agitation (almost stand development). What I find important is to pre-soak the film - something I never do with regular b+w. That might be just voodoo, though, and I cannot even really explain why I do it.
You will also find that some images will print very well in the darkroom, others: not so much ;-)
Unfortunately I do not have any samples to show as I disklike scanning almost as much as digital post-processing.
br, gurkenprinz
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Trius, I was discussing the process of developing C41 in traditional BW chemicals like Rodinal or HC110. This has been done to death here at RFF but for the "colour" version of C41 not the BW version. My intent was to check the results of some who may have done the BW C41 as a neg.
gurkenprinz.. thanks for the response. I've checked a few other places and seen results for doing BW C41 as a neg in Traditional BW chemicals and not as a C41 process. The results looked fine but a bit stark. Mind you Kodak's C41 BW looks like that anyway. I've a few more rolls of the Kodak and I'm going to do them at home
gurkenprinz.. thanks for the response. I've checked a few other places and seen results for doing BW C41 as a neg in Traditional BW chemicals and not as a C41 process. The results looked fine but a bit stark. Mind you Kodak's C41 BW looks like that anyway. I've a few more rolls of the Kodak and I'm going to do them at home