oh my...kodak 400cn

[fbf]

I thought he was refering to 400CN which isn't chromogenic ... it's just C41!

I've developed BW400CN (chromogenic) myself in Xtol and there was no real problem and I got very fair results!

Keith, I remember you mentioned processing bw400cn yourself in a thread. That's how I got the idea and I wanted to test it by myself. The result is quite interesting and fairly to say, the result is more than acceptable.

 

[bmattock]

Keith, I remember you mentioned processing bw400cn yourself in a thread. That's how I got the idea and I wanted to test it by myself. The result is quite interesting and fairly to say, the result is more than acceptable.

Well, I owe you an apology. I thought you were a troll, since you seemed to know enough about photography to know that you *can* process C-41 film in B&W but not that it creates a hell of a mess in your developer. Now I understand wny. I apologize!

 

[Keith]

Well, my first thought was that the long scanning time had nothing to do with the orange mask and everything to do with a dense neg. Keith, if I remember right, your negatives from b+w chemistry were very dense, but you still had some contrast to them. Didn't you have long scanning times?

I must admit that the scanning times are no encouragement to want to do this on a regular basis ... bloody painful! From memory I scanned at fairly low resolution and it was still riciculously slow! 😛

I got rid of most of my BW400CN so I wouldn't be tempted to indulge again! 😀

 

[Trius]

Some company - don't remember which now - used to sell respooled color movie film for 35mm that had a nasty black backing that would make a real mess. Perhaps you got hold of some of that. That was a long time ago. It was cheap, but sure not worth the effort.

Seattle Film Works/5247. Greens and yellows were a mess.

 

[cmedin]

Wasn't Seattle Filmworks the outfit that would send you a new roll of film and an envelope for processing after you sent one in? I remember some people getting sucked into that because it was so 'cheap'...

 

[ZorkiKat]

Yes. 5247. One can understand why it wasn't around long!

Companies like Seattle film works were around for a long time. They sold colour motion picture (movie) short ends respooled in 35mm cassettes. Since this film needed to be processed in motion picture colour chemistry, the film was sold with processing and 'slides' (actually positive prints on film) included in the price.

Colour movie film has a remjet black coating (a lubricant to make the film run easier in movie cameras) which dissolves during processing. It can be processed in standard C41 too. Labs don't like it since it spoils the tank baths, but if you do your own C41, it's worth trying. Negatives developed in C41 would have a slightly different balance.

Being a motion picture negative meant that the film has dye characteristics optimised for printing on movie film stock. Printing it on regular colour paper (as in those 1 hour prints) using the usual printer channels used for conventional colour film will often lead to pictures with terrible colours. Adjusting the printer's colour channels/filter packs to match the negative to the paper will often result in prints with excellent colours. If the film can produce good movies on screen, then it should be possible to make good prints on paper, with the right adjustments.

Another reason for possible bad prints from movie film stock is that movie film tends to 'spoil' faster than regular still-camera film. Movie stocks need to be refrigerated, and processed ASAP. Unexposed film stored at less-than-optimum conditions will often produce bad negatives with poor colour balance.

And then, there is also the positive print film used for making 'slides' out of 5247. This is the same positive film used for making release prints shown in cinemas. Many of the print film stocks used in the 1970s-80s had the tendency to fade quickly. These "slides" when found today would often look like a magenta mush. On the other hand, the original negatives (if stored correctly) will still have its dyes intact and will still be able to produce good prints - or scans for that matter.

Jay