Quick ? about C41 BW film

[Artorius]

I know all about silver halide films. Used film till about 15 yrs ago, when I went all digital. With film like Kodak's BW 400 being dye based, would it be advantageous to use color correction filters, ie; 81A, 85A, even though B&W?
The few rolls of C41 process I've shot and had processed/scanned, I'm not really impressed. New film tech has me nuts.
OR should I just start processing B&W film in the bathroom, not really a problem cause we have 3, and getting a scanner and doing it myself, again.
There are a couple of local labs here that will process and scan, but at about $25.00 for 36 exp. I think I could get a decent scanner, and break out my film processing reels and tank.
Comments and opinions welcomed.

 

[dspeltz]

Good question. Over the last week I tried three rolls of the Ilford XP2 Super and on the first round i got thin negatives. I then changed the film speed to 200 from 400 and got decent density but high contrast. My middle tones were too close to the high tones. So today I shot Zone I at various film speeds on XP2, Kodak BW CN, and Trix (which I have used for 30 years) the same way. Before I go back to the wet lab, the local lab is going to help me with their densitometer. Once I know (by Tuesday I think) what my real film speed is I will shoot Zone 8 and run tests with my scanner to determine if these new films will give me what I want ... continuous nice tones from Zone 1 to 8 with the middle in the middle. I suspect i will be back to doing my own Trix however I am hoping....

 

[steamer]

I don't have 3 bathrooms but I'm in exactly the same boat as you, (36 shots developed and scanned is about 12 bucks here) as soon as I can find some used tanks and stuff, I'm going to start developing and scanning B&W myself.

 

[peterc]

With film like Kodak's BW 400 being dye based, would it be advantageous to use color correction filters, ie; 81A, 85A, even though B&W?

No. Don't bother with correction filters.
BTW I''ve found XP2 a lot easier to use than BW400CN. But I don't think either is up to a real B&W film. The Fuji Superia films (100, 200 and 400) make are nice for B&W as well ... just desaturate in PS.

OR should I just start processing B&W film in the bathroom

At the price they're charging you for a develop and scan, that's not a bad idea. Many of us in the Toronto area paying $2.99+tax (Canadian) for develop and scan. And the turnaround time is one hour.

Peter

 

[jan normandale]

I've seen this thread before.. and my answer remains the same. Here is just one image from Kodak BW C41 400 ISO.. I like it a lot. There is more in my galleries but this is typical as far as I'm concerned

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=42744

 

[JonathanA]

I know that here it's about $8.50 for process/scan for 1 roll and 5.95 for each additional roll you put on to the CD. I would say your better off getting your own scanner.

 

[jlw]

The few rolls of C41 process I've shot and had processed/scanned, I'm not really impressed.

The problem may be with your scanning rather than with the film. C41films usually scan better than silver halide films -- you don't have to deal with excess highlight density and grain aliasing. But if you're having the scans done by a trade shop at the time of processing, well, they'll never be as good as "custom" scans or those you do yourself, just as mass-market machine prints are never as good as custom prints.

 

[wyk_penguin]

I believe the current concensus is that the C41 purple and orange negatives will respond to filters more than silver halide b&w negatives, i.e. a yellow filter on c41 will have the effect of an orange on b&w. IMHO, the c41s have less dynamic range than silver halide negatives.

If you have 3 bathrooms, why not convert one to a darkroom and get back to developing and printing silver halide films?

 

[charjohncarter]

I went through this about a year ago. I couldn't get what I wanted with BW C-41 or digital conversions, so I went back after a very long layoff to develop my own BW. All my old notes were worthless because of new films and chemicals. Now I shot Tri-X, and Plus-X, develop in HC-110 (h). Finally I'm closing in on what I want. Of course, when you start up developing after many years, you do all the goof ups over again. One goof up is that good scanning negatives are different than good printing negatives, just another learning curve to conquer

 

[dspeltz]

I went through this about a year ago. I couldn't get what I wanted with BW C-41 or digital conversions, so I went back after a very long layoff to develop my own BW. All my old notes were worthless because of new films and chemicals. Now I shot Tri-X, and Plus-X, develop in HC-110 (h). Finally I'm closing in on what I want. Of course, when you start up developing after many years, you do all the goof ups over again. One goof up is that good scanning negatives are different than good printing negatives, just another learning curve to conquer

What are the changes you are seeing you need to make between making a darkwoom negative and a scan negative. I am sorting through that now. I assume the density at the bottom end (Zone 1) should be around similar for the shadows (I need to prove that) and that the high end (Zone 6-8) is where the development time needs to be customized to the scanner. At least that is how I did it years ago when I customized development time to my cold light enlarger.

BTW I use HC110 (B) and it is hard to get now. What does H do for you versus HC110B?

 

[biomed]

I have tried both Kodak and Ilford chromogenic bw films. Both work very well. I like the Ilford XP2 Super the best. I pay $2.00 per roll for processing and scan the negatives with a Canon FS4000US. I do color scans and correct any color in PS. Sometimes I leave the image as scanned - Ilford gives a sepia tone - Kodak has a green tone. I typically shoot the XP2 at ISO 320 and sometimes 200.

I have not had any experience with scans done by a film lab, but have heard that they are often times disappointing. Scanning the negatives yourself seems to be the answer.

Mike

 

[fishtek]

I've been shooting chromogenic film since I bought my Bessa R about 2 months ago, mostly Fuji 200 and BW400CN. Drugstore C-41 processing, then scanning with a Canon 4200F. Pretty satisfied with the results, as I'm still experimenting with different film. Expecting BW processing equipment sometime this week, at which time I'll commence working on the skills I had years ago with BW film souping. Still gonna scan 'em to the computer, though.....no more wet darkroom for me!

Regards!.....and....good luck.

Don

 

[charjohncarter]

DSPELTZ,

I get my BW negatives scanned at Costco. They have a $100,000 scanner, and charge 29 cents per scan, so I figure I have a while before I could go over budget on scanning price. And they have everthing preset so I can't mess it up. I find and this is just me, that a scanning negative has to be a little thinner and less contrast than a printing negative. I compensate by developer time and amount of agitation. I think you could still get a good print with these negatives, but you would have to use more contrasty paper or filters.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I've been trying out Fuji Neopan 400 CN and wonder whether using color film and converting to B&W in software isn't better.

The C41 Fuji is good, but once it's in the camera I'm committed to B&W, whereas with C41 color in the camera I have a choice.

 

[charjohncarter]

DSPELTZ,

I don't think dilution H does anything but stretch the time out. Some people say that if you don't agitate much you get a little stand or compensating development. I agitate very little because I want those shadows to show. That is also why I rate the films a one-half the ISO. This is just my method everybody has a perception of what they like.

 

[jan normandale]

DSPELTZ,

I get my BW negatives scanned at Costco. They have a $100,000 scanner, and charge 29 cents per scan, so I figure I have a while before I could go over budget on scanning price. And they have everthing preset so I can't mess it up. I find and this is just me, that a scanning negative has to be a little thinner and less contrast than a printing negative. I compensate by developer time and amount of agitation. I think you could still get a good print with these negatives, but you would have to use more contrasty paper or filters.

this is kind of OT however I'm intrigued. I have not bothered to compare these physical differences when scanning. Now that its been brought up I'm highly interested in these differences. Could you provide a couple of examples for those in this thread. I have not really considered 'thickness' as a factor in quality for scanning. I'd like to get a visual on the differences.

Most pro shops that provide drum scans use comercial units (like ICG, Howtek, Fuji, and Heidelberg) that tend to max out at +/- $30 000. Do you think the staff at the Costco gave you the right numbers?

 

[charjohncarter]

jan normandale,

I have only posted one photo on RFF, so I am a little of a novice, I will try though. Actually you are right about Costco. Their machine is $100,000, but it does more than scan. I think it develops and scans, or prints and scans. Or maybe all three. What I was getting with my thicker contrasty negatives and C-41 were scans that gave me alot of noise in the dark areas of a print. I just started to look at negatives and found I was happier with the thinner negative with full shadow detail.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

With film like Kodak's BW 400 being dye based, would it be advantageous to use color correction filters, ie; 81A, 85A, even though B&W?
The few rolls of C41 process I've shot and had processed/scanned, I'm not really impressed. New film tech has me nuts.

Ilford XP2 Super is an orthochromatic film, so you can use red, yellow, green, etc. filters just like you would for traditional B&W film photography. No different.

A lot of people complain about the poor results they get with C-41 B&W film. It's just a matter of not over-analyzing it, and not getting confused about the fact that it's C-41 process vs. "traditional" B&W silver processing. Kodak added the "traditional" orange mask used in color film because there are just too many lab operators that cannot think about adjusting their printing machine if the negative doesn't have an orange mask, like Ilford XP2.

C-41 B&W film gives much nicer, finer tone gradations than most people can achieve with most traditional B&W film. There are pros and cons. Unfortunately people just want things out of the box and don't put much thought into it, and when they don't get the expected results, they blame the film giving purple prints. Or the camera giving purple blacks. (I won't go there).

This is a shot of mine taken with Ilford XP2:

And another with Kodak BN C-41:

Just ask your lab operator to print the Kodak film like normal color film, and he/she needs to put an orange mask (or a green filter if they don't know what that means) when printing.

 

[charjohncarter]

Jan Normandale,

Here are two negatives the darker is an exaggeration, but it produced a good print. It was taken 9 degrees north of the Equator, and midday sun is difficult to expose there. It was shot: Tri-X at 400, D-76 normal time. The lighter which scanned well at Costco was shot: new Tri-X at 200, HC-110 (h) 10.5 minutes, 30 seconds at first then two spaced. The trouble I had with C-41 is shown on the post before mine. The windows and dark corners have that scanner artifact that I couldn't get rid of. Sorry about the quality of the photo, I tried to do it with an extension tube and a DSLR. I haven't figured it out yet. Viva RF.

 

[shadowfox]

I completely agree with Gabriel M.A (nice shots, btw).

Here's a typical result that I got from an *expired 5-7 years* Ilford XP2 Super:

... to my eyes, it's not too bad.