C-41 B\W Film

[MDa Re]

Hello, I've been reading the online forums for quite some time now and have learned many things. But now I finally have a question. I use a lot of Kodak bw400cn film. Then I have it developed at Wal-Mart, Walgreens or wherever.
I then scan my negatives, do any necessary adjustments with GIMP and print the ones I like. So my question is. Is c-41 a standard for developing color negative film or is there a setting when they develop it for B/W? If there is no special setting then when I get my negatives back aren't they still just a color negative? And if that's the case what's the difference if I scan Kodak bw400cn at gray scale or Kodak Gold 200 at gray scale? I've tried this on some of the older Kodak Gold negatives I have and they don't look that bad considering the pictures aren't that great.

Michael

[Don Bryant]

So my question is. Is c-41 a standard for developing color negative film

Yes. Same C-41 process .

If there is no special setting then when I get my negatives back aren't they still just a color negative?

In a sense yes.

And if that's the case what's the difference if I scan Kodak bw400cn at gray scale or Kodak Gold 200 at gray scale? I've tried this on some of the older Kodak Gold negatives I have and they don't look that bad considering the pictures aren't that great.

Michael

The answer here is to test or experiment to see what works best for you and your equipment/software. For K400CN I scan with Vuescan in 48 bit RGB and use the Green channel to make gray in VueScan.

[Greg_E]

The Kodak has that orange film color to it, might be an idea to try something like XP2 which has less color to the film stock. Though you may find that a lot of people dye there B/W film so that they can get extra detail out of the thin parts with an RGB scan, then remove the colorcast in their editing software.

[MDa Re]

The Kodak has that orange film color to it, might be an idea to try something like XP2 which has less color to the film stock. Though you may find that a lot of people dye there B/W film so that they can get extra detail out of the thin parts with an RGB scan, then remove the colorcast in their editing software.

So then you still have to convert the Ilford to black and white to get rid of what color the film stock has? The same as the Kodak I'm assuming. My setup isn't as good as a lot of people. I use an Epson Perfection v200 Photo scanner so I can only get 16 bits out of it. But here are photos from three different films I tested.
The photos aren't the best so blame the photographer.





Michael

[RAM]

I use mostly C-41 process B&W 120 film for street photography and results, it does not have the technical tonal range of some more traditional films but it is virtually grain-less and scans & enlarges very well ...In my most humble opinion.

[SilverGlow]

Michael, why not just shoot with real B&W film, and develop it yourself at home. I started doing this about a month ago, and I find it is easy, fast and cheap, and the upside is that one can use real B&W, and the film backing is clear, or very near clear. I shoot with Arista B&W ISO 100 & 400, and this film is fantastic. At $1.89 per 36 exp. roll, you can't beat it. Check out FreeStylePhoto dot com for more information. In addition, I read that true B&W film has a bit wider dynamic range then the C-41 B&W film...but can anyone nay or yay this?

A basic B&W development kit for home use can be had for under $100.

[wogster]

The Kodak has that orange film color to it, might be an idea to try something like XP2 which has less color to the film stock. Though you may find that a lot of people dye there B/W film so that they can get extra detail out of the thin parts with an RGB scan, then remove the colorcast in their editing software.

The orange cast is so that colour printing machines can produce acceptable, but still B&W prints from it on colour paper, without needing separate settings for the B&W film. The Ilford is better suited for printing on traditional B&W printing materials. For scanning there really is no difference. I usually scan B&W materials as B&W, then convert to RGB for editing, so the colour balance of the scanned image doesn't make any difference.

I find that the easier it is to produce a good wet print from a negative the easier it is to produce a good scan. That means negatives need to be well exposed and processed, a negative that is poorly exposed and improperly processed, is going to be hard to wet print, and hard to scan as well.

Just because you use C41 and a lab doesn't mean the processing is good, chemistries cost money, and the guy who manages the minilab and wants to save a few bucks, can always skimp on chemistry changes. If most of their work is disposable cameras, they are more likely to do this, then if most of their work is for professional photographers, who need good results.

[sanking]

When I take C-41 color film and C-41 B&W film to my local lab for development they always ask to separate the two since they apparently don't run the two types together. I thought it could all be developed together?


Sandy King

[Donsta]

When I take C-41 color film and C-41 B&W film to my local lab for development they always ask to separate the two since they apparently don't run the two types together. I thought it could all be developed together?


Sandy King

I run it together in a Jobo - no issue.

[Don Bryant]

When I take C-41 color film and C-41 B&W film to my local lab for development they always ask to separate the two since they apparently don't run the two types together. I thought it could all be developed together?


Sandy King

Yes it can be processed all together with no processing issues. They may wish to segregate the films for batching during the printing stage (though you may not want prints).

Don Bryant

PS C-41 is so easy to process I just do it myself. I use Unicolor K3 chemistry and only mix 300 ml of developer at a time. That way the color developer doesn't go to waste. I did this because finding a local processor that will develop 120 C-41 is almost impossible to find and when one is found the processing charge is way to much for me to pay.