Next step in Development

[pridbor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So with help from this forum I made it through the C41 process a few times, and have the chemicals ready for more, and as a new "father" pretty happy with my efforts.

 

But I'm wondering a little what to do next. is the C41 as good a B&W process as "a real B&W film" e.g Ilford and Kodak?? In other words when I read the Ilford data on B&H website then they write "Standard Process" what ever that is!?

 

So my question is if I want to go to B&W do I go to Ilford and get a whole new set of chemicals/ bottles etc or should I just stay with the C41 films?

 

Your advice is greatly appreciated

 

Preben

[jaapv]

I would say get to know your present process inside and out before you move on to experimenting with the next one.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

The C41 process doesn't give you as much room for having fun as conventional B&W, so no trying interesting new films or different developers that change the results. But equally it can't take you up blind alleys of trying this or that and not finding they suit your style. So if you like what you are getting with C41 stick with it, if you see somebody else's work using conventional materials that you like the look of better, then that's the time to have a go. It is just as easy as C41, the only thing you don't want to do is embark on it with a million opinions ringing in your ears of films and developers that other people swear by, so keep it simple, starting out boring and very conventional will not disappoint.

[adan]

Advantages to a pure B&W process - if your final goal is strictly B&W pictures:

 

- slightly more sharpness and less grain, for the same ISO. Color film is basically three (or more) film emulsions stacked on top of one another, one for each primary color sensitivity (red, green, blue - creating cyan, magenta and yellow dyes). The extra total thickness of gelatin diffuses light more. Color film and processing creates the final image out of dye clouds with soft edges (a little cloud around what was originally a silver grain), while a pure silver B&W process results in just the hard-edged metallic silver grains. Color film layers are sensitive to only one color of light (i.e. approximately 1/3rd of the spectrum) - therefore color films have to have a higher sensitivity (real ISO, with associated grain) than the box ISO they are exposed at (roughly speaking, an ISO 100-160 color film will need the grain size of ISO 400 B&W film to get the same response to light).

 

Those are theoretical differences - and film manufacturers have gone to great chemical/technological lengths over the years to try to minimize them. But there still can be a price to pay for getting color in your pictures, especially if you don't actually want color.

 

Color film layers - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Color_film.jpg/200px-Color_film.jpg

Color film dye clouds - http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00a/00aeYj-484975684.jpg

B&W grain - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain

 

- more relaxed processing. The C41 process has to be so precise (± 0.25° in development at a fixed 100° F) to get the three color layers to come out balanced. Since B&W film usually only has one layer, and there is no color to shift, the precision can be lower with reasonable results (± 1 degree). And if the error is larger, it results in just a contrast (and perhaps grain) change - easier to live with and compensate for later than a "color crossover" (say, red shadows and cyan whites) from sloppy C41 processing. B&W film can be processed at most reasonable "room temperatures" (68-75° F) so long as the development time is compensated (higher temp = less time) according to standard manufacturer's tables/instructions.

 

B&W time/temperature table - http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00E/00EYF4-27030784.jpg

 

But the steps and time involved are roughly equivalent:

 

C41 - develop, bleach, rinse, fixer, wash, stabilizer, dry

B&W - develop, stop bath, fixer, wash, wetting agent, dry

 

- Longevity. The dyes in color film are subject to fading from both light (UV rays) and environmental chemicals. The silver metal in B&W films does not fade with light, and is somewhat less chemically unstable than color dyes (although again, manufacturers have gone to great lengths to improve light-stability of color, and Kodachrome dyes, using a whole different process from C41 or E6, have always had exceptionally good stability).

 

- Darkroom printing. You can print C41 color negs in a traditional B&W darkroom, but there are difficulties. The orange tint of color negs acts as a "safelight" (darkroom paper is not sensitive to red light), so exposure times increase. And the other colors in a color negative can lead to strange tonal renditions. Plain B&W film, of course, prints exactly as intended.

 

Disadvantages to a pure silver B&W process:

 

- you don't get any color

 

- most film scanners' dust-removal algorithms (ICE, etc) "read" hard black silver grains as "dust" - and will try to remove them. You get a "moth-eaten" scan - if the image isn't erased entirely. So you have to turn off that scanner setting for silver film, and clone out the dust specks by hand after scanning. If you are scanning.

_______________

 

As 250swb says, your eyes can glaze over when you enter the world of B&W chemistry. There are dozens and dozens of formulas, with special additives to: maximize film speed, or minimize grain, or maximize resolution (accutance), or tonal range. They dissolve grain, or don't dissolve grain, or create intentional staining according to the silver density. There's even a formula for a coffee-based developer ("Caffeinol"), or Kodak's XTol which uses a Vitamin C derivative (sodium ascorbate) - although I would not recommend consuming them for breakfast.

 

And there are "middle of the road" developers that try to balance all those characteristics.

 

You certainly don't have to go to Ilford only - Kodak still sells a substantial range of B&W chemicals as well. At the risk of setting off 250swb's "millions of opinions," I'd recommend a beginner pick a basic, common "old-school" film (Kodak Tri-X ISO 400, Ilford FP4+ ISO 125 or Ilford HP5+ ISO 400) - which are somewhat more tolerant of exposure and processing errors, but not quite as fine-grained and sharp as the Delta/TMax high-tech films. And a "middle-of-road, jack-of-all trades" developer - Kodak D-76 or the nearly identical Ilford ID-11. Along with the basic stop bath, fix etc. designed for B&W use.

 

Once you're experienced with the basic steps and results - then you can figure out if you want to improve a specific characteristic, and branch off the main line.

 

Definitely get a separate set of bottles for the B&W chemicals - you don't want cross-contamination, and you may want to have both C41 and B&W chemicals available at the same time anyway.

[pridbor]

Thank you all, a lot of info to digest and I will. I probably want to take it easy first before delving into the pure B&W but I will end up there in not too far future as that's what I have always liked the most!

 

Thanks again

 

Preben

[Michael Hiles]

I have now long experience with B&W C41 film - mainly Ilford XP2. I love it. The grain is fine, it is sharp, it has a very long tonal range, excellent shadow separation, it scans beautifully and it prints magnificently. I started with XP1, and I have stuck with the approach every since. I may try Delta 400 in one of the new Spur developers, but I am in no rush. I doubt it will have any advantages that much interest me.

 

I want uniform technique and materials that get out of the way while I decide where to point the camera.

 

The consistency involved is, IMO, important. Time after time after time I get beautiful negatives. I have no interest in pointless experiments - Tri-X in coffee, HP5 for 45 minutes in some defunct soup (agitated like a martini). An old teacher used Tri-X in HC110 only - because his tests and on-the-ground results revealed that this was a wonderful pairing. He didn't try everything that came out last week, and he didn't read articles about "Can Superwatzit in Key Lime Juice beat GodKnowsWhat in used Castrol MotorOil" (with stand development). He was interested in making pictures - not in disorganized amateur chemistry.

[waterlenz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have developed C41 only once and that was with the Kodak chemistry with its exacting temperature requirement (see Andy's post above). That was done in a full-time photo lab at a university (not at home) with fancy temperature control plumbing. Even so it was a PITA and convinced me it was not worth the trouble - this was also at a time when one had  1-hour processing (at least for 35mm) - I was developing 120 film. Kodak E6 which I have done several times in home darkrooms is much easier to temperature regulate. I am curious if you who are doing C41 (Preben and Michael) are using the Kodak chemistry or some other with possibly less stringent temperature requirements?

Edited February 13, 2017 by waterlenz

[Michael Hiles]

I hope I have not milead. I don't do C41 myself - my low volume doesn't warrant it. I am in favour of consistency in my processes, and(at least wrt to development) I am against "experiments that are essentially pointless. I will spare you another rant for now.  

[adan]

 I am curious if you who are doing C41 (Preben and Michael) are using the Kodak chemistry or some other with possibly less stringent temperature requirements?

 

I do my own C-41, also.

 

The deal with the stringent time/temperature requirements in built into the film. It takes a non-infinitesimal amount of time for developer to soak from the surface of the film down to the bottom-most layer (red-light-sensitive, cyan dye), so it will start developing 5-10 seconds later than the top layer. C-41 film manufacturers accound for that delay with film chemistry, so that if you develop exactly 3:15 minutes at exactly 100°F, the layers come out exactly even, even with a different starting time per layer.

 

Kind of like a chef getting the meat, the sauce, and the vegetables to all reach the table at the same instant.

 

I think there was at least one C41 kit that offered a time/temperature table. You could use 100° or 85° with a time correction, and get good results. But whatever the new time, it still has to be exact.

 

Personally, with hot and cold water taps, a good thermometer, metal tanks and reels for rapid heat conduction, and a large hot water tank in the basement, I've had no trouble at all nailing C-41 development (which is the critical part, and only just over 3 minutes) in a powder-room sink.

 

The bleach and fix steps are "to completion" - you do not want a precise amount of silver bleached and removed, you want ALL the silver bleached and removed, so there is no upper limit on the time so long as the temperature is reasonably accurate (± 5°F) - and you don't go crazy (a half-hour's bleaching or fixing might be bad, but 7 minutes vs 5? - immaterial).

 

As to why do it myself? Well, if I had a 24/7 commercial lab within a 5-minute walking distance, I'd be happy to have the lab do it. Since I don't, well, my powder-room is open  24/7 and within a 30-second walking distance.

 

Nothing like shooting the Hassy at 3 on a Sunday afternoon, and emailing or printing images by 5 pm. Life is too short.

Edited February 14, 2017 by adan

[waterlenz]

Andy,

Thank you for your detailed account. My first darkroom back when I was a teenager was in a powder  room. Tiny with just a toilet and sink. It was next to the front door in my family's house in Germany (it was a large house that had survived the WWII bombing). Back when I had my C-41 experience it was with Nikor reels and tanks in the university (which I also have at home). More recently (a decade or so ago) I bought the analog version of the Jobo processor (CPA) from a photographer friend who had just bought the electronic version (CPP). It is a lot cleaner (no spillage) compared to Nikor tanks and the tank loads fast. Less chemistry on fingers - index finger on lid of tank (+/- the cap) when filling, agitating, and dumping those Nikor tanks.  Just loading chemistry into a tank takes time. There might be some time variation within a tank as well as through the emulsion. Not sure how good the Jobo is at maintaining temperature (certainly good enough for B&W) with those plastic tanks. Probably having the room at a very warm temperature might help (only possible here for a few days a year). Some years the warmest day here is about 70F (~20C). BTW our cold tap water is very cold!! No need for ice cubes to drink!!

Edited February 14, 2017 by waterlenz

[Martin B]

I do my own C-41, also.

 

The deal with the stringent time/temperature requirements in built into the film. It takes a non-infinitesimal amount of time for developer to soak from the surface of the film down to the bottom-most layer (red-light-sensitive, cyan dye), so it will start developing 5-10 seconds later than the top layer. C-41 film manufacturers accound for that delay with film chemistry, so that if you develop exactly 3:15 minutes at exactly 100°F, the layers come out exactly even, even with a different starting time per layer.

 

 

I read your posts here above with interests, but your experience with the C-41 process does not fully match my own. I am also doing C-41 at home, and I have now developed > 10 color films with my chemicals since last year. First to clarify - 100F is 37.8 deg C. I never go so low in temperature during the development and BLIX steps. I always do the development with followed BLIX at 40 +/- 1 deg C (102 to 106 F). I use 3:30 minutes for the development and 6:30 minutes for BLIX. I am using the Unicolor C-41 chemicals.

 

IMO it is nearly impossible to keep the temperature as exact and accurate as you described above. There are too many factors involved. My experience is - don't bother too much, as long as you are in the 40 deg C ballpark, you are absolutely fine. Colors turn out very well, there is no smearing or cyan looking whites etc. This works for different color films (for example Kodak Ektar, Porta) which I tested. Before I pour the warm developer into the film tank, I pre-soak the film at about 40 deg C in warm water for 2 minutes to get rid of the colored dye (mostly blue or green) and pre-equilibrate the color film temperature. After I poured in the developer (and the same is true for the BLIX afterwards), I always place my tank in a warm water bath which is around 45 deg C (it needs to be warmer outside to maintain about 40+/-1 deg C inside the tank). I had my color films developed at 39, 40, and 41 deg C at 3:30 minutes, and I never saw any kind of difference here. Possible that the Unicolor pack uses a more flexible developer.

 

For B&W - I tested with Ilford XP2 film - it is very easy. Same procedure, B&W comes out very well. Big advantage here is that you can shoot the XP2 film at different ISO speeds and develop all frames the same with C-41. The higher ISO frames will show up with more contrast, but still okay and usable. Another advantage of XP2 film is its low grain amount if this is desired. With a dedicated high ISO or pushed B&W film, you need to stick to an ISO value throughout the film and adopt development times for all frames accordingly.

 

Ilford XP2 @ ISO 400, developed with C-41. Leica M6, Leica 50/2 lens

 

Ilford XP2 pushed 2 stops to ISO 1600, developed with same C-41 as above. Leica M6, Leica 35/2 lens.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Martin B

[Ko.Fe.]

C-41 at home, ECN-2 at home. Done and done. Still have to get rid of two C-41 kits and two ECN-2 kits... E6 two kits are on they way

I think it is too personal to ask others about what to do. Personally, I don't see the use for color film anymore, since it is very difficult to print under enlarger. I do only BW in the darkroom, because I could print and because I like BW film photography.

[Martin B]

 

Personally, I don't see the use for color film anymore, since it is very difficult to print under enlarger. I do only BW in the darkroom, because I could print and because I like BW film photography.

 

I still like in certain situations to shoot with color film in parallel to digital especially when many bright colors are present. Last fall I took my best fall color shots with color film. When digitized from the negative with slight adjustments, colors are instantly there and more vibrant as digital. You can get close to this from digital photos, but it requires more post processing work.  

 

I agree with the printing from color negatives - I did this for a while with the RA-4 print process, but it is quite demanding and time-consuming to do. I meanwhile think that this is a process which I might drop in the future and simply print color files with my inkjet printer.

[adan]

Martin, you are probably right.

 

There's a big difference between us processing for ourselves - and commercial processing, with the liabilities of taking people's money for large volumes of work (100 rolls a day) that have to be absolutely consistent, due to all the "automation" downstream (machine scanning and printing). And proving, if a customer's pictures come out garbage, that your procedures and equipment and materials were dead on target, and not to blame.

 

I installed and managed a C-41 Noritsu machine at one newspaper, and we got trained in, and practiced, full-boat quality control. Got an X-Rite color transmission densitometer and Kodak Control Strips and ran a strip though the machine every morning and measured the color densities and charted the results to see if we were "drifting" in some color, or if we were "in control" - the whole shebang. Even though we were our only customers.

 

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?attachments/c-41-comparison-ektar-jpg.35056/

http://www.photolabstuff.com/images/810_Xrite.jpg

 

 

Obviously, I don't do any of that in my powder room lab , although I follow Kodak's "basic" QC recommendations - 12 rolls of 135-36 or 120 per liter of developer, with associated extensions of developing time for rolls 5-8 and 9-12. And dumping the chems after 12 rolls or 2 weeks of age.

 

I happen to have well-tempered water, and a color-grade dial thermometer (± 0.25°F) - so it is easy for me to hit and hold 100°F/37.8°C, in the beaker and in the tank. And I do.

 

But it is not as though the color is going to fall off a cliff exactly at 1° or 3.21° difference - there will just be a gradual shift away from ideal in one direction or another.

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fQzpqOqRjMQ/Uz6VT1RoQJI/AAAAAAAACHc/2fwL-DYINwc/s1600/qc.jpg

 

(Anything between the dashed red and blue lines on that chart counts as "within control.")

 

And if we are doing our own scanning, we may never notice. The scanner always needs a little human help, even with a perfect negative. Picture too blue - is that because the processing was off, or because the scanner's auto WB is seeing a bright yellow in the image, and overcompensating? Either way, I have to correct it with human intelligence.

Edited February 15, 2017 by adan

[Jeff S]

 An old teacher used Tri-X in HC110 only - because his tests and on-the-ground results revealed that this was a wonderful pairing. He didn't try everything that came out last week, and he didn't read articles about "Can Superwatzit in Key Lime Juice beat GodKnowsWhat in used Castrol MotorOil" (with stand development). He was interested in making pictures - not in disorganized amateur chemistry.

 

Worked for Fred.....worked for me, too.

 

Jeff

[Michael Hiles]

Worked for Fred.....worked for me, too.

 

Jeff

Precisely. Me too.

[waterlenz]

You guys have me convinced to do some more C41 B&W. I used the Kodak product in the past and was very happy with the results. The B&W prints from the "1-hour lab" (not at home where none exist but when on the road) were a bit different from their normal output too. Looks like it will have to be Ilford :->>

[Michael Hiles]

I think/hope you will be very happy with XP2. \it scans and prints beautifully, and is very forgiving. I rarely have a bad negative.

 

\i have the film developed (negs only), and scan myself. When I want a print I turn on the safe light and the focomat and get out the Multigrade IV.

 

Very satisfying - it is great to exercise and learn always more about the craft.

[pico]

Andy, you had a Versamat for B&W. Did you run that, too?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

Never used a Versamat - operated a couple of Wing-Lynches for E6 in the late 80s (newspapers), and used Kodak and Ilford B&W stabilization print processors in the early 80's (not for my own work - research hospital lab - Ektamatic (?), replaced with Ilford 1250).