Giveaway: b/w Film

We just got a new fridge, and while cleaning it out, I realised that I hadn't used any of my b/w film stash for the last seven (!!)

years. I'm now devoted to 135 format Kodak BW400CN Professional and can't see myself going back to "real" b/w, let alone 120 format,

due to development cost (at a lab) and the fact that it doesn't scan so easily. So, here goes:

 

120 format:

 

9 x Agfapan 100 ///// 1 x TMX 100

 

135 format:

 

2 x Agfapan 25 //// 3 x Ilford Pan F 50 //// 4 x Ilford Delta 3200 //// 1 x Kodak HIE infrared

 

All films have expired between 2000 and 2005, but have been in a fridge since they were within date.

 

I am willing to give them away on this forum, but might have to ask for shipping costs through PayPal - it might run as high as 20 USD, if

you live far away from Denmark. I haven't checked exact rates, though.

 

Many good people here post almost weekly, so I'd like to give some back to those film burners :-)

 

Best regards,

 

Soeren

<p>If you would ship to the USA I would be interested.</p>

Sure, Mike. I just checked, and shipping cost to the US would be USD 21. Would that be OK ?? That would be a buck per

roll :-)

 

Soeren

<p>Yes. That would be fine. Send me an email with details and I will take care of the shipping. Thanks. Email: <a href="mailto:gammil@bellsouth.net">gammil@bellsouth.net</a></p>

Will do. Great :-)

<p>Excellent Soeren...spreading the love :)</p>

<p>Soooooooooooooooo Soeren, I often think I should get some C41 B/W film, mostly because of the infrared cleaning. But then I always think of how it isn't real B/W and the idea cools off. Would you start a thread on your experience with it?</p>

<p>Isn't real b&w this thing with coated glass plates?</p>

<p>António,<br>

I honestly only see advantages in using the C41 films - wide exposure latiitude, great tonality, and easy scanning. I often overexpose a couple of stops (a side effect of using ISO 400 film in cameras that often don't go beyond 1/1000), but that doesn't seem to hurt at all. And I do, occasionally, fit an ND or polarizer. A separate thread might be an idea :-)<br>

Soeren</p>

<div></div>

I tried them all. All C41 B&W films. And they are not bad. But 'real' B&W film is sharper, has a bigger tonal range and offers more contrast control during processing. The appearance is different too, of course: diffuse dye clouds vs metal grain.<br>And now that there's no lab near me that does C41 in medium format, 'real' B&W is easier to process too.

Very nice picture, Soeren!

 

I should start a new thread but I fear folks would complain I should research instead of asking these questions:

 

- how does C41 monochrome differ from colour C41 developed in b/w process?

 

- how does C41 monochrome differ from colour C41 printed on b/w paper?

(I'm one of those who like red-insensitive film!)

<p>Antonio- for the first question, if you mean developing in conventional black & white chemicals (like Kodak's D-76), you would get a poor image compared to processing conventional black & white (like Ilford FP4+) in same chemicals. Both C41 color and monochrome are best done in C41 chemistry.<br>

For the second question, silver halide black and white paper (like Ilford Multigrade IV) work fine when printing from monochrome C41 negatives. However, color C41 has an orange mask which is unfortunately close to the color that black & white paper is least sensitive to. I've printed from C41 color, but it is not fun.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Antonio, for the first question the key thing to remember is that the C41 process removes all silver from the negative and the image is formed by dye clouds. This compares with conventional black and white negatives where the image is formed by metallic silver left in the emulsion after developing and fixing. C41 has a bleach step to remove the silver affected by the developer. The undeveloped silver ions are removed by the C41 fix as per conventional black and white.<br>

This why if you process a conventional black and white film in C41 you should get totally clear negatives as there is no dye layer to form an image in the development step and all silver is removed in the subsequent bleach and fix steps - nothing left in the film emulsion on the negatives.<br>

I have only tried printing colour C41 negatives on single grade black and white papers without much success. Remember that the dye clouds formed in a colour negative must handle all lof the colours in the final print. Single grade black and white paper is not sensitive to this full range of colours. C41 monochrome dye clouds are a single colour which is why they will print correctly on conventional black and white papers.<br>

In the distant past, early 1980's I used to use a Kodak conventional black and white paper called Panalure which was designed for printing C41 colour negatives as black and white and this was very good. It was sensitive to all of the dye colours in a C41 colour negative.</p>

 

<p>Mike is right, long printing times are the result when using C41 B&W film to print on conventional B&W papers. The early T400CN film had a very minimal base colour and printed really well in the conventional darkroom, likewise, Ilfords' XP2.<br>

I think the new version of Kodak's film has a strong base colour and is designed to print well on colour paper without too much colour cast. The orange mask just serves as a built in safelight when printing on silver based B&W paper!</p>

<p>I was really thinking of what happens when you print from color C41 to B&W paper, but Tony is right- Kodak's T400 CN did print well. As an alternative to Panalure paper some darkroom workers use dichroic filtration to filter out the orange mask. However, this does not make the exposures any shorter since the amount of light passing through the negatives is less. Depending upon the paper, the filtering might improve the contrast. When I need to print black & white from C41 color negatives I combine a #3 Polycontrast filter and a blue 80B. I dim the safelights more since the exposure is long. Good to use a fast paper too. Kentmere works well for me in this capacity.</p>

Trying to filter out the mask colour will not do much, would it? The mask blocks some of the colours from the spectrum, creating a peek in the orange part of the spectrum, i.e. leaving more of its orange colour present in the light coming through than any of the other colours. Reducing that orange down to the level of the rest doesn't help boost any of the other colours. The paper will not receive more of the light it is sensitive to. Just less of the light it doesn't react to anyway.<br>When using multigrade paper you can use the appropriate filtering to boost contrast (and you need to when printing a masked C41 negative on B&W paper).

Well I wouldn't go to the trouble, I just pointed out some photographers do. I would agree little would be gained. Also true

when I used to combine the blue with #3 the gain was small but noticible in contrast. However, dispensing with the blue

and going to a #3.5 was often too much. Possibly the combination gave me the contrast I wanted. I think what you added,

Q. G. does clarify matters more.

<p>Testing some of the film generously provided by Soeren. Currently shooting a roll of 120 Agfapan 100 and a roll of Delta 3200 (will be exposed at E.I. 1250, but developed at 1600 time using HC110). Will post results later in separate thread. In a couple of months I will be giving something away to "play it forward."</p>

<p>Also sharing film with my oldest son who has really taken a liking to classic film cameras as well as developing and printing.</p>