"real" B+W.

[Weaving Wax]

Ok, I've been using C-41 since I started, but my scans/prints have this warm/cool "tone". Now, I know that the paper can do this, but I was wondering if using "real" b+w would change this or if I just need to get my negs printed on paper that doesn't give a tone.

Also, what is the difference between real b+w and C-41? Should I go into using real b+w? I know I'd have to have them send it off if I wasn't using C-41.

 

[selmerdave]

Well certainly a B&W film should not print with any "tone". In my experience the C41's certainly have that, although I think some have had better results with certain paper combinations. I have never had a "real" B&W film come back anything but B&W.

Dave

 

[terri]

Why not take the plunge and learn how to develop "real" B&W film at home? It's not at all expensive to get going (the setup will have paid for itself with the $ you'll save by not sending off your next few rolls) and it's a skill you'll have forever. It's a great feeling knowing you're no longer dependent on labs or the C41 films.

Seriously, the trickiest part of developing film is teaching yourself how to load it on the reel in the dark. You practice it in the light with used film until you get a feel for it, then go for it. Development itself is a piece of cake. Then you have high quality negatives you can scan or have prints enlarged from, unless you ever get into a darkroom to do your own. But you don't need a darkroom to develop film.

 

[panocho]

I also had the same experience, a kind of green tone over the b&w. completely disapointing, yes.

c41 was conceived to process b&w film the same as color. so that's what they do at most labs: put them in the same machine as color film. but those processing machines are prepared for color, and that explains the tones they gey.
regardless of whether it is c41 or not, b&w has to be processed as b&w. Ink and paper has to be for b&w. otherwise, using those for color will put some color tone in them

by the way, I second the suggestion of start doing your own processing. I myself don't do it (shoot mainly slides, which requires a little more control over the temperatures) but have been wanting to start for a long time and I believe I will start very soon now. i'm really looking forward to it!

 

[ksmattfish]

Color casts in the print are from using regular color paper. You would probably have even more problems if you switched to "real" BW film, because it doesn't have the orange film base that the printing machines are designed to function with when printing on color paper.

Traditional BW film uses silver to create the image. C41 is chromogenic, and uses a minimal amount of silver, along with dye to create the image. In color film these dyes are colored; in BW C41 the dye is color neutral. I'm not up on what C41 BW films are available currently, but in the past you could purchase C41 BW film that had the orange film base, and was intended to be printed on color paper, and there was also C41 BW with a neutral base designed to be printed on traditional BW papers.

You could find a lab that prints on BW paper (traditional or chromogenic papers), but any decent lab should be able to print your C41 BW photos without a color cast on color paper.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Got to agree with Matt. Then I used C41 B&W film never had a problem when printing on B&W paper

 

[New Hampshire]

Development itself is a piece of cake. Then you have high quality negatives you can scan or have prints enlarged from,

You know, I was pondering this very thing not too long ago. I was thinking about developing simply for the negatives. Then I would scan and/or pick the ones I want and sent them out for enlargement. The reason being is, lets say I get 12 out of 24 expsoures on a roll that come out great. If I send the film out for developing, like it or not, I get 24 prints, 12 of which I don't like, and 12 others I now have to resend back out if I want enlargements. I feel it a bit of a waste of money and paper to throw away 12 prints just for 12 good ones. At least what you propose would allow me to be selective and more in control with as little waste as possible!

Brian

 

[Weaving Wax]

I agree and I'm going to look into doing it myself. A few others don't think I should because I have no darkroom experience whatsoever and it's too difficult. I read Torus34's guide and it seems easy enough. The only thing is, I wish it had pictures of what all these different things (tanks, reels..etc..etc..) looked like in the guide. Pictures helps a great deal.

The most difficult thing to me would be mixing the chems and loading the reel.

Can you do color as well? I heard it's next to impossible to do color by yourself because the temp is less forgiving with color prints, but I've heard of people doing it themselves. Is that really hard? I shoot both b+w and color...

 

[New Hampshire]

Weaving Wax,

This is the book I bought:
Black and White Photography: By Harry Horstein

It has a great couple of chapters on B+W negative developing, and then one on making Prints. VERY detailed, with pictures and drawings, as well as a trouble shooting section. This is the book that gave me the idea of shooting B+W, developing myself to use the negatives for scanning. Im still very seriously considering it.

Brian

 

[Torus34]

You can start by checking out the b&w series of articles here on TPF.

 

[Weaving Wax]

You can start by checking out the b&w series of articles here on TPF.

I did. I mentioned it in my above post. You did an awesome job! I just wish it had pictures..like of the reels/tanks..etc..etc.. I'm going to use it for my development. Once I get the funds to actually do it.

 

[ksmattfish]

Can you do color as well? I heard it's next to impossible to do color by yourself because the temp is less forgiving with color prints, but I've heard of people doing it themselves. Is that really hard? I shoot both b+w and color...

It's not really any harder; precision, attention to detail, and well honed skills are a requirement to make good BW prints in the darkroom too. Most color processes that I'm familiar with are more expensive and more toxic. For me the advantages of doing my own BW in my darkroom are very obvious when comparing my hand processed BW film and prints to machine produced lab prints, and the expense is about the same (not counting time, but I enjoy the work). My experience with processing color film and prints by hand (which admittedly is significantly less) is that the differences are much less obvious. At least not significant enough to me to go to the expense and trouble to maintain a stocked color darkroom.

While I do enjoy working in the darkroom, the main reason I do it is to take advantage of the creative controls it allows me. For instance, burning and dodging are wonderfully simple techniques in the BW darkroom that can easily be used to improve a BW photograph; I can darken and lighten tones to my liking. In the color darkroom it's just not as simple; burning a section of red doesn't just make it darker tonally, it can also change the hue and saturation, which may not at all be what I'm after. Color adds an extra dimension that makes things exponentially more complicated and time consuming, and I just don't have the time. I used to occasionally sign up for the color photography class at the local community college just to get access to their kick-butt color darkroom (with a lab assistant to stock the chems and keep the place clean), but now those complicated techniques can be done in moments in Adobe PS with a level of precision that is impossible for me to match in a traditional wet darkroom.

If you want to take advantage of printing techniques that are not available from your lab, and you don't want to do them digitally, or you just enjoy working in the darkroom, then a color darkroom might be for you. Taking a color film photography class at a school with a good color lab would be a less expensive way to see if it's something you'd enjoy.

 

[JoeVanCleave]

I consider myself a traditional B/W darkroom person, and do all my own gelatin silver film processing at home. But I've got to say that I've had some real good results from Ilford's chromogenic B/W film. At the time I was living in Portland, Oregon, and had the film developed and printed at Camera World in downtown Portland; the prints came out real nice and neutral toned.

You could consider sticking with C41 B/W film, but print them in a silver-based home darkroom. Ilford's chromogenic B/W film has a more neutral tone to the film base, making it easy to print onto gelatin silver paper; Kodak's chromogenic B/W film is tinted to make it print easier on machine processing, but doesn't work so well on variable contrast silver paper, due to the color tint of the film base.

Also, the main difference between the two types of B/W films (chromogenic vs gelatin silver) is the grain structure; specifically, chromogenic has 'dye globules', whereas silver has micro crystals of opaque metallic silver that clump together in the development process to produce visible 'granules' of texture. If you plan on scanning these negatives, the C-41 will scan much easier on consumer-grade scanners than does silver negatives; the opaque silver crystals scatter the light, whereas the translucent dye globules in C-41 pass the scanner light better.

Another thing with silver-based film is that the entire look of the negative is dependant on the type of developer and agitation used. Look on APUG and other analog photo sites and you'll see that there's entire schools of thought around certain families of development and agitation methods; one thing is certain, however, is that most all commercial lab development of silver-based film is iffy at best, since they don't know the brightness range of your scene, or your rated exposure index; nor do they know how you intend on the prints looking. So they use some textbook recommended development time, in a developer not of your choosing, and usually end up over-developing or over-agitating, resulting in 'soot and chalk' images with grain the size of river gravel. So you're best to learn to process your own silver-based film.

The lab prints you get from chromogenic B/W film are really intended to be 'proof' prints, not gallery quality; few labs will take the time to color balance their printer to get a neutral tone with your negatives.

In the silver darkroom, one has the choice of paper type (warm tone or cool tone) along with various toner processes (i.e. sepia, gold, selenium, lith printing, etc.) that can provide a limitless variety of effects. The thing to remember is that if you're interested in achieving a particular creative effect, you've got to gain control of all the parameters that affect the final output and learn to use them to your advantage. Meaning learn to use a silver darkroom, or scan the negatives and photoshop them. But you can't leave those creative decisions up to a 'lab rat', regardless of their caliber; they simply don't have the time, ability or understanding of what your creative intent is.

PS: I'm a silver 'lab-rat' by choice.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Good to see you here Joe.

I don't print my own any more not even black and white but I do develop my negatives. I to scan them but since I am all set up to easily develop my negatives I haven't used in c41 b&w film in a long while. Even then I didn't print it so my opinioin probably is worthless.

From looking at the negatives I can't imagine there would be a great difference. I would think that exposing the paper and developing it and even the choice of papers would compensate for a lot of differences.

When you get ready to take the plunge take a look at the tank and reel from freestyle they have a film apron system that makes loading a tank very easy. Also their list of chemicals is first rate.

 

[ksmattfish]

few labs will take the time to color balance their printer to get a neutral tone with your negatives.

I suppose it depends from lab to lab, but every full service lab I've ever used (local and online) hasn't had any problems printing neutral tone on color paper. If a lab told me they couldn't do it, I'd find another lab. Having done it when I worked at a full service lab years ago it's really not that difficult, and only requires properly trained personnel.