New Kodak Black and White Films that get "color processed"

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Tom Avel, Aug 11, 2003.

  1. Tom Avel

    Tom Avel Guest

    I noticed a new black and white film by Kodak, that according to the package
    should be processed with the same chemicals as regular color print film. I
    guess you can just drop it off at the drugstore with you other color film.

    Anyone use this stuff? How does it compare to using "real" Black and white
    film that requires its own special processing. I wonder, does this stuff
    give you the same contrast and other qualities as "real" black and white.
    Or is just some Kodak gimmick.
     
    Tom Avel, Aug 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The stuff has been around for quite a while, and if you like sepia prints or
    some such other off color rendering they would suit you.
    I myself do not think much of them, but that is just my opinion. You may like
    the effect.

    Ed
     
    WinkenBlinken& Nod, Aug 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tom Avel

    Tom Avel Guest


    So do you mean the prints you get back are not really true black and white,
    but color tinted?
     
    Tom Avel, Aug 11, 2003
    #3
  4. Tom Avel

    Norman Worth Guest

    Actually, there are three different varieties. The amateur films are
    designed to be processed by the minilabs. They produce very low contrast
    negatives to be printed on color paper. The prints you get from the minilab
    may be any color, but they are usually brownish. The Portra series black
    and white films are designed to print on black and white chromogenic paper
    (Process RA-4 or equivalent). They can also be printed on color paper or
    (with somewhat more difficulty) on regular black and white paper. TMax
    400CN has higher contrast and is designed to be printed on regular black and
    white paper.
    I have only tried the amateur version and 400CN. They seem to be decent
    films, although I don't like the amateur film that well (hard to handle for
    reprints). 400CN works very well, with excellent, fine grain structure and
    very good sharpness.
     
    Norman Worth, Aug 11, 2003
    #4
  5. Tom Avel

    Jan Philips Guest

    I used a roll by accident (I saw Kodak B&W and assumed that it was
    Tri-X renamed.) When I got the prints back, they had very low
    contrast. I took them to a camera store and they said that they could
    print them better.
     
    Jan Philips, Aug 11, 2003
    #5
  6. Tom Avel

    Üter Guest

    I noticed a new black and white film by Kodak, that according to the
    package
    Its C-46 or something like that. Kinda flat IMO. Also, the images come out
    greenish, or reddish depending on the photo printer used by the lab. I
    prefer TMAX 400. The first time I used real B&W film it knocked my sox off.
    :)
    Yes.
     
    Üter, Aug 11, 2003
    #6
  7. Tom Avel

    David Guest

    haven't used them, but previous conversations in photo news groups indicate
    they're muddy, not much of a clear black or white.

    david
     
    David, Aug 12, 2003
    #7
  8. Tom Avel

    Bob Sull Guest

    They are not color tinted but since the negs are printed on color paper
    the prints tend to pick up color from the film base. Some are orange,
    some are clear.

    Bob
     
    Bob Sull, Aug 12, 2003
    #8
  9. Tom Avel

    Bob Sull Guest

    C-41.

    Kodak gimmick? What about Ilford and Agfa? Is their C-41 B&W a Kodak
    gimmick too?

    Bob
     
    Bob Sull, Aug 12, 2003
    #9
  10. Tom Avel

    Üter Guest

    C-41.

    Thanks. :)
    If the photos look the same as when using Kodak's C-41 then I'd say yes. :)
     
    Üter, Aug 12, 2003
    #10
  11. Tom Avel

    David Guest

    your reasoning escapes me.

    is "kodaks C41" different than "agfa's C41" or "fujis C41"?
     
    David, Aug 12, 2003
    #11
  12. Tom Avel

    Üter Guest

    Kodak gimmick? What about Ilford and Agfa? Is their C-41 B&W a Kodak
    Beets me. I haven't used them. Based on the poor results I got from
    kodak's c-41 I wouldn't waste time with the others. Besides, its a pain to
    take film in to have it developed. Much simpler to use real B&W film and
    develop at home. My point was that kodak's c-41 seems geared toward the
    uneducated consumer and in that respect its a gimmick. You might as well
    shoot color film and enlarge on B&W paper. You get the same results.
     
    Üter, Aug 12, 2003
    #12
  13. \>
    If providing a product that consumers can drop off at the local minilab is a
    "gimmick" so be it. And FWIW Ilford and Agfa versions do render
    differently. But as to the contrast issues on Kodak's chromogenic films.
    Yes, if you print on color paper, well lets say the densities are quite low.
    Print on Grade 3 black and white paper, however, and it pops. The point of
    shooting color and printing B/W is understood, but the "uneducated consumer"
    may not think of such a thing.
     
    John Garrison, Aug 13, 2003
    #13
  14. Here is another tid bit of info...If you shoot black and white film that
    gets C-41 process, it is stupidly expensive to go back and have it printed
    on black and white only paper. I know this cause I just had some C-41 negs
    printed on to black and white only. Not to mention that the people looked
    at me stupid. I guess its all fine and dandy if you dont mind the weird
    tint that seems to plauge C-41 processed black and whites.

    Warner
     
    news-server.austin.rr.com, Aug 13, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.