developing color in d76

[ampguy]

This is the 2nd roll I've developed in d76 1:1, this time for 13 minutes @ 74 deg. F. Film was shot at 100, and was Reala 100. Shot in a Hexar AF:

Curious what results others have with developing C41 in traditional b/w developer?

here

[Stuggi]

I'm quite amazed at the results. Should this work with just about any C-41-film? How about C-41 B&W film?

[ampguy]

this was only my 2nd roll. Scans of my first roll at 11 min @ 74 deg. F had more variations, but still very interesting compared to regular b/w:

original scans of roll 1 of Reala 100 @ 11 min d76 1:1 here

and converted to b/w here

I'm quite amazed at the results. Should this work with just about any C-41-film? How about C-41 B&W film?

[ann]

years ago, i had a student develop some xp c41 film in the lab. The film had a serious magenta color but it printed.

[pentaxuser]

I take it these are neg scans rather than print scans? Have you done any prints from any of the negs. While a print is the ultimate test I can see no reason why the prints shouldn't be very good.

What are the other stages after the B&W developer? Did you do this just to see how a colour neg film would look after a B&W process or is colour film in N Calif cheaper to develop as B&W than buying a traditional B&W film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

[Aurum]

years ago, i had a student develop some xp c41 film in the lab. The film had a serious magenta color but it printed.

If you look on the digitaltruth big dev list, it gives times for this, D76 stock at 20 deg C is quoted at 14 mins, or aculux 3 (1+9) at 15 mins.

I've done Cheapo film from a disposible camera at With Ilfosol 3 (1+14) for 20 minutes. Not bad results, but I don't think Ilfosol 3 is the optimum developer for this.

I've got a load of ID11 that needs making up I might try that instead

The attached is a straight scan, no correction

[ampguy]

just water stop, and kodak fixer (1:1) for about 4 minutes. It is cheaper than any b/w film I'm aware of (outdated Reala 100 in bulk), and also looks quite a bit different than the Neopanss 100 I've been using.

I take it these are neg scans rather than print scans? Have you done any prints from any of the negs. While a print is the ultimate test I can see no reason why the prints shouldn't be very good.

What are the other stages after the B&W developer? Did you do this just to see how a colour neg film would look after a B&W process or is colour film in N Calif cheaper to develop as B&W than buying a traditional B&W film?

Thanks

pentaxuser

[Paul Howell]

I have a few rolls of dollar store Samsung, might try a roll and develop in Edwal 12 or FG7.

[pentaxuser]

ampguy. Thanks for the explanation. I notice that the most recent negs seem to be normal i.e. look like B&W negs whereas the first set had various casts but were then converted. How did you do the converson and what explains the difference between the first scans of the cat and the later scans of it?

Incidentally I thought some of the casts on the first set of scans of the cat negs were interesting. Pity that in normal B&W paper prints they couldn't be directly translated into toned prints. I wonder if the residual colour in the cat scans of the original negs would produce nice ones on RA4 paper?

pentaxuser

[randerson07]

Ive done a couple rolls of C41 in Black and white chemistry now. The first set looked pretty good and scanned well. The second roll did not clear what so ever.
You can see the results here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/randers...7606509378000/
and what the negs looked like here
http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&...ad+negs&m=text

Ive got a few more disposable cameras im going to run through, they are all expired.