B&W negative

I've exchanged eMail with Kodak and have confirmed that it is possible to get a negative from B&W reversal film by processing it with chemistry normally used for processing negatives. I.e., develop it with something like D-76, use a stop and fixer and wash it. My query was specifically about doing this with Tri-X, but I'm sure it would work with Plus-X and Fomapan as well.

Why would you want to do this?

The big motivation would be to gain the advantages that negatives usually afford, primarily that negatives are more forgiving than reversal films. The process should also produce less grain.

However, I concede that using a film designed for reversal processing would not necessarily produce the aforementioned advantages.

The down side?

Obviously you have to get to a positive image somewhere along the line. In view of the fact that Kodak is now offering Vision 200T it should be no problem to transfer to video with a positive image as the final result. It should also be no problem to get a 16mm or 35mm print. A super8 print is probably not practical since Kodak does not sell super8 print film.

Second, you probably have to do it yourself. I doubt that any lab is going to be enthusiastic about changing their chemistry and/or their procedures to satisfy your kinky requirements. DIY is probably not all that daunting since B&W films do not have as stringent temperature requirements as color film, and a lot of people are processing their own color film. There are also fewer steps in negative processing.

Third, Kodak tells me that going for a negative reduces the film speed by 1/2 to one full stop. Plus-X would go from ASA 50 indoors to ASA 25. Outdoors, with filter in place, it would go from ASA 32 to ASA 16.

Tackling a major project with 8mm B&W negative is not something I have in mind. However, my curiosity has been piqued and I probably will try a few experiments.

Any comments?

Sure. I do it all the time. Cross-processing is much easier than the reversal process. The thing is you bump up the contrast quite a bit.

One thing to keep in mind is that unless you have a clean room or a way to keep the film spotless it might not be worth it.

Reversal, as a neg. is not like a true neg stock. Good Luck

If you can master Ansel Adams "Zone System" you should have complete control over the contrast. That's another advangage!!

Sheet film is different than roll film first off.

However, the contrast comes from the fact that the film was/is not intended to be processed as a neg. While cross processing can be done the contrast will always be higher. This is part of the reason why I cross process my B&W.

Good Luck

The Zone System can be used with roll film. Contrast is controlled by the amount of time the film is developed and, to a lesser extent, the temperature of the developer. PERIOD! Brightness, for lack of a better word, is controlled by exposure. The problem being that, unlike the contrast and brightness controlls on a TV which you can alternately adjust, you have to get it right on the first try. You have to do a lot of experimenting. It's not easy. Whole books have been written about the Zone System. The best is probably Ansel Adams The Negative. The system is definitly too complex to be covered by a single post or even a single thread.

The Zone Systems can also be used with reversal film. Notice that posts about pushing film frequently remark on the effect it has on contrast?

The reason I said that Roll film is different than sheet film is because--You can employ the Zone system techniques but they affect the whole roll and not a single image. Therefore, I think that it should be taken with a grain of salt when talking about it with motion picture film.

Yes, Pushing and Pulling are elements of the Zone system but they are not the Zone system.

The Zone system was designed for use in sheet film where one has control over all aspects of the image. From the click of the shutter and its length to the darkroom timer.

There are things you can do to change your contrast when it comes to motion picture film. I agree with you 100%. It is just that those things are far more limited than when you shoot 4X5.

Either way Cross-Processing is fun and it can give you some cool stuff. Best of Luck

The problem with using the Zone System with roll film is that each image has it's own development time while the whole roll has only one developement time. There are ways around this. With Super8 you can swap catridges in the middle, sacrificing only a few frames. Cartridges can be labeled in advance as +2, +1, 0, -1, etc, indicating how much they are to be pushed or pulled. Reconciling this with the content on the film would involve quite a bookkeeping system or extensive slating. Like I said, it's not easy.

One thing that has intigued me about the possibility of Zones with still roll film is the new APS rolls. These have a magnetic disk on each roll so that the roll can be rewound, removed from the camera, then reinstalled in the camera which will then read the disk and fast forward to the first unexposed frame. Unfortunately the only APS B&W film that I know of is chromagenic which does not push/pull easily.

The Zone System was used on the John Ford film My Darling Clemintine, filmed in Monument Valley. On that shoot each magazine was labeled with the amount it was to be pushed or pulled. On most setups this was a constant. If the amount of push/pull changed a new mag was started and the previous mag was sent to the lab with the remainder of the film wasted. You can do that on multi million dollar productions.

BTW, my own system of using Zone with 35mm roll film is to "roll my own." I buy empty cans for about 60 cents each and install about one foot of film in each roll. I shoot one frame per roll. It's cheaper than buying 4x5 equipment. I'd love to buy 4x5 (or 8x10) but I have other priorities.

[img]graemlins/film.gif[/img] I have processed Tri-X as negative because it is easier for home processing and can be reversed electronically. The processing results were fine, the less said about getting the film in the tank though the better.

But, how different is movie Tri-X from non movie Tri-X. Is there a difference? Any negative black and white film can be reversed so why should Kodak actually make special cine film?

As far as I am aware Ilford b&w film, only available in 16mm is the same as the still film, just reversed in the processing.

Considering the bulk manufacturing process used this seems very likely.

Does anyone know for sure? [img]graemlins/film.gif[/img]

No, I'm not joking. The cost of the system is about $1 per frame, consistent with 4x5, maybe even less. The extra trouble is also consistent with what you'd experience shooting large format.

As for shooting several frames of the same subject in the same light, it's generally not worth it. After using a spot meter to measure the shadows and the highlights to get your N value you either get it in one shot or your don't. My experience is that it's generally not even worth it to bracket the shot.

If I'm shooting landscapes the image doesn't change unless the light changes, usually changing the N value and requiring another roll anyway.

It's different when you're shooting a model. She can go through a whole series of poses while the N value remains the same. In that situation I'd shoot a whole roll. In theory anyway. I've never shot models in B&W, only in color.