Gast
Hello!
I was asked to please make some prints; in this case, they were black-and-white images from an Agfa Optima 100, 6x6 medium format.
The result was a bit of a disaster; if I were to become an advertising executive, I’d say this in direct comparison to the HP 5 ultra-fine-grain film.
The 18x18 prints look as though they were taken on 35mm film with HP 5.
The film had previously been through one of those supermarket labs; the worst thing is that I’d previously claimed that with C41, nothing could possibly go wrong – I don’t think I’ll ever say something like that again – certainly not to people I’m (hopefully still) friends with.
Or is the Optima seriously such a rubbish film? Pardon me for putting it that way.
Roland
MirkoBoeddecker
Roland,
Are the negatives well defined?
Colour films tend to show ‘noise’ in the shadows if they’ve been subjected to severe underexposure.
Best regards,
Mirko
Optima isn’t a rubbish film. If it’s been stored, exposed and developed correctly, it produces decent colour images with harmonious colour gradation.
Gast
Mirko,
I’m going to buy some, expose them differently and develop them myself, just to see. Actually, the negatives look normal to me; the thinner ones are actually even better.
They’re probably mixing in some ancient developer. Come to think of it, it doesn’t really surprise me when you consider what it costs there, or how often they actually get hold of roll films.
Roland
Renate
Hello,
About 10 years ago, I used some Agfa Optima roll film. It was developed at a standard photo lab. The result was disappointing. The 24x30 cm print I made myself was simply grainy. The negatives weren’t subjected to underexposure. During the same period and under the same conditions, I had also performed exposure on a number of Fuji Reala roll films. They were developed in the same lab and the results were a real joy. After that, I never put an Optima in a camera again.
Best regards,
Renate
Gast
Renate,
Well, then our experiences match up. Did you print in colour or black and white? Perhaps it’s because I printed in black and white.
Otherwise, people always say that Agfa is a bit grainier than the competition, but at the same time that the colour films come out much finer than the black and white ones – but not in this case.
As I said, I’m going to buy Agfa AP77 chemicals and develop an Optima myself; if it turns out the same, I’ll be surprised that Agfa was able to sell these films for so long.
Roland
Roman
Well, the Optima is certainly a very good colour film; in fact, it’s my ‘favourite’ when it comes to natural colours (though I use the 400 speed version in medium format).
Your problems are undoubtedly down to the fact that you printed the colour negative film on black-and-white paper, which always yields sub-optimal results (typically with distorted tonal values due to the lack of speed in detecting red in black-and-white paper); you have to crank up the contrast drastically, which of course makes the colour film’s rather unattractive dye cloud structure stand out even more clearly.
If you’re going for black-and-white from colour film, it’s better to go via the digital route – scan the negative, convert it to black-and-white in Photoshop (which is a science in itself, as there are various methods with their own pros and cons), and then have it printed.
Gast
That’s exactly it!
I’ve done a few experiments myself trying to print C41 colour negatives (35mm & 6x6 medium format) on black-and-white paper.
It just doesn’t work.
It ends up looking grainy – like a poor-quality TV picture.
(I’m sure some of you will remember the days of indoor TV aerials).
After a while, I gave up on my experiments.
If it’s C41, then it has to be monochrome.
Otherwise, always stick to the classics.
Best regards
Matthias
FrankJBeckmann
Hi,
There are special black-and-white papers for making prints from colour negatives.
Bye
Frank
Roman
Frank,
I’m not entirely sure about that – Kodak Panalure has been out of production for a long time (it was discontinued long before the ‘standard’ black-and-white papers).
As for Forte’s panchromatic black-and-white paper, I assume that it’s no longer available either, due to financial difficulties (does anyone know for sure?)...
Roman
FrankJBeckmann
Hi Roman,
I think Wephota still stocks it, so you should check with them about availability.
Bye
Frank
Renate
Hello,
I now need to dispel a number of assumptions.
I printed the negatives on colour paper. They are from a trip on which I alternated between using the Optima (which was still 200 ASA at the time) and the Reala. For the black-and-white photos, I performed the exposure directly onto PanF. For the colour prints from the Optima and the Reala, I used the same paper (Agfa colour paper) and the same chemicals. Whilst the Reala produced a uniform expanse in the sky, the sky in the Optima looks as if it consists of fine blue grains of sand. I find this unacceptable for medium format. In terms of colour, both films appear to be equivalent in daylight.
Best regards
Renate
RomanJRohleder
Hello,
I now need to dispel a number of misconceptions.
I printed the negatives onto colour paper. They are from a trip on which I alternated between using the Optima—which was still 200 ASA at the time—and the Reala. For the black-and-white photos, I performed the exposure directly onto PanF. For the colour prints from the Optima and the Reala, I used the same paper (Agfa colour paper) and the same chemicals. Whilst the Reala produced a uniform expanse in the sky, the sky in the Optima looks as if it consists of fine blue grains of sand. I find this unacceptable for medium format. In terms of colour, both films appear to be equivalent in daylight.
Best regards
Renate
Namd Luett,
could it be that the films weren’t bleached and fixed sufficiently? Such weaknesses are known to occur with combined bleach-fixers; what remains is a silver haze that can also appear as grain.
If you have a bleach-fixer or a separate Bleach bath and fixer to hand and are willing to sacrifice a strip of film – process it, develop it, and let us know!
Roman
Gast
Roman,
I don’t have the technical expertise to judge that; in any case, it’s not my film, so I’d better leave it at that.
Incidentally, I developed the prints using fixed gradation and Fomabrom, so it can’t be a magenta filter issue.
I have noticed, however, that old unmasked colour negatives come out very fine, much better than in colour. Let’s see if it’s down to the mask or perhaps the cubic colour clouds as opposed to T-Crystal. Now I need to try an NC 19 to clarify things and an old Kodacolor film.
Roland
Renate
Hello,
Why would a bulk buyer fail to treat all the Optima films properly with bleach-fixer, when the Reala films are perfectly fine? Both types of film were, after all, processed at the same time in the same lab. The C41 process is a standard process. This means that film manufacturers must ensure that the film is treated optimally in accordance with the specified process.
As I am very satisfied with the Reala in every respect, I won’t be wasting any time or money experimenting with the Optima.
Best regards
Renate
RomanJRohleder
Renate,
>Why would a large-scale lab fail to treat all the Optima films >adequately with bleach-fixer, whilst the Reala films are perfectly >fine? Both types of film were, after all, dropped off at the same lab >at the same time.
Firstly: do you know whether both films went through the same machine?
Secondly: do you know whether Optima and Reala have the same silver content, the same mix of silver iodide, chloride, bromide and additives in the emulsion? No, neither do I.
Optima may, on the whole, be more sensitive to poor regeneration of the bleach-fixer or fixer bath. The fault then lies with the lab.
>The C41 process is a standard process.
Correct. But hardly any lab runs C41; instead, they use AP70, CR-something or other – compatible with C41, but not identical.
So a process using bleach-fixer instead of separate bleach and fixer baths is NOT C41. And yet it is common practice and is ‘sold’ to the public as C41.
> That means film manufacturers must ensure that the film is treated optimally in the >specified process.
Nope. The manufacturers write on their cassettes, for example, “Process AP70/C41”. The order of preference should be clear from that, shouldn’t it?
> As I am very satisfied with the Reala in every respect, I won’t waste any time > or money experimenting with the Optima.
No one asked you to. But your conclusions aren’t necessarily valid. And the question is veeeery easy to sort out – it’ll take maybe 20 minutes.
In my experience, the film has behaved perfectly well in my few MF-C41 applications.
>Regards
>Renate
Renate
Everyone can (and should) draw whatever conclusions they think are right from my posts. That’s what I do with other people’s posts, too. I just don’t go on about it so much.
My conclusions are based solely on what I see in the finished photos; there’s no arguing with that. As long as there’s a better alternative, I won’t be using the Optima anymore. I don’t care who actually messed up in the end. The technical problems should be sorted out by the companies that want my money. I’ll take care of the content of the photos.
So as not to waste any more time, I’m bringing my part of this discussion to a close here.
Regards,
Renate
RomanJRohleder
Charming. #-)
Gast
Hello,
So, I’ve now developed an Optima film myself using Agfa chemicals and I’m actually quite happy with the result – incidentally, this was my first time conducting the Ap70/C41 development; it seems the lab had cut corners.
Roland
RomanJRohleder
Roland,
Congratulations on your first C41 print. And I’m glad everything went well.
Next time you run a batch, save the developer and try processing a streak of the ‘bad’ material again – develop, rinse, stabilise.
If those prints turn out fine, it really was down to silver residues and the lab deserves a telling-off and a kick up the backside.
