Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by olleorama, Jul 30, 2011.
I know that RA4 chemistry can be used for film, but can C41 be used for papers?
No, get RA-4 chemicals. They are much cheaper than C-41, too.
RA-4 all the way: I do the following: with Kodak dev/repl RT (roller transport) I mix as specified, then dilute that 1 + 4. I process paper at ambient (80F) for 2 - 3 minutes. I develop color film (at 105F) from 12 minutes (for ISO 100) to 16 minutes (ISO 800). I store the chems (either diluted or not) in clear, plastic soda/juice bottles) and if filled to the very brim, never expire (despite what admonishment might transpire with that statement). It works for me and will work for anyone. That is the most hassle free way to process color. Everything I do is 'one shot'. Color dev is very capable of such dilution and what 'fails' first is not the exhaustion of the developer but, rather, the presence of bromide that the film gives off. With color development a tiny bit of bromide slows things down tremendously, unlike with the more attenuated effect with BW process.
Also, I do not use or buy the BLIX. I use regular or even more diluted stop bath, then fix, then use a solution of potassium ferricyanide for the film (1 gram per 20ml water). That clears the film nicely in about two minutes and you need only enough to evenly coat the film (just use wetting agent); as this bleaching is a process 'to finality' you do not have to worry about unevenness. (NOTE: if you want slightly more contrast omit the bleach, as the color coupler plus the silver already there will add to the contrast.) Then a brief fix again (same fix) for about 30 seconds, then wash and dry. For paper, similarly, I stop and fix, then into a potassium bromide bath (this time far less potent than for films: only 1 gram potassium ferricyanide in 100ml water. That for about 1 minute, then, again fix (same fix) for about 10 seconds. Wash and dry.
I cannot come up with a more economical way to do this. The ONLY 'color' chemical involved is the dev/repl RT because the potassium ferricyanide is also a BW chemical. I buy from pdisupply.com in Rochester, NY.
I now know that no one cares about accurate dye hues or good image stability by the way you want to abuse your film and paper during processing. You may as well do things digitally.
If you wonder why I say this, see my other posts on similar or identical topics.
I confess that I am not up to the scientific parameters that PE is. But, what I said 'works' and could well be a nontheoretical 'solution' to the solution problem for people who shun utter scientific precision in favor of a simpler 'pragmatism'.
I fully respect PE's caveat and am actually happy he muddied the water, because my 'science' is certainly not pure. But, in the real world, sometimes 'really good enough' is good enough. I have held prints done like this for a decade or more and they still look good, if not excellent. My ego is not worth defending (is anyone's?) over 'my way' but my post was simply meant to provide an easier approach than strict science dictates and mandates. We learned to tolerate utter garbage from phamacy 'one hour' stops (most of the time due to unexposure by flashes that were 'sold' by stating that they were more powerful than they actually were); this method that I have proposed is much, much better than that. But, it must be admitted that PE really is the authority here (and I say that with truth and respect). I do not have all (if any?) of the true answers and I welcome both sides of the argument. Both sides are needed. Few here might really care about the last amount of precision and, with many years of experience that we (or most?) possess with the color process, how many really believe, today, that the earth would come to an end (as at least I once did) if we dare to let the temperature deviate so much as 1/2 degree from the designated 'rule'.
This forum is not definitive, but, instead, evolving and dynamic. Clarification and augmentation are essential ingredients for us to all grow, both intellectually and pragmatically. In this round-about way both of us are 'correct' (but I would slant my life's worth on PE's more theoretical approach in order to cover every last possibility.) My way is 'easier access'. - David Lyga.
Holy crap! And then you wonder why you don't get clean whites and other problems? If you aren't even going to try using the right process and the proper instructions for them, maybe you shouldn't be advising other people when they are trying to learn.
Please be careful with what you say. This is only partially true and may mislead the unwary. Yes, RA-4 can develop film and C-41 can develop paper but you won't get proper results.
Hold on, Mr "Holy Crap" Davis, the pure whites don't show forth even with 'proper' development and blix. My way has NOTHING (and I have tested) to do with the purity of the white base. (But it was fun to thrash me, right?) - David Lyga.
I'm in the process of moving for the next few weeks, when I am done and settled, I will shoot two sheets of color negative film and process one in standard C-41 and the other with your process, then I will print each negative with the standard RA-4 and with your process. I'll post the results here and we will see how it compares directly.
The reason I asked was because I wanted to know. Just curious.
If I might add that this also applies to using cine color negative films for srill camerra use. These films don't quite match the color papers. The problem cannot be solved with filtration during printing. But you can choose whether the small color cast will be in the highlights or the shadows of the print.
In the mass color printing trade (drugstores and the like) it was said that there were only 2 primary colors not 3; these were puke and burple. Puke was greenish yellow and burple was bluish purple. Bad prints were either too puke or too burble.
ECN can be printed, in the proper manner, to give superb slides and prints. Stay tuned.
I am glad to hear this as I was given over 400 ft of ECN color film. Years ago the Dignan Newletter always cautioned people about the problem with color casts. At that time their were several companies that sold respooled Kodak cine film and returned both slides and color prints. The problem was with the prints only.
When I was in college I developed and printed many rolls, It was dirt cheap.
Thanks so much David for this description, it was really inspiring to read this.
I think experimenting is the only way to truly learn anything about the materials at hand.
And I'm also curious what results people been getting from using C41 on paper.
Thank you iranzi: this is my method through endless experimentation and it works as well as the 'standard' way. I must say that it amazes me that it is 'OK' to develop film in coffee and, some have even inferred 'urinol' but, heaven forbid, if someone like David Lyga suggests a deviation from the Holy Grail. That manifests as absolutely sacreligious and iconoclastic. (Especially coming from me.)
Why is it considered almost 'obscene' to deviate from the promulgated norm unless such deviations are 'trendy', like using coffee as developer or using a Holga to get the 'desired' light leaks, both of which I consider BS? (I neither drink coffee nor use it as a developer and I do not think that random light leaks are 'artistic' like some 'wannabees' do.) But, perhaps, there was an alterior motive here and this deviation gave one '8 X 10 professional' the opportunity to declaim such nonsense which was coming from David Lyga.
I did not create the world and will not be the cause of its destruction, but with a highly mature RA-4 technology that is (yes it is) waning and going to be gone within our lifetimes, why is my deviation considered so 'counterproductive' and ridiculous? Perhaps my outspoken manner provides fuel to such castigation. Perhaps my 'queerness' authorizes, or at least aids, delegitimazation. I do not know, as everyone here is but an 'avatar', thus never has to worry about actually facing the human being that causes such angst. I am used to such treatment from first grade, onward, but have never bowed, obediently, to those who wish to see me conform to any proscribed norm. And I had to stay after school many a time solely because I was 'set up' by others who wished to provide a vehicle for their self-exoneration. It's fun to castigate someone whom one knows has little support. I fully belive that the moderator would NEVER come to the defense of someone so marginal like myself. However, if the roles were reversed, he would in a heartbeat. I know my place.
Remember, a truism is not always true, just readily accepted as such. Maybe truth should be more of a prerequisite than mere fashion.
Diluting the RA-4 developer does NOTHING to deviate from the wanted hues. I have tried both methods and the standard dilution is, of course, quicker: it takes only about 45 seconds development time (but if you give more time that will not change saturation much). My method is extremely economical (not all of us out there are well-financed and this could be a help to those who want to explore other ways to do things). Countless times I have advised how to prevent developer (diluted or NOT) from oxidation by storing in clear, plastic soda bottles, filled to the very rim, which do not 'breathe'. Little is heeded for my efforts and the questions KEEP coming up 'how long will such and such developer last?' Really, Mr Davis, is my projection so very harmful to the newbies out there (or is it really my OPINION that must summarily be 'cut down' by more 'legitimate' practitioners)? My intentions are not to 'molest' such virginity.
Rest assured that Mr Davis's test will be 'extremely unbiased' because, surely, he has no alterior motive to deviate from forthrightness. - David Lyga
Every test I have done for this site has been unbiased and presented only results without making conclusions. I can only assume you are making these slanderous accusations to claim foul if and when the results do not match up to your beliefs. I am more than willing to accept your method as a viable alternative if the tests show they are equal to the proven quality of a true C-41 process, but only direct comparison will show this. As for the unusual and off market developers used in black and white, they are changing silver salts to silver metal, here in color we are trying to form the proper dye combinations to display the original subject as close as possible. It seems clear you do not understand that concept.
see below, sorry
No slander implied or intended, Greg. I said that your results would be 'forthright'. (Need I be even more obsequious?)
I have no computer so your results cannot be (readily) visually challenged and I am therefore, yet easier to refute. But we all welcome such refutation if such manifests. I am not unchallengeable. - David Lyga
Placing "extremely unbiased" in quotes indicates sarcasm or irony. I'll tell you the same thing I tell my students: I don't grade excuses, I grade pictures. Since you haven't put up any evidence, I will make the pictures and we will see how they stack up. Go to a library and use their computer if necessary when I post the results.
Greg's experiments have been so well conducted that I have had to modify many of my statements on fixing and washing as the results he got were clear and undeniable.
But, there is one thing common to Greg's data and your process data. That is image stability. Processing in coffee will not change the overall image stability of a B&W image. It is, after all, Silver! However, fixing and washing tests have the disadvantage of changing image stability and this may not be apparent for years. The use of a hypo test kit and a silver test kit will help pinpoint any residual problem.
In color, the change in image stability by using CD-4 instead of CD-3 cannot be tested except by draconian, lengthy and expensive tests. You are introducing this type of problem. In addition, the change in dye hue cannot be easily tested except by the use of a spectrophotometer. Again, this is something that our eyes may not see well in the film or paper print, but does surely degrade (or substantially change) color. So, your experience at "good" pictures might not pass the test of time, nor that of a good eye for color.
Does this mean you have conducted densitometry on your method? If so, what were the results? Did it meet C-41 standards?
I have experimented with Dignan's room temperature divided developer for color negatives and while the results may be acceptable to some, I conducted densitometry on the results and the cyan curve had low contrast that was visible to me in the prints, along with overall low contrast. This certainly would not be acceptable to many. And the results varied from film to film. I can only imagine what your method is doing to the curves.
That is a good point about densitometry. I will run a C-41 control strip with the test shots in each process and read them on my densitometer for those that are interested.
Run an RA4 test strip in the C41 process as well, using David's suggested workflow.
I might as well. In for a penny, in for a pound. I should note that I do not have a reflective densitometer. We can glean a lot of information from visual inspection, but not precise densotimetric readings, unless someone else wants to read it after I process it.
Separate names with a comma.