Unicolor c41 color cast problem.

Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by ewsphoto, Jun 12, 2013.

  1. ewsphoto

    ewsphoto Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hi all,

    Just developed my first roll Kodak pro 160 , 6X6 format using Unicolor C41 kit.
    I follow instruction carefully. Scan using Epson V600 and vuescan.
    seems something wrong, any one help me please?

    firstimage.jpg
     
  2. eriklovold

    eriklovold Member

    Messages:
    25
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2012
    Location:
    London
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Looks fine to me. Getting colours right from colour neg scans can be quite hard. Try opening the tiff in Photoshop and play with Curves to see if you can get a result you're happy with.
     
  3. ewsphoto

    ewsphoto Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hi eriklovold ,

    thanks for reply. I'm using vuescan for years, I scanned a roll of commercial developed film yesterday, with good result. Anyway, thanks for your idea, and I will try to edit tiff file and see if I can correct the color fading problem.

    here's the commercial developed film , and I scan it with epson V600.

    scan2.jpg

    Regards,
    Ew
     
  4. ewsphoto

    ewsphoto Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Shooter:
    35mm
    hi,

    color corrected in photoshop. looks much better now. thanks !

    edited.jpg
     
  5. Rudeofus

    Rudeofus Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,674
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Color negative film can register much higher contrast than a JPG file or photographic paper. When you scan negative film, and especially with motives that have a high scene brightness ratio, the scanner post processing software will compress contrast to make it fit into 8 bit color space. As a result, the image will look faded and contrastless, just as if you print a b&w neg on gradation 0 paper. Get the negs printed optically and you'll see that colors are most likely fine and dandy. If you insist on hybrid work flow, plan for digital post processing on your computer.

    PS: I realize that this topic reaches deeply into DPUG area. Reason I think it should still be discussed here on APUG is because many people judge color negatives based on poor and unprocessed scans and reach very wrong conclusions about the film material and its development.
     
  6. Clovis Blevins

    Clovis Blevins Member

    Messages:
    33
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'd be interested in seeing a manually corrected wet print from that negative for comparison.
     
  7. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,377
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    "manually corrected" tends to imply that the neg is "wrong" which I suspect it isn't and therein lies the problem with terminology when scanning is involved and confusion arises.

    I'd like to see a wet print with the correct colour filtration applied in the enlarger. I see no reason why it shouldn't match the scan-corrected image.

    pentaxuser
     
  8. ewsphoto

    ewsphoto Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Shooter:
    35mm
    In our local area , only one shop can process c41 , but then films that processed by them looks dirty and scratches sometime. otherwise films that developed by them can be really easy to scan with correct color reproduction.
    I purchased Unicolor c41 kit recently, just because I want to get rid of scratches and dirty film from local shop.
    No manual enlarge service in our country now, they will just scan it either Noritsu or Fuji Frontier scanner and print it .
    I used Acer scanwit 2740 for years, ( with vuescan software ) and bought Epson V600 recently, for medium format scan.

    Can't afford to invest RA4 print equipments yet.
     
  9. wblynch

    wblynch Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Location:
    Mission Viejo
    Shooter:
    127 Format
    With home developed C-41 I find I am happier with an extra 15 seconds in the color developer.
     
  10. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,470
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    That may make it very difficult to make wet prints, should you ever wish to do so. Current papers are all high-contrast and you're effectively pushing your film half a stop.

    For portraits I know I'm going to wet-print, I often find a 1-stop pull valuable.

    ewsphoto: have a read of the C41-scan link in my FAQ; it may help you with colour correction in scanning. I wouldn't assume that your chemical process is wrong just yet.
     
  11. Shootar401

    Shootar401 Member

    Messages:
    359
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    New York
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I hate to say it, but it looks like colour neg. I've tried the Unicolor & Tentenal kits and I've gotten the same results, colours a bit off at scanning. Getting colours 100% correct with colour neg can be a bit tricky, this is the reason I've gone back to chromes.

     
  12. wblynch

    wblynch Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Location:
    Mission Viejo
    Shooter:
    127 Format
    Perhaps, but I don't optically print and no one within reasonable pricing optically prints either.

    If not for "electronic enlargers", photographic film would be gone altogether.
     
  13. Chris Douglas

    Chris Douglas Member

    Messages:
    85
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm
    This has been a good thread. I also use the Unicolor kit, and wet print on crystal archive. I regulate the water bath at 100 degrees F, but the temp in the tank runs about a degree low. I start developing an extra 15 seconds too, adding 5 seconds for each successive roll. I like the results, and can develop twice the recommended capacity. I'll have to try the V600 and see if it looks the same as wet printing. I've only used it for B&W so far.
     
  14. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,470
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Nah, it's just (well mostly) wrong gamma, which causes that milky look. You do a wet print and it won't look like that at all. You do the scan right, it won't look like that either.

    These are both scans from C41.
     
  15. ewsphoto

    ewsphoto Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hi all ,

    Thanks for all inputs, appreciate all opinions.
    Polyglot > I'm quite familiar with film scanner and how to get good scan out from it. Its true that most of film scan will not look good strait out from raw scan, low contrast from raw scan means I can get more detail out from the file. I need to adjust from vuescan software to get it right.
    I checked my digital thermometer just now, which I used it for check the temperature of C41 chemical. compare with an Omron medical thermometer, I found that my old digital thermometer shows 1.7 degree celsius higher than Omron. Thats means I develop my film 3.30 minutes in 36.2 degree, and blix 6.30 minutes in 36.2 degree celsius too.
    I think my film must be a little bit off already ?
    I will shoot another roll this Sunday and try to develop again and see if it will be more easier to scan.

    Thank you.
     
  16. ewsphoto

    ewsphoto Member

    Messages:
    6
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Shooter:
    35mm
    hi again,

    After read Polyglot's FAQ about film and scanning, I really learnt a lot of knowledge regarding c41 process , and black and white as well.
    thanks for the marvelous FAQ page!

    Regards,
    EW
     
  17. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,470
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format