Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,047   Posts: 1,610,806   Online: 986
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Stephen Frizza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,384
    Images
    174

    Grand Unification of Photographic Process

    Why have photographic manufactures not endeavored to unify all processes into 2 chemical processes? i.e imagine a Colour Positive, Colour Negative, Black and white positive and Black and white negative film all being able to run through 1 kind of chemistry. Wouldn't this mean greater accessibility for people to have their material processed at labs? and why not make such a system for printing where there is positive and negative papers both colour and black and white which all run though one chemical system.

    pretty much what im asking is why haven't manufactures in this time of ecconomic rationalism tried unify all the processes?

    imagine slide film being processed through C-41 just like Print film was.... the transperancies from Kodak print film were AWESOME! why cant there be a modified in camera version and we ditch E-6?
    "Its my profession to hijack time" ~ Stephen Frizza.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    328
    Images
    7
    Poor idea.

  3. #3
    Stephen Frizza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,384
    Images
    174
    but they could have!...... in fact i believe at one time kodak even considered such a thing but the transparency films they made which could process C-41 produced soft images? does anyone know the facts over what i just said? as its just a vague memory from a long ago conversation. Also Kodak made print film which essentially was a transparency film process c-41 (Kodak Vericolor print film 4111) AWESOME material.

    I beleive in theory it could have been done.
    Last edited by Stephen Frizza; 09-12-2010 at 07:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Its my profession to hijack time" ~ Stephen Frizza.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,690
    It may be possible in theory, but it would mean rethinking all the four different specialist emulsion groups (color and b&w, neg and reversal, each designed to be best for their particular purposes), plus all the process chemicals and equipment used.
    Also, most "universal" processes in photography (and more generally) are a compromise. As a schoolboy, I started home processing using the old Johnsons "Universol" developer (a bottled MQ concentrate, different dilutions for film and paper). It worked quite well for a beginner, but, with experience, I later realised that it wasn't really the best for any one purpose, and better results could be obtained by choosing the various specialist developers designed for different films and paper.

  5. #5
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I like your thought, it is one of the many reasons I prefer C-41.

    Being able to come home and process any-and-all of my films, all in one go & in a standardized process, is a true luxury.

    The only arguments I see as relevant for choosing non-standard stuff is to get a different look or fit an application where standard materials can't do the job.

    Both arguments can be compelling.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #6
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,934
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Frizza View Post
    but they could have!...... in fact i believe at one time kodak even considered such a thing but the transparency films they made which could process C-41 produced soft images? does anyone know the facts over what i just said? as its just a vague memory from a long ago conversation. Also Kodak made print film which essentially was a transparency film process c-41 (Kodak Vericolor print film 4111) AWESOME material.

    I beleive in theory it could have been done.
    They did not consider this idea as it will not work and give optimum images.

    PE

  7. #7
    Stephen Frizza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,384
    Images
    174
    :-( do you think they ever might?
    "Its my profession to hijack time" ~ Stephen Frizza.

  8. #8
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In a darkroom far, far away...
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,111
    Blog Entries
    30
    Images
    19
    Why poor research into a hobby with little revenue when they can sink their teeth further into an already well established digital money maker. Someday, somebody might toy with it. But there are greater sales for manufacturers in digital than analog. That's not doom and gloom as film is still here and staying put. Film has found its niche and some improvements are still being made. But not on the scale to which you refer, Stephen.
    Thank you.
    -CW

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  9. #9
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,934
    Images
    65
    Steve;

    The basic chemistry and physics of reversal and negative products are against you. Try developing some C41 film in the E6 color developer, then bleach, wash, fix, wash and stabilze/rinse. You will get foggy negatives due to the nature of the "required" E6 chemistry. Color negative and color reversal require very very different chemistries during color development.

    PE

  10. #10
    Stephen Frizza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,384
    Images
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Steve;

    The basic chemistry and physics of reversal and negative products are against you. Try developing some C41 film in the E6 color developer, then bleach, wash, fix, wash and stabilze/rinse. You will get foggy negatives due to the nature of the "required" E6 chemistry. Color negative and color reversal require very very different chemistries during color development.

    PE
    true its shitty.
    "Its my profession to hijack time" ~ Stephen Frizza.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin