Grand Unification of Photographic Process

[Stephen Frizza]

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?

[Sirius Glass]

If they could have, they would have. They can't, so they won't.

Steve

[andrewkirkby]

Poor idea.

[Stephen Frizza]

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.

[railwayman3]

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.

[markbarendt]

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.

[Photo Engineer]

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

[Stephen Frizza]

:-( do you think they ever might?

[Christopher Walrath]

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.

[Sirius Glass]

:-( do you think they ever might?

Probably not. As PE pointed out Nature is a bitch and Physics are son of bitches. Furthermore, nothing comes for free; unification does not optimize the results.

Steve