Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,589   Posts: 1,545,893   Online: 1222
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-D659 View Post
    hrst,

    You missed one advantage of drums, exceptionally low volumes of chemical usage. An 8x10 Beseler drum uses 70ml of chemistry. That amount can be easily reused four times and process three 8x10 prints or one final one and a number of test strips. 10 liters /70 ml * 3 = 428 prints, not bad for the $60-80 cost of dev and blix.
    Sorry, but this argument is just completely false!

    I can print 1000 prints with the same 10 liter using trays, double of what you do. And I find it just easiest to just reuse the same solution sitting in the tray 100 or whatever times you need to. I don't have to count prints, or test strips, or final prints, or whatever. Just put the paper to the developer.

    Trays are more economical with less cross-contamination, dilution and loss of solution.

    The order is:

    (The best) Roller-transport machine --- squeegees the prints, is enclosed to minimize aeration and evaporation
    (The intermediate) Trays --- You can drain part of the chemicals by holding the print for 10 seconds or so before moving forward. More aeration and evaporation than from roller transport, but luckily, RA-4 is not sensitive to these
    (The worst) Drums --- you always lose remarkable amounts of the chemicals left in the drum walls and prints. Either you contaminate the next solution with those, or you use extra wash steps, but either way, you lose chemicals.

    When I did Ilfochrome in drums, I used 70 ml of developer and got 40 back, 30 ml just vanishing (read: contaminating the next baths). For Ilfochrome, that was fine because you couldn't reuse it anyway, or at least you had to replenish it 1+1 with new solution.

    Sorry for a bit OT. Any case, there's nothing wrong in liking drum processing paper. I just don't see any reason, but to each of their own. For film, it is a completely different play.
    Last edited by hrst; 06-22-2012 at 12:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,272
    Images
    2
    I anyone selling the Tetanal 1 liter kits in the U.S. now?
    W.A. Crider

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,464
    www.freestylephoto.biz will have tetenal in a few more days.
    - Bill Lynch

  4. #24
    IloveTLRs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,000
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by pukalo View Post
    And did I mention that I am still bitter over that foolish Photo.net article that deterrred me for many years from trying home color development? A completely false and misleading article that cost me $$$$ in lab development fees and ruined and scratched rolls over the years. I hope after reading this, others will try it and see how easy and inexpensive it is. (and great quality results)
    Sorry, just lamenting.
    I have found that website not to have the best advice on more than one occasion.

    I used something called the Naniwa Color Kit (I made a thread about it here a while ago.) I used a simple thermometer and a plastic box for $1 as a warm-water bath and got excellent results. I got scared when the negatives came out dark, but after drying they scanned beautifully (maybe it's the kit itself, I'm not sure.) I don't shoot enough color to justify doing it myself (maybe a few rolls a year) but it was simple and rewarding to do it myself. I have an excellent local lab however, so I personally prefer to give them my business.
    Those who know, shoot film

  5. #25
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,277
    Images
    148
    I've been processing my own colour films (& prints) since the late 1960's when the processes were extremely finicky, temperature control was +/- 0.5° F I work in °C and that means extremelytight

    However C41 and E6 are a touch more tolerant. You don't need anything more than a dev tank and a bowl or two of water at the right temperature to get very consistent results.

    Ian

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    PO Box 231 New Underwood, SD 57761-0231
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    191

    C-41 Made Easy

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy View Post
    If I wanted to process my own color film at home, what kind of initial investment am I looking at? Is it a highly specialized process as compared to B&W?

    Color can be as difficult and convoluted or as easy as B&W. The most important thing is CONSISTANCY. I've been doing color since 1977, so I've been through a few chemistry and paper changes. My method.....Let the chemistry drift. For C-41 I start with mixing the developer as single shot as needed. The BleachFix is premixed in 1 liter. Since BleacheFix is not temperature sensitive and works 'till done, I use it at room temperature. I mix the developer at 100 degrees F. Have a 1/2 gallon container of 90 degree water on hand. With film in the tank pour in the developer and with tank inversion every 30 seconds, develop for 2:30. Pour out developer and fill tank with water, invert and dump. Do this 4 times. Pour in BleachFix, invert tank a few times and every 30 seconds for 5 minutes. All done. Wash and hang film.

    Again the most important thing is consistancy. This also works for Drum processing of paper also.
    Gun Control is like: Reducing drunk driving by making it harder for SOBER people to buy cars.

  7. #27
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruzingoose View Post
    Color can be as difficult and convoluted or as easy as B&W. The most important thing is CONSISTANCY. I've been doing color since 1977, so I've been through a few chemistry and paper changes. My method.....Let the chemistry drift. For C-41 I start with mixing the developer as single shot as needed. The BleachFix is premixed in 1 liter. Since BleacheFix is not temperature sensitive and works 'till done, I use it at room temperature. I mix the developer at 100 degrees F. Have a 1/2 gallon container of 90 degree water on hand. With film in the tank pour in the developer and with tank inversion every 30 seconds, develop for 2:30. Pour out developer and fill tank with water, invert and dump. Do this 4 times. Pour in BleachFix, invert tank a few times and every 30 seconds for 5 minutes. All done. Wash and hang film.

    Again the most important thing is consistancy. This also works for Drum processing of paper also.
    Well, of course you should use what you like, but I don't agree with the argument of the importance of consistency when it means making it wrong every time. Of course, if the exact form of contrast, density, color and crossover problems are EXACTLY the look you desire and your mind does never change, then this consistency if naturally good.

    I would start by just simply following the instructions and running the standard C-41 process, because it is as easy as deviating from it is. Then, I would experiment just for fun but wouldn't call that consistency. But of course use a procedure that suits your needs.

    Actually, your method can be quite interesting and agreed, it calls for extreme consistency in procedures and may still be inconsistent in result. What I get is that by severe underdevelopment, you create very low-contrast images. Then, by using blix (which by definition can be problematic) at temperature and time too low, you may retain some amount of silver, causing a contrast increase compensating the contrast decrease in the development. In addition, you get muted colors. This may be a desired look, especially with only higher-contrast and relatively colorful papers available today. Anyway, your process is very difficult to keep consistent due to your use of "controlled/partial bleach bypass" type of control, whereas the official C-41 process is very easy to keep consistent.

    As a general rule of thumb, the easiest way is to follow instructions. This is true for C-41, too.
    Last edited by hrst; 06-23-2012 at 02:35 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #28
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    Well, of course you should use what you like, but I don't agree with the argument of the importance of consistency when it means making it wrong every time. Of course, if the exact form of contrast, density, color and crossover problems are EXACTLY the look you desire and your mind does never change, then this consistency if naturally good.

    I would start by just simply following the instructions and running the standard C-41 process, because it is as easy as deviating from it is. Then, I would experiment just for fun but wouldn't call that consistency. But of course use a procedure that suits your needs.

    Actually, your method can be quite interesting and agreed, it calls for extreme consistency in procedures and may still be inconsistent in result. What I get is that by severe underdevelopment, you create very low-contrast images. Then, by using blix (which by definition can be problematic) at temperature and time too low, you may retain some amount of silver, causing a contrast increase compensating the contrast decrease in the development. In addition, you get muted colors. This may be a desired look, especially with only higher-contrast and relatively colorful papers available today. Anyway, your process is very difficult to keep consistent due to your use of "controlled/partial bleach bypass" type of control, whereas the official C-41 process is very easy to keep consistent.

    As a general rule of thumb, the easiest way is to follow instructions. This is true for C-41, too.
    I remember in the late 1970's working in a darkroom that was at 12C on a good day in winter, and knowing that the chances of holding anything at .5C was impossible. Warming everything for C41 to 42C, and knowing by the end of development, it would be 34C, by the time it came out of the stabilizer it would be about 24C. The negatives turned out fine and printed beautifully. So the idea that you need to keep everything at .1F or your results will be unusable is a load of male bovine manure.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  9. #29
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    I completely agree. You get well usable results even if you mess up badly. Many examples here such as ones describing doing the process wrong for years or decades without noticing, prove this. Or, as was shown by some APUGers when they tested Rollei's claims of room temperature processing, C-41 was still quite usable down to around 30 deg C or so, which is a huge deviation from the standard. There were clear image quality problems, though.

    I have accidentally diluted C-41 developer 1+1 and compensated by adding time. It affected image quality and color balance quite a bit, but the results were still usable.

    On the other hand, some people are very strict about highest standard of quality and repeatability. I try to do the process as well as possible; then, there is more headroom for messing up, compared to a situation where I would decide to mess up on purpose, still hoping to get "normal" results. Then I would need to keep higher standard not to mess up even more.

    Those who scan their images with their broken scanners and even more broken software performing auto-create-color-crossover-error functions can be very satisfied even when the film images would have severe errors, because those may be autofixed, and even if not, the errors those software create make it difficult to distinguish where the problems came from. But for a careful RA-4 printer who is concerned on fine contrast and color details, proper processing still might make sense.

    I do proper processing simply just because it is just as easy as doing sloppy processing. If I could gain something, for example, save time by doing sloppy processing, I would probably do it.
    Last edited by hrst; 06-23-2012 at 08:23 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #30
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I agree that temperature perfection isn't required to get workable results. It was great fun too experimenting and making do with what I had when I started.

    What I came to realize is that a small change in temperature simply yields a bit of an unintended push or pull, not a failure. Film development typically only fails outright when a significant error is made, like using fixer first.

    With that said know also that it has been a pleasure to refine the process little by little over time. The closer my process gets to the intent, if not the letter, of Kodak's instructions; the easier my life gets in the darkroom.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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