As an aside, I haven't searched very much admittedly, but every video I have seen on YouTube on standard processing (I have no idea about all those people doing alternative processes) has made me cringe. It seems that care, control and comprehension are no longer required - or are these videos made as 'black-flag' operations by digi-zealots??
After thirty-five years in the darkroom maybe I've turned into an old fogey and Lomography is the one true-path(TM).
Re: C-41 processing for neophytes
I think what we are witnessing is the nacesant renaissance of experimenters, not a disregard for procedure.
Originally Posted by MartinP
Remember that for decades the high priesthood of color proclaimed how difficult it was.
Just like folks experimenting with two color separation using red and green filter, which produces acceptable but not true colors, those guys experimenting without much guidance are getting something rather than nothing.
If we want them to buy the hell out of C-41 film so we'll have some ourselves we need to encourage them. And throw out the challenge to them that color isn't as hard as everyone thought. You don't need a $50K lab to get it right.
Honestly the color in the link was no worse than a red/green two color image, and we ooh and aah over those.
It's true that the lomo guys experimenting with C-41 "could" get superb quality color with the tools whereas a red/green separation cannot get past its inherent limitations. So the lomo crowd leaves a lot on the table.
But far better that they do something rather than nothing.
So I'm taking the position that while Lomography isn't "the one true path" at least I'll acknowledge that it is "a true path."
In the mean time, if you want true color take PE's advice and don't follow this example.
gave up on our your 2 paragraphs.I
Kf a color process is wrong, then it is wrong. No further comment!
I don't mind people experimenting. The problem with that link is the guy is being presented as someone who knows what he is talking about, and anyone who follows his advice expecting good results is going to be disappointed.
Originally Posted by michaelbsc
If you can do B&W your already more then half way there, you just use a different set of chemicals at a different temperature. You have a developer, a bleach, a fixer and a stabilizer or final rinse. This isn't really any different then your B&W where there are also 4 chemicals, developer, stop, fix, photo-flow. The place to start, process at the temperature in the kit, for the time indicated in the kit.
Originally Posted by macandal
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....
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
He writes, that You can process 24 films in one liter. But capacity of the solutions is only 16 rols per liter. I think, the problem is there.
Those "kits" come from companies other than Kodak or Fuji. At one time, Kodak sold C41 kits and I believe that they still sell E6 kits. Way back when, Kodak and others sold B&W kits as well. Kodak's most famous one was the TriChemPack. This included a universal MQ developer, a stop and a fix.
You can buy colour stuff separately (and that's how labs do it, 50L+ at a time) but there are so many components that the manufacturers tend to sell kits. It's the easy way to make sure you aren't missing a component.
A proper C41 process requires a developer (3 concentrates), bleach, fixer and stabiliser. That's 6 different concentrates you need to mix up into 4 baths, which means that buying separately is annoying, especially if you don't know exactly what you need. E6 is slightly more complicated again.
once you get your processes sorted it is no harder than b&w.
Originally Posted by polyglot
Just a bit more labor intensive.