I don't know about books. I think Kodak used to have a book on colour but I doubt it would include something like which probe to use or how.
Your test strip should be grey. What sort of light are you using to look at it?
You might want to describe your steps for calibrating. I think you're using a diffuser over the lens. You take that off to do your reading with the probe?
Nick Yes. The calibrating steps were done minus the diffuser exactly as described in the manual and the Frances Schultz article. Ilooked at it in a North facing room in daylight with bright but overcast daylight outside. As I said it was slightly less green/grey looking in the room and even less so if i shaded the strip with my hand. When the readings had been about 0.59/60 it had looked dark grey, even in the darkroom which is equipped with a so called daylight bulb which looks blue if you look at it.For what it is worth I noticed that the grey spot probe calibration which gave me the 0.56 figures resulted in a channel density reading of 493 which I have had to reduce to 490 and even less for some negs for fully intergrated reading because 493 gave exposures which resulted in rather dark prints.
Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
Maybe using the diffuser means that exposures have to be reduced anyway so 493 is OK for spot probe readings but not relevant for fully integrated readings.
If I am honest I cannot see how the time spent doing the grey test helped me get where I am. Maybe if I knew how to use the spot probe properly to get a correct colour balance and exposure I'd see the point of going through the process.
As things are I would have been better to use one neg and get the exposure and colour balance right and then calibrate on that which is what I have done effectively. The so called perfect print process which is what is required with the Paterson analyser.
As I said every so often I come across a neg which doesn't lend itself to a fully integrated reading. It gains a slight colour cast and can be wrongly exposed. The trouble is I only discover this after printing and then have to guess how to correct it.
So the analyser doesn't seem to help. OK neither did the Paterson but it was much simpler and I was hoping that the Colourstar would lead to less difficult to print negs.
To give two print examples:1. I took a shot of a statue of a dog which was a stone grey on a pillar surrouded by sky. On full integration the sky was a nice if very dark blue, helped by a polariser but really the sky was too dark and the dog was slightly brown and much too dark.
If I had used the spot probe where should I have taken readings?
2. I took a shot of a group of people standing in front of a red brick kiln. It was a little dark suggesting a slight over exposure by the enlarger. When I reduced the exposure by guessing the correct exposure, I had not only got it right, by chance, but noticed that on comparison the darker print had a slight blue cast in the concrete slabs which should have been a light grey. This cast disappeared in the lower exposure without any change in the filter settings.
So maybe in the second example the colour filters were correct but density channel reading was too high. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium which covers all the negs on the film. Maybe I shouldn't expect to have a set of channel settings which can cover all the negs but the problem is I cannot tell by looking which of the negs need a change of exposure. Hence my quest for a "How To" book.
IIRC every 10 points is 1/3 of a stop. So when you went from 493 to 490 that was a fairly small move.
On the dog picture I would have taken spot selections mostly of the dog. With limited readings of the sky. Maybe one or two readings of the sky with all the rest being the dog, the pillar and anything else.
On the second one. I would have used most of the selections on the faces. Then the kiln. Then maybe the clothes they were wearing.
It seems in both of these you've got a big more or less single coloured object. The sky and the kiln. When you intergrated those things get a heavy weight. Which then leads to problems.
Thanks to Ed and Nick from me as well
Wading through APUG and rec.photo.darkroom, and anywhere else I could find information on the Colorstar3000 led to a number of great discussions that usually involved Ed or Nick in some manner. It is a shame that they could have not been involved in writing the manual for the thing from the start, for it is a rather tortured thing to read the first time through.
The 3000 analyser is a joy though. Pre analyser I would work all night to get a good print out. Frequently now the finished print is one print past the test print. And the ability to master out aging chems and paper against all channels automatically after one grey print is a god send.
I bought mine new off ebay from a place in portugal, loaded the manual off of Nicks web site, re-configured the wiring to convert it to 120v (quite easy to do - one or two re-soldered jumpers) and have been pleased with it ever since. The money paid for it was repaid with the pleasure of printing colour again.