Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,517   Posts: 1,572,153   Online: 980
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    Tetnal chemistry is not exactly E6. It differs slightly from the 'real' E6 produced by Fuji and Kodak.

    PE
    Differing slightly I may could live with :~) Do you think it's enough difference to stick with Fuji or Kodak?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    196
    To me, it is more like a scanner or scan processing problem, esp to your 2nd problem.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729
    ...I guess I just assumed that the 'standard' mix, one shot, would be a 'normal' color balance.
    Sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong (so what else is new?), I would say it IS compounded for 'normal' color balance assuming your water is in the PH range considered 'normal' by the manufacturer.

    Do you happen to know the PH of your water?

  4. #14
    Lopaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    759
    I haven't been processing my own E-6 for very long and have used only Kodak's kit. When I started, I ran identical rolls that included shots of a Macbeth's color chart, processed by me and the lab - when they looked identical on the light table and and analyzer was hard pressed to tell which was which, I gave it a go and never looked back. I know many have reported good results in Tetenal, but I think there is a reason EK does not make a 3 bath version - could not meet their standards.

    The only time I had an issue with color balance is if the first wash (after the first developer) is not spot on temp, it throws the subsequent steps off and causes color shift. Fuji films in EK chems require a slightly longer stay in the first developer and tend to run at about 80% of box speed processed in EK. Fuji-Hunt chemistry is only mini-lab stuff and not as easy to get.

    Good luck solving your issues.

    Bob
    "I always take a camera, That way I never have to say 'Gee, look at that - I wish I had a camera'" -Joe Clark, H.B.S.S.

  5. #15
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729
    My digital captures with this same lens blows film away, so I know the capability of the lens.
    In your opinion, of course.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  6. #16
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729
    Differing slightly I may could live with :~) Do you think it's enough difference to stick with Fuji or Kodak?
    According to what I have been told by Fuji, you can expect to lose a little film speed and sharpness when Velvia is developed in other than Fuji chemistry. Whether you can live with it, is your call.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729
    I guess what I'm asking is, should I stay away from chemisty other than Kodak or Fuji?
    I honestly don't know, but I will say that with pH adjusted 3-bath (Tetenal, Fotospeed, Paterson, the latter two I believe now deceased) I have had no problems.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  8. #18
    davetravis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Castle Rock, Co.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    656
    Jacko,
    I've used the Tetenal 3-step forever and would occasionally get these results.
    IMO, you have density and color shift issues.
    Temperature and rotation speed in the first step is critical, too hot and/or too fast will reduce density and shift to the magenta, in my experience, for all film brands.
    Did you oxygenate the bleach by shaking for one minute in half-full bottle?
    Same first step time for both film brands?
    Do the first "pre-heat" step for more than 5 minutes?

  9. #19
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729

    At the risk of sounding arrogant, I do know my gear, and I have a good grasp of photographic craft. I have a film library of over 13,000 images over the last 30 years, and I processed every one of them. I stopped processing film in 1996, and for some wild reason I thought I'd get back into it in 2006. And I run into this.

    Maybe I'll get some Kodak chemistry?
    13K, is that all? heck I shoot that many 35mm shots a year, as far as the chemistry, I would get a Kodak kit and see what your results are, and as far as your digital "blowing away film" that is a pretty subjective opinion, I have never been happy with the tetnal kits, they just seem to be lacking something when it comes time to process, and after side by side comparisions in the lab I used to work at, they don't stand up to what an E6 slide should look like...

    I would imagine your problem is the chemistry..

    Dave

  10. #20
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,380
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729
    Differing slightly I may could live with :~) Do you think it's enough difference to stick with Fuji or Kodak?

    Jacko, there was a review in Darkroom Techniques about 15 years ago on several different C41 processes, and we at EK did some checks with both C41 and E6 processes from various manufacturers. Our C41 tests confirmed the DT article.

    We found differences in color balance, curve shape, grain and sharpness in all of the tests, and none quite matched the EK and Fuji chemistry. They were consistantly the best.

    IDK if much has changed since then, and others here have given good advice on both processing and scanning, so it is hard for me to say with certainty, but knowing the formulas used by some companies, I would say that IMHO your results could be due to the use of Tetenal chemistry. It is good, but not quite perfect.

    You have to remember too that digital scenes are enhanced in sharpness by software manipulation of edge effects. You can see this by making an extreme blowup of a black on white edge.

    It is like using non Chevy or non Ford parts for your car. Generic parts will work, but may not be up to the same standards as the original, and the same goes for generic food brands in the market. They may not be quite the same in quality as the big manufacturers.

    PE

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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