Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,578   Posts: 1,545,723   Online: 871
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by DKT
    hey--I was only trying to help. Okay--you trust your light table right? Put your chromes down on that and get a set of CC filters, and start trying to figure out where the color shift is. You can use a set of Kodak CC/CP viewing filters for this as well. Flick em back & forth like you would trying to judge a color print....or since you think it's magenta, get a few green CC filters. a 5, and a 10 probably. If you're more than 10 pts. off, you have problems...under ten points is okay for E6. Then it becomes a film issue more or less, that is corrected back on your end.

    If you want to do tests--shoot gray cards, macbeth charts, kodak colorbars etc. Do it under a pretty repeatable & controlled lighting and do it in such a way that you're not causing any color casts back into the shot. Run your film, and visually check it back against the gray cards etc.

    If you do have a magenta problem, it could be.... well, I'm sure PE can tell you, but in my experience it could be caused by a number of factors beyond the pH. My biggest problem with Fujichrome (and the reason why at work we switched back to good old EPN) is with a magenta cast--but it was not caused by the pH directly, although that was a part of it.

    To get the Fuji to match the kodak E6 control strips, was a PIA to be honest. It required a change to the preheat step, a change to the color developer, a change to the reversal bath, and a change to the final wash sequences. The changes were in specific gravity, pH and in time. All in an *automatic* processor--that was temp controlled at 102--not a jobo.... What we ultimately had to do is of no use or help to you, I'm afraid....

    but my point was to help you, not criticize you for using digital (says he who is downloading 4 gigs of cards right now from an event I just shot)....it's just that the digital image is a different beast. A scanner is not a densitometer and your film is not a control strip. It's like apples & oranges.

    just trying to be helpful, see what I get.
    DKT, thanks for trying to help. Thanks for putting up with my frustration in this. In my digital work, I shoot in a very controlled manner and balance my color to known control values. My error was assuming that film would be close, especially considering I was doing the processing and a lab wasn't.

    After reading, and reading, and reading, I've found that besides the PH, Jobo says in the CP-2 manual that if there is a magenta color shift, to increase color developer concentration by 10%. I can't find a mention of this in the Tetenal paperwork, but I may have missed it.

    I'm going to take your advice and shoot my gray cards and color targets with film, but I also think I'm going to try a slight change in chemistry at the same time. For some reason, I think this is where my problem lies.

    Point taken about the two different mediums, of course, that wasn't the purpose of the included digital image, I was using it as the 'control image' if you will, because it was processed with known color values.

    Many thanks,

    Jack

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    Remember that Web forums (and Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists and in-person clubs) are full of people with opinions. Remember also that these people don't know your experiences, expectations, skill level, etc. Between these two things, you'll get responses that you don't find helpful and that you might even find offensive. Except in extreme cases, the best approach is just to ignore the responses that aren't helpful, present additional information when necessary, and ask follow-up questions to elicit the sorts of responses you would find helpful. If you get upset over comments that you deem to be too simplistic or even mildly offensive, a thread can quickly deteriorate into a flame-fest, at which point it'll get closed (here on APUG).
    Points well taken.

    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    Also remember that this is the Analog Photography Users Group. Some people on this group are very strident about that first word, so if you even mention digital photography (some consider those two words to be contradictory), you're likely to get some negative commentary. That's just part of the culture here. If you don't know that, you can run afoul of it, as you have in a minor way, particularly with roteague. Don't let that scare you off; just avoid hinting at digital superiority in any way. Such hints are like sticking your hand into a hornet's nest.
    And that's why I came here, I'm trying to do film (like I used to). I didn't realize that I had said anything about 'digital superiority', but I immediately found the film bias is as bad as the digital bias at my other home. Sheesh But, live and learn.

    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    Now, to a more topical comment: The question of E-6 (or color generally) chemistry brand will elicit a variety of responses, opinions, and even factual posts. I suspect these responses generally reflect differing standards of excellence and expectations on the part of the respondents; some are very demanding and/or do quantitative tests, whereas others are more casual about their color and accept whatever meets their subjective and poorly-defined standards. I suspect you're in the former category, so you might want to pay more attention to Photo Engineer and others in that group. This means you may need to investigate things like the pH of your water and other factors that have been mentioned in this thread, as well as switch brands of chemistry.
    After much reading, I've discovered some things to try, and some of the posts have been most helpful.

    Thanks so much for your thoughtful response.

    Jack

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    Just FYI, the E6 first developer is a very very high definition developer that is proprietary to Kodak and uses very expensive and exotic ingredients. The rest of the process is also proprietary and some of it is patented. It is cross licensed to Fuji, as they have cross licensed many things to Kodak. Both companies have valuable properties that they exchange to mutual advantage. I am having trouble buying 2 of these myself right now. They run in the range of about $1 / gram, not a good price for making a developer yourself.

    Other companies don't have this proprietary chemistry and therefore their chemistry they do supply can suffer from the effects described above as well as silver retention and bad dye stability.

    PE
    Wow, PE, I never knew that. I'm going to do a few more 'experiments' with this Tetenal kit, and maybe I can resolve the problem. It makes sense that Kodak and Fuji would have proprietary chemistry, as well as why I'm having some of these problems.

    Thanks,

    Jack

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by davetravis
    Hey Jacko,
    There's nothing wrong with emoting...
    Breath deep, re-read the posts, apply some wisdom, and good luck!
    "The Truth Is Out There."
    Thank you I have breathed, I've re-read, working on the rest.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoJim
    Wow, lots of vitriol here today. Is there a parallel APUG universe?
    Yes, and you're in it

    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoJim
    I agree that you might be comparing apples to oranges too much - kind of unavoidable when you're comparing an analog image to digital - but I have an idea.

    If your processing might be the fault, instead of comparing it to digital, why not compare it to properly processed analog?
    I have commercially processed transparencies and I compare them to digital capture all the time. Sure there are inherent differences, but I know what they are. The digital image is a control image, it has known color values, and that is why I included it. I didn't realize at the time it was a cardinal sin to compare film to digital. Some jobs that I shoot, I shoot both film and digital. The client is looking at both, and depending on the end use, may choose digital or film. It's not a sin to use both

    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoJim
    Shoot two rolls of slide film using the same gear, in the same light, at the same place. Process one at home. Process the other at a good professional E6 lab. Compare the resulting slides. That will be as apples to apples as you can get.
    As I mentioned, I have previously shot transparencies that were commercially processed. So, I'm fully convinced that it's in my processing. I'm making adjustments in my processing now that I've discovered what will cause a color shift. The last time I processed E-6 (about 15 years ago) I didn't have this problem, but I was using Kodak chemistry then.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoJim
    I'm just starting to do E6 at home so this is an interesting thread. I will definitely use the Kodak or Fuji chemicals now.
    I may be switching real soon

    Jack

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    96
    Hello and welcome Jack,

    Lets get back on track with your problem.

    I believe this will be a great thread for future reference as home E-6 processing will only get more popular as more labs are closing down their E-6 departments.

    To understand the differences of both models you have posted regarding the halo effect; when posting images that have been scanned, there are quite a few variables.
    To eliminate and/or understand some variables, I am wondering (might be a dumb question) but can you see the halo effect on your transparency using a loupe and light table.

    Thanks for joining APUG and posting a great thread.

    Shane Knight
    www.shaneknight.com

  7. #47
    DKT
    DKT is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    504
    The best thing to do would be to tackle one problem at a time....you could just shoot your test film and then start over. set up your process and do it like you always do, but take notes if you have to--keep a record. Make sure you have a good thermometer this time out.

    Then--check your film out on a light box you trust. If you use CC filters--and you have a set actually--it could be that your film is magenta or red, or maybe even both. It could also be that your speed is off. You'll have a range for your first developer time--and try to hit whatever they list as your aim, it should be around 6-7 minutes. Try to nail this, and do your tests in brackets to figure out your film speed around that.

    But you need to do one thing at a time. You can't tackle them all at once and change a bunch of things, at the same time, or else you'll drive yourself nuts. The whole thing will keep changing underneath you.

    I guess maybe speed, then color.

    If you want to just jump right in---try adding some sodium hydroxide to your color developer. I'm sure tetenal has some info on this for their kit. Add tiny amounts and see if that cools it off. It won't be much. You can also try diluting the reversal bath for the tube--my guess is that the chemistry is already mixed up that way, since rotary tubes take a weaker dilution of reversal bath. But in the new Kodak kit, they say you don't need to do this anymore--yet I found out we needed to with our machine. This brought the spread on our HD (control strip plots for color) within control. Before--mixed as kodak specified, the spread was too great, and by adding sodium hydroxide, we could bring the plot in control that would cause a magenta shift, but it caused all sorts of other problems that were even worse.

    without the control strips--at one frustrating point, we just visually corrected our fujichrome by using sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid to shift the film one way or the other. (we use 5 gallons of chemistry though, and it's liek a science project keeping it in control). when we did this, we would run okay 50% of the time, and the other 50 was a hair pulling nightmare. You had to really look at the film on a micro scale to see how screwed up it was....

    So good luck--and I'm sure you'll get it figured out if you stick with it long enough. Just be patient, take good notes and try to do it the same way every time....

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Knight
    Hello and welcome Jack,

    Lets get back on track with your problem.

    I believe this will be a great thread for future reference as home E-6 processing will only get more popular as more labs are closing down their E-6 departments.

    To understand the differences of both models you have posted regarding the halo effect; when posting images that have been scanned, there are quite a few variables.
    To eliminate and/or understand some variables, I am wondering (might be a dumb question) but can you see the halo effect on your transparency using a loupe and light table.

    Thanks for joining APUG and posting a great thread.

    Shane Knight
    www.shaneknight.com
    Thanks Shane, I appreciate your comments. That halo thing, it's freaking me out now... I can't see it with my 10x loupe, and I scanned it on my flatbed just to see how different it would be, and the halo wasn't there. So, I have more than one problem I am not a scanning guru, but I just can't understand what would create this type of halo in my scanner (a minolta dimage 5400). It appears as a reflection, almost like a mirror.

    I've just got to figure this chemistry thing out as well, although I think there are other things muddying the water.

    Jack

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by DKT
    The best thing to do would be to tackle one problem at a time....you could just shoot your test film and then start over. set up your process and do it like you always do, but take notes if you have to--keep a record. Make sure you have a good thermometer this time out.

    Then--check your film out on a light box you trust. If you use CC filters--and you have a set actually--it could be that your film is magenta or red, or maybe even both. It could also be that your speed is off. You'll have a range for your first developer time--and try to hit whatever they list as your aim, it should be around 6-7 minutes. Try to nail this, and do your tests in brackets to figure out your film speed around that.

    But you need to do one thing at a time. You can't tackle them all at once and change a bunch of things, at the same time, or else you'll drive yourself nuts. The whole thing will keep changing underneath you.

    I guess maybe speed, then color.

    If you want to just jump right in---try adding some sodium hydroxide to your color developer. I'm sure tetenal has some info on this for their kit. Add tiny amounts and see if that cools it off. It won't be much. You can also try diluting the reversal bath for the tube--my guess is that the chemistry is already mixed up that way, since rotary tubes take a weaker dilution of reversal bath. But in the new Kodak kit, they say you don't need to do this anymore--yet I found out we needed to with our machine. This brought the spread on our HD (control strip plots for color) within control. Before--mixed as kodak specified, the spread was too great, and by adding sodium hydroxide, we could bring the plot in control that would cause a magenta shift, but it caused all sorts of other problems that were even worse.

    without the control strips--at one frustrating point, we just visually corrected our fujichrome by using sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid to shift the film one way or the other. (we use 5 gallons of chemistry though, and it's liek a science project keeping it in control). when we did this, we would run okay 50% of the time, and the other 50 was a hair pulling nightmare. You had to really look at the film on a micro scale to see how screwed up it was....

    So good luck--and I'm sure you'll get it figured out if you stick with it long enough. Just be patient, take good notes and try to do it the same way every time....

    Thanks DKT, these are some great pointers. I'm hoping I can find a happy medium here somewhere, but the next thing I'm going to do is shoot test films and process (with notes ). I know this has to be a solveable problem, I'm just kind of overwhelmed with the variables.

    I just found in my Jobo book that my rotation speed was on slow, and should have been on the faster speed (2 vs 1). I don't know how I missed this, but that could be very key in this as well. I'm not sure, but it seems that the rotation speed is kind of a subjective thing (the book is not really that clear to me).

    Anyway, I really, really appreciate the tips and thoughts. I'm anxious to get started on figuring this thing out!

    Jack

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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