Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,780   Posts: 1,671,198   Online: 786
      
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55

    E-6 Processing, something is wrong.

    I've had some problems getting started back into film, but I thought I'd whipped them when I got my new CP-2 Jobo and fresh chemistry. I first processed some Kodak Ektachrome G and there was a majenta cast. I said hmmm, maybe I'm a little off or something. My next batch was Fuji Velvia, and I am immensely disappointed again. I'm getting images, and I can correct some of this after scanning, but it sure shouldn't be this way. When viewing on my light table they look ok, it's harder to see the cast, but I think the Ektachrome was more visible on the light table.

    Here is an example. I shot a digital capture and it is very true to the scene. The white sign at the top of the building is almost a perfect RGB value for white, about 245,245,245. As you can see, there is a radical difference.


    Another reason I think something is wrong in my processing, there is some sort of 'halo' in the film shot. The text on the awning looks like it has some kind of shadow. Here's the example:


    Just for grins, here's the digital capture showing the text on the awning:


    Just so you'll know, I have been sooooo careful and meticulous in my processing. I've been ultra-careful about not contaminating my chemistry, the temperature, the time, etc. The <i>only</i> thing I could discover today was, there is a discrepancy between my two thermometers, I don't know which one is correct. I <i>might</i> have processed at 98* instead of 100*, depending on which thermometer is correct. However, today I used the thermometer that <i>was</i> reading low and processed at 37.5*C (My 'high' thermometer was reading 101*F).

    I'm sorry for the long post, but I sure would like for this to work out. I know there must be something wrong, but I am out of ideas. Can any of you guru's shed any light on this? I really, really appreciate any help! Oops! Almost forgot... I'm using Tetenal ColorTec E-6 chemistry, 5 litre kit 3 bath. I can't find a date on the box, but I just got it from B&H Photo.

    Jack

  2. #2
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,090
    Images
    56
    Info on which cameras you used would be a helpful start.

    Then we can begin to discuss lenses -"angle" setting on your zoom in the first pair of pics are close but not identical.

    Type of film would be useful knowledge.

    And, are you seeking digital sharpness or analog "presence"?

    If I want to, I can focus my Nikon D-70 on the filament of a clear (chandelier) light bulb while fully lit.

    Perfect focus - is that what you want?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Dear Jack,

    Tetenal chemistry gives instructions for altering colour balance by changing the pH of the developer.

    The film shot looks like a soft lens to me -- was it a zoom or what? I'd certainly expect 35mm shots taken with a good lens (I use mostly Leicas, plus some Voigtlander lenses, and my wife uses Voigtlanders) to be sharper than anything digital under about 14 megapixels -- or twice that with the rright film and the Leica on a tripod. Like George I have a D70 and while it's surprisingly good, it ain't like 35mm.

    Cheers,

    R.

  4. #4
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,519
    Images
    26
    There are so many possibilities affecting color balance that it makes my brain overload.

    It is difficult to get the *same* results from even so small a factor as an hour or two difference in the time of day, (ambient light color temperature change), let alone two different (widely) photographic systems. Which - digital or film - is "right" to begin with? The 'white balance" could very well be "off" in the digital capture - was it done automatically, or from a grey card? Additionally, each color film has its own idiosyncracies - some are inherently "warmer" (and "cooler") than others in the same chemistry, and the effects in different chemistry can be, and usually are, even greater.

    Another example is exposure. "Under" and "over" will have a marked effect - and the shift is nothing like uniform with different films.

    And the beat goes on. That is why it is a logical course of action to "learn" your equipment and processes, and their influences on the finished images.

    From what you write, your processing certainly sounds OK, to me.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  5. #5
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,544
    Images
    65
    Tetnal chemistry is not exactly E6. It differs slightly from the 'real' E6 produced by Fuji and Kodak.

    PE

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham
    Info on which cameras you used would be a helpful start.

    Then we can begin to discuss lenses -"angle" setting on your zoom in the first pair of pics are close but not identical.

    Type of film would be useful knowledge.

    And, are you seeking digital sharpness or analog "presence"?

    If I want to, I can focus my Nikon D-70 on the filament of a clear (chandelier) light bulb while fully lit.

    Perfect focus - is that what you want?
    Actually, I'm wanting to know why I'm getting a color cast in my film processing.

    Cameras are Nikon F6, Nikon D2x
    F6 mounted to 85mm prime lens
    D2X mounted to 50mm prime lens
    Film is Velvia 100

    Focus and sharpness is not the issue. This is just the best example I had to demonstrate my 'issue'.

    Thanks!

    Jack

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    Dear Jack,

    Tetenal chemistry gives instructions for altering colour balance by changing the pH of the developer.

    The film shot looks like a soft lens to me -- was it a zoom or what? I'd certainly expect 35mm shots taken with a good lens (I use mostly Leicas, plus some Voigtlander lenses, and my wife uses Voigtlanders) to be sharper than anything digital under about 14 megapixels -- or twice that with the rright film and the Leica on a tripod. Like George I have a D70 and while it's surprisingly good, it ain't like 35mm.

    Cheers,

    R.
    Thanks Roger, but with all due respect, this particular lens is nowhere near soft. The Nikkor 85mm is one of the sharpest Nikkors I've ever used. My digital captures with this same lens blows film away, so I know the capability of the lens. There is something else going on here, IMO.

    I understand what you're saying about changing the PH to alter color balance, but I guess I just assumed that the 'standard' mix, one shot, would be a 'normal' color balance.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    There are so many possibilities affecting color balance that it makes my brain overload.

    It is difficult to get the *same* results from even so small a factor as an hour or two difference in the time of day, (ambient light color temperature change), let alone two different (widely) photographic systems. Which - digital or film - is "right" to begin with? The 'white balance" could very well be "off" in the digital capture - was it done automatically, or from a grey card? Additionally, each color film has its own idiosyncracies - some are inherently "warmer" (and "cooler") than others in the same chemistry, and the effects in different chemistry can be, and usually are, even greater.

    Another example is exposure. "Under" and "over" will have a marked effect - and the shift is nothing like uniform with different films.

    And the beat goes on. That is why it is a logical course of action to "learn" your equipment and processes, and their influences on the finished images.

    From what you write, your processing certainly sounds OK, to me.
    Thanks Ed, I appreciate your reply. I guess I presented this wrong, maybe I'll try again. I'm not exactly a novice in this arena, I have a good grasp of the things you've mentioned. Considering that this is a yellow building, and the film didn't render it yellow, well, you get the idea.

    My camera was set to a white balance of 5750K, which is also the temperature that daylight film is balanced to. The images were taken at exactly the same time, so the temp/color of light is not the issue. Using the white sign (and it is white), the RGB values in the digital capture are correct. The yellow building is as I remember it, not the whitewashed looking rendering that the film gave it. I also understand that films are not uniform, but I've shot different films for the last 35 years, and I've never seen this much 'non-uniformity'. That's the reason I presented this as a processing issue, because I believe that is what it is. Ok, maybe it's not a processing issue, maybe it's a chemistry issue, I just don't know. The only reason I layed it to processing is, I have film(commercially processed) and digital captures that are almost identical except for certain nuances in color, and of course the 'ambient feel' of the film capture is different, but the colors are never as skewed between the two as presented here.

    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?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacko1729
    Thanks Roger, but with all due respect, this particular lens is nowhere near soft. The Nikkor 85mm is one of the sharpest Nikkors I've ever used. My digital captures with this same lens blows film away, so I know the capability of the lens. There is something else going on here, IMO.

    I understand what you're saying about changing the PH to alter color balance, but I guess I just assumed that the 'standard' mix, one shot, would be a 'normal' color balance.
    Dear Jack,

    Fair do's. Certainly not an unsharp lens, so it's all the more puzzling.

    And the point made elsewhere about 'real' E6 is well taken.

    Just two (unfortunately useless) thoughts given the very limited information then available.

    Cheers,

    R

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    Dear Jack,

    Fair do's. Certainly not an unsharp lens, so it's all the more puzzling.

    And the point made elsewhere about 'real' E6 is well taken.

    Just two (unfortunately useless) thoughts given the very limited information then available.

    Cheers,

    R
    I think in my frustrations I assume too much I do appreciate your taking the time to reply, so it's not useless to me.

    What are your thoughts about 'real' E6? I never gave a thought to another brand not being the real thing, I just assumed they would have had to use the same chemicals to process the film. This has certainly got my interest tweaked.

    I guess what I'm asking is, should I stay away from chemisty other than Kodak or Fuji?

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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