Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,542   Posts: 1,572,782   Online: 891
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    Stephen Frizza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,384
    Images
    174
    P.E. I own a small Pro Lab in sydney australia which runs kodak chemistry. I stick to Kodaks guidelines replenish at the right rates and run controls twice a day. I couldn't agree more with what you are saying. And as Mick has said I too can vouch for the control and consistency of Kodak color negative film.

  2. #12
    wiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Farnham, Surrey, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Wiggy;

    ... If you wish, I can let you page through the 1000+ sheets of my portfolio and judge for yourself. It is here in about a dozen 3" binders for anyone to see. The shots are divided into camera type / film size and so I have 35mm books, 645 books, 67 books and 4x5 books, all color neg from Kodacolor C-22 up to the last version of Portra 160VC.

    Stop by.

    PE
    I'd love to but regrettably it might be a bit difficult as you're on the other side of the pond (did remind me that I'd not updated my profile!) Next time I'm in NY, poss sometime mid 2008, I'll give you a call.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I think that is why our answers differ.
    With the extended discussion, I don't think that our answers differ that much. I responded mainly because of this sentence in your earlier post:

    Once you have the filtration for your enlarger, then any negative exposed in the last 50 years or so (except for Type CU Kodakcolor) will print within about a 10 R filter of that center point.
    That statement ignores processing. It may be true for negatives that have been optimally processed, but it's not true in the real world -- it needs qualifications concerning the nature of the processing. Because I was a teenager with little income in the 1980s, I used a lot of cut-rate photofinishers at that time, and a variety of somewhat less cut-rate but non-Kodak photofinishers in the following couple of decades. I've therefore now got a lot of negatives that were processed by at least a dozen different labs, on film from five different manufacturers. That's probably typical of consumers who shot film over this period and actually kept the negatives. I can get good color from these negatives when printing today, but the filtration values are all over the map. I can certainly believe that if I'd used Kodak or other higher-quality photofinishers through this whole period I'd have more consistent filtration today, but that's not the reality I face.

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,391
    Images
    65
    I understand your point and don't disagree.

    I have used Kodak, Agfa, Sakura and Fuji films, all processed in Kodak chemistry or in the proprietary chemistry of the respective companies. Almost all of these print well within the specs I've given above, and therefore I must conclude that the processes are the culprits.

    Of course, Agfa is the worst and has awful keeping as well so it falls outside this range in many cases. Other than that, the rest are very well behaved.

    It seems that others have observed what I have as well.

    PE

  5. #15
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,391
    Images
    65
    Wiggy;

    Hope to see you in '08, here in Rochester. I'll show you the proofs and also give you a demo of emulsion making and coating if you wish.

    PE

  6. #16
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,800
    Images
    60
    PE and others:

    Do you ever use different filtration at the enlarger, to correct for colour casts arising from the light source? For example, a blue cast, due to open shade lighting?

    Matt

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    PE and others:

    Do you ever use different filtration at the enlarger, to correct for colour casts arising from the light source? For example, a blue cast, due to open shade lighting?
    Speaking as one "other," yes, I do this. The most extreme case for me has been correcting for tungsten lighting on daylight-balanced film; however, photos shot on the same roll in more subtly different lighting (shade vs. direct sunlight, for instance) also requires adjustment. The latter is much more subtle than the tungsten/daylight thing.

  8. #18
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    PE and others:

    Do you ever use different filtration at the enlarger, to correct for colour casts arising from the light source? For example, a blue cast, due to open shade lighting?

    Matt
    Yes. Changes in Colour temp of the scene and differences in exposure (over under just right) will change the filter pack from one frame to the next let alone one roll to the next. Adjusting for tungsten on daylight balanced film will often need a 45cc change (30cc yellow and 15cc mag as a starting point) from what you'd expect under daylight. Length of exposure will also will require filter pack changes and subjectivity can require still further changes.

    I take notes on the backs of my contacts and use those numbers as starting points for new work. I do find that one film/paper combination will be in similar ranges, and the portra films are remarkably consistent especially on Kodak papers, but when you go from Kodak to Fuji or Agfa there are more often than not large swings in filtration. Older Kodak films also seemed to deviate a good bit as well PRN, PRT, VPS, VPL, PMZ and PMX were nowhere as consistent, but my memory could be fuzzier here.

    I must say 20cc is a fairly large range and therefore not too useful as a bit of knowledge. It is so large that I wouldn't have found it as being noteworthy—I certainly never noticed and I am taking Ron’s word for it. It’s kind of like saying cook the bread for 20 to 30 mins at 250 to 350F.
    Last edited by jd callow; 11-19-2007 at 02:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.

    *

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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