Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,929   Posts: 1,585,219   Online: 789
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    DKT
    DKT is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    504
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Darkroom ChromaCrafts @ May 6 2003, 03:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Since I have to be able to cover 20 x 24 inch negative vacuum glass, none of the usual lighting will work&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; Right now I use the existing 20x24 inch flourescent light deck and have found a very unique solution to the obvious problems, but as yet I have not shared it with anyone, trade secret no one will ever use because they will have the right lighting.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Well, the Aristo would be an 8x10 at the largest. What I was referring to would be like a three tube version of the VCL4500 they make. So, 20x24? think again....but how many people are really doing that? If you knew the color temp of the tubes, then theoretically you could use CC filters to bring it back to tungsten or daylight or whatever. I guess you could also monkey with your process to shift the color balance as well. I&#39;ve made 4x5 internegs off chrome film with coldlights, by just stacking CC filters on the rear elements of enlarging lenses--it worked. I&#39;ve shot dupes off fluorescent light boxes too....

    Just about every mural house we&#39;ve ever dealt with has been using horizontal enlargers, and they&#39;ll work from 4x5 or 8x10 negs. Now they just drum scan and use lightjet or lambda printers--even wide format inkjets and scotchprint materials are in the competition. I&#39;m still sorta confused I guess about what services you offer--sounds like you&#39;re using a process camera in reverse to shoot up/down onto film or paper. If I think about it enough, I can see how it would work, but I don&#39;t exactly see the benefits of it...if you get work and can run a business though, more power to you.

    KT

  2. #22
    DKT
    DKT is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    504
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Darkroom ChromaCrafts @ May 6 2003, 03:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> sorry, KT, I don&#39;t want to drive you crazy&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;So I sent one to be processed by the local guy whom the photographers used to use *wink*, it came out all cyany. I complained but he said, my control strips were perfect. . .I called around and found out that all of the local photographers who send E-6 to his lab for processing have had to go to using red filters to compensate for his developing. Well, I was also getting a very cyany slide so I read and called and found out that the problem was the acidity of the developer. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt; </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    uh, too late--you pushed me over the edge......was it cyan or blue? Blue, I could see it being a pH problem---cyan? I dunno--could actually be, oh my&#33;, a temperature problem. Could be with the replenisher...but the it&#39;s this lingo here--"too cyany" , or "too orangy" or whatever. What&#39;s that? Define "too cyany". Is it 10 points?, 20? Is it blue? It&#39;s driving me nuts--sorry--you want to do accurate color repro but the language is like from outer space....

    KT

  3. #23
    DKT
    DKT is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    504
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Darkroom ChromaCrafts @ May 6 2003, 10:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    >>>>.&nbsp; Not only do I generally develop more than the usual (depending on the job, some jobs scream for fresh developer, so I give it) but I also keep a few gallons of nearly expired developer because for some situations which call for excessive contrast reduction (ie a way too contrasty negative of artwork brought in by a customer who refuses to let me re-shoot the neg).&nbsp; I know I&#39;m wicked but if it works. . . I use it.<<<


    >>>>&nbsp; I always now on RA4 when it really&nbsp; over developed because it gets a goldeny orange cast all over it, yuck.&nbsp; If it is too short, I see too much majenta or even lavender.<<<

    >>>- I am not setting up a standard commercial lab.&nbsp; Only large format.&nbsp; Secondly I am not "setting up" at all this company has been in business over 20 years, it is just that the services are now offered to professional photographers and artists directly rather than through other sources, like your local photo lab or printer.<<<</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    see, geez...I was running our film & it was like "Cyany" what the hell is that? Is it those fluorescent lamps with your chrome film? Then I notice up here, the "majenta" or the "lavendar"--well, what is that? Then I start feeling bad...you know like I&#39;m picking on ya, because you say you&#39;re not setting up a commercial lab, you&#39;re just gonna offer some E6 and color repro & printing services for your customers....so somehow, there&#39;s a difference here. You don&#39;t want to run a control strip because the other guy in town says his are okay and your film is "cyany", so therefore you don&#39;t want to be "control strip crazy". Tell ya what--don&#39;t be control strip crazy. Skip everything I said up there. For sanity&#39;s sake--my own-- I go back to lurking status. Let me go look for my 10 CCL (lavendar) filter....I have to correct some CTs now.

    bye--KT

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    336
    Oh, poor KT,

    I didn&#39;t mean to upset the balance of your life this morning. I warned early that I don&#39;t have the right lingo. I did mean cyan, not blue. And since correcting the ph worked as my Kodak tech said it would. . . . I was happy. Again I have not said I would not, (as a matter of fact, I said I definitely would) begin using and understanding control strips so I can be more accurate and more certain of that accuracy. I was just relaying a story.
    I am sorry that I seemed rude about your processing. What I should have said was, "I am not a process lab, I am a printing and reproduction lab." This would not have stirred things up. Again I apologize for my carelessness.
    I too do plenty of reprography, and my negs and film can/are brought back to me, some done by my predecessors over 15 years ago and they always print fine if the negative was properly sheathed. I really am not too far off from being on the same page as you. However, I have no intention of going digital, because the copy cameras with the right lenses and skill out perform digital, not the lamba and the lightjet directly but the whole process, and the only reason I even decided to involve professional photographers directly to the shop is because they came to me and asked me to #1 stay analog and #2 cater to their problems.
    What I am not too sure about is why is feels like you and I are in some sort of competition here. I don&#39;t want to be. I just want a site wherein I can discuss analog photography without being told to abandon my desire to become a master at analog and go put out digital stuff. I thought this might have been the place since the title is "analog photography . . . ."

    Again I apologize for my carelessness yesterday, and I hope our tensions calm.

    JL
    Embrace **it! **it. . .just another name for fertilizer. . . Grow baby Grow!

  5. #25
    DKT
    DKT is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    504
    look...we&#39;re not in a competition--it&#39;s just I don&#39;t think we&#39;re talking about the same thing here. Cyan in E6 isn&#39;t really a pH problem...if were Fujichrome films, it *might* be cyan/green sort of where Kodak *might* be yellow. The control strips *might* be perfectly fine. I just don&#39;t understand how you can be so concerned over accurate color reproduction and yet have no standard to go back against? Unless I&#39;m missing something in these posts, there&#39;s no clue for standardized viewing of thse chromes & prints or any kind of evaluation of them, and the more I read them, the murkier it gets.....then you criticize this other lab--who--- hey, I don&#39;t know, maybe the film totally sucks?--but then I read these posts and you sound like your from the Twilight Zone or something as far as what a lab manager/lab owner would be saying. To a photographer, this is like hanging a sign up that says "don&#39;t process your film in my store--ever". If I were in your shop, and overheard a converation like this, I&#39;d be scrambling to get my film back and running as fast as I could out of there....it&#39;s the kind of thing that makes me wish I had just let those guys tell you that time & temp don&#39;t matter & you can reuse your chemistry until it&#39;s dead...because that&#39;s basically what you&#39;re telling me here, or what I&#39;m reading--and that your customers are happy with this. So, let&#39;s just leave it at that, okay?

    that&#39;s it for me,

    KT

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    336
    KT,

    I will try once more, but then I am done with this conversation with you. No hard feelings, next topic we will fair better.

    I DO NOT PROCESS FILM EXCEPT for film I need to do reproductions. Even with say 35mm film, same roll, same processor (professional, not me), same photographer; printing each shot usually requires different filter packs, sometimes even different lights altogether. Since I am the one who is using the film for reproduction,. . .and the reproductions come out fine. . . I guess I am managing for the purposes I am discussing. IF you brought in film to be processed that you had shot in YOUR comera; you wouldn&#39;t have to "get it back" because I wouldn&#39;t accept it, I would tell you to go elsewhere. I wouldn&#39;t recommend the guy across town, but I would NOT process it for you. DO YOU GET IT, yet? I print, not process.

    When I accept reproduction jobs it is with the understanding that I tweek my negatives intentionally to work well in my lab, and there is no warantee, explicit or implied, that the reproductive negative will be usable by any other lab. I further explain why and they get to decide. So far the answer is, "That&#39;s fine with me." I guess the photographers that I have coming in, understand tweeking outside the rules to get what we want.

    Furthermore, I have yet to advertise myself anywhere as anything but a hard working and tenacious beginner. I do not pretend to be any other than what I am, which is a person trying to offer something that was requested of me. I always end my "sales pitch" if you want to call it that, with "if you are unsatisfied at all, I will not charge you a penny, and thank you for this learning challenge."
    The thing I resent most, I think, is not that you suggest I am amatuer, because I realize that which is why I am on here asking and learning. It is that you suggest that I have no integrity and would somehow try to bullshit my customers, I don&#39;t.

    Now I have lost my temper just for you, I am not proud of this. Rattle me once, shame on you, rattle me twice, shame on me. If you proceed to attack and not read before you do, I shall simply ignore your posts, or if everyone else would prefer, I will accomodate your childishness by not signing on here anymore.

    JL
    Embrace **it! **it. . .just another name for fertilizer. . . Grow baby Grow!

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    now now, both of you back to your corners.

    Ok, Jill....DK Thompson is a very knowledgeable person in the film processing area. I don&#39;t recall exactly but I believe he handles and manages the film processing for a museum or something like that. I believe he thought you were offering your services as a film processing lab, not as a reproduction and enlargement lab. So there lies the confusion.

    DK...give the lady a break uh? I know you have been around for a long time and this is not the first time that you have read something which in your experience is not accurate and you have let it slide by.

    So both of you, agree to disagree and move on, your enjoyment of this site will be much better if you don&#39;t let things get to you. Besides the fact that I don&#39;t want this site to become another photo.net where member keep griping at each other.

    Deal?

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    336
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ May 7 2003, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> now now, both of you back to your corners.

    Ok, Jill....DK Thompson is a very knowledgeable person in the film processing area. I don&#39;t recall exactly but I believe he handles and manages the film processing for a museum or something like that. I believe he thought you were offering your services as a film processing lab, not as a reproduction and enlargement lab. So there lies the confusion.

    DK...give the lady a break uh? I know you have been around for a long time and this is not the first time that you have read something which in your experience is not accurate and you have let it slide by.

    So both of you, agree to disagree and move on, your enjoyment of this site will be much better if you don&#39;t let things get to you. Besides the fact that I don&#39;t want this site to become another photo.net where member keep griping at each other.

    Deal? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    ***shaking hands***** deal.
    Embrace **it! **it. . .just another name for fertilizer. . . Grow baby Grow!

  9. #29
    DKT
    DKT is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    504
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ May 7 2003, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> &gt;&gt;&gt; I believe he thought you were offering your services as a film processing lab, not as a reproduction and enlargement lab. So there lies the confusion.

    </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    That&#39;s pretty much it--but so much of this is contradictory. I feel uneasy here--like a version of Scott Eaton. I&#39;m really a pretty nice person, I&#39;d be glad to help or try to. But everything that I know about processing tells me not to believe you--I&#39;m sorry, I just don&#39;t beleive the things you&#39;re saying. It doesn&#39;t matter to me if you only offer prints or reproductions--not processing--you have said otherwise above in these posts. Every post seems to contradict the other. You&#39;d have me believe you only do b&w or line work, and then mention RA4, R3, E6 etc. What difference does it make if a customer brings you art to shoot in house on chrome film, and you only process your in-house stuff? It&#39;s ALL the same in the end. I&#39;m not gonna beat up on you, I don&#39;t want to sound like a jerk here--but I&#39;m going to ask you some questions I should have asked upfront--I wouldn&#39;t have become annoyed, had I understood what it was you were doing. You&#39;re not some kid processing film in his bathtub. I take it you&#39;re some sort of lab, whether you believe me or not. It&#39;s different for me, so don&#39;t tell me the answers to these questions are "trade secrets"--as far as I&#39;m concerned there&#39;s no such thing. Believe me, there are more clever people in the lab business than you or I. They would have figured it out years ago, if they could run any of these processes without temp control or any sort of process control. It just doesn&#39;t work that way. Nobody who works in a lab will believe you. I&#39;ll tell you a "trade secret" aka common knowledge. It&#39;s no big deal to use CC filters to get accurate color on chrome films in an E6 line--even one in-control. There are so many variables, you may never even get it right. Every working pro has had to do this or maybe even does it everyday. If you said you needed a 25CC filter, then it would be a problem, but even here we go to .25CCs sometimes, so what&#39;s the big deal? It&#39;s also a trade secret--aka common knowledge--that people blame labs. Eevn labworkers blame the labs they work in. It&#39;s like an in-joke, so lighten up y&#39;all.

    My questions, and I&#39;ll keep &#39;em brief:

    1) what film, paper, chemistry are you using.

    2) how do process--i.e. by hand, processors etc

    3) I read on here somewhere that you don&#39;t use any filters on the lens, so how do you set up a filter pack to print a color neg or chrome onto RA4 or R3? I could see filtering out the source with large gels, but how to do the working pack? I could see a tri-color exposure with separation filters, but not on the source-at 20x24? So, how does this work?

    4) How do you evaluate the finished product, if not with grayscales, color bars, control strips etc?

    I&#39;ll just quit now, because it will get esoteric...I wonder somethings--- about why it would be such a big deal to make a 30x40 off a 35mm neg--when I can do that here on a Beseler MXT, but I really don&#39;t care & don&#39;t want to sound mean or anything. I&#39;m impressed that someone would figure out work-arounds and such, but then again--as someone who does some of this work and also farms it out, I just gotta kinda scratch my head. In the end, clients & customers don&#39;t really care about these things.

    So, if you want--start over--why ask such a basic question about time & temp, and be so aloof about what you&#39;re doing? Don&#39;t tell me it&#39;s a trade secret...

    Next post, I go back & remove all the above except this.

    KT


  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    336
    Okay, KT, first go read my introduction and the full history and current state of affairs will become clearer. Up till about 6 months ago I was pre-press, reprography (b&w), and aerial photography (b&w). One photographer came to my shop and asked if I would take on he and his group of photo friends, stay analog, and bring in color. Hence here I am.

    Answer your questions:

    1. I am capable of handling ra4,r3,c41,e6 BUT only RA4 or E6 for higher volume. Hence I keep the C41 and E6 to in house use only. Furthermore I am testing an alternate solution so that I will never have to use either C41 or E6 in house. It would be imminently easier to use only RA4 or R3.

    2. I designed and had built some special tanks which are neither fully hand nor fully machine. A little of both. My brain has to be present and accounted for while processing, ie I am in complete control, so I guess that would put it in the "by hand" category.

    3. Sorry, won&#39;t answer that except to say that nothing is between the negative and the paper/film except the lens and the copyboard glass. In extreme enlargements, I have designed and had constructed an overlay for the glass frame, so that the paper/film adheres to the front removing the glass from the equation also.

    4. For color right now the finished product is always a positive and in finished display readiness, so the customer decides; after I have evaluated using concepts like color correctness, saturation, contrast. If possible (not over 36") I scan it, as I find scanning often reveals "hidden" flaws and weaknesses. Of course this is not appropriate to check color correctness, but it does catch mishandled lighting, inconsistency in whites/blacks throughout the print, etc.

    My refusal to answer #3 is adamant, if it were a simple solution you wouldn&#39;t be so annoyed that I won&#39;t answer, because you would have figured it out. Since neither you nor anyone so far has figured it out, I feel it must be a unique solution and am trying to see about a patent. If and once that happens I will be happy to expound.

    JL

    Embrace **it! **it. . .just another name for fertilizer. . . Grow baby Grow!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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