There's a decent thread on APUG that explains the basics of it.
There are several text books on this subject including:
Mees and James
Evans Hanson and Brewer
And, the Kodak color handbooks. So, that was not cold, it was SHOCK! Sorry, but this is something that I really thought you had digested as you were moving on to some quite advanced questions. Perhaps we should back up a few levels then.
Sorry, but this is a fact based on your "professed" level of expertise. I find now that it is otherwise. If this offends you, the actual facts seem to point in the other direction.
Thank you. Your comments are appreciated.
I can use the German as aids to understanding, thank you.
I will reread the APUG thread...
Dispite the cool tone of one poster,
of course I have a certain "degree" of understanding the subject...
I think the issue that bothers me,
(to put the blame where it perhaps (?) belongs),
is that masking is to correct "inefficiencies" or what have you - in the dyes used.
Whose to blame for those inefficiencies?
The researchers who, instead of solving the problem, simply did a work around.
Yes, OK, I have yet to read the material recently,
but my next point is... why only masking for C-41?
Are the E6 dyes without similar inefficiencies?
There must be a simple explanation as to why we need them for C-41 but not E6.
... or does E6 use masking?
This is what I am hung up on.
You might want to research colorspaces, gamut, dyes and pigments. Your monitor, your printer, just about every item of color printed material are all adjusted to compensate for the failings of pigments and dyes. Whether through material or software means, a form of 'masking' is needed.
Originally Posted by Ray Rogers
If anything, the masking process is an extremely elegant solution to a very difficult problem.
Adjusted, fine tuned yes but...
What about positive color transparancies?
Where is the mask?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
All dyes have unwanted absorptions. ALL! Correction is only totally possible in negative systems unless you want orange slides!!!! This is not my deficiency, it is your lack of understanding. E6 tries to correct via interimage but falls short which is why I have maintained that color negative systems are more accurate.
Now, I will be the first to admit that not much is known on emulsion making, and so I post a lot there. But a LOT is known on color masking in several areas and so I leave it to the reader to self educate. I take a bit of offense if you blame this on ME. You must bring yourself up to a certain standard in a field of expertise if a large body of information exists in that area. It is not incumbent on me to teach you masking in the face of the many textbooks on masking. Thinly veiled comments notwithstanding, I have done my best in emulsion making, but I draw the line at fully published methodologies.
As for emulsion making, I am conducting a full off-line "conversation" on emulsion making that goes way beyond what I have posted here. I am glad to do it for you as well, if you bring yourself up to a given level with published texts. You have hedged on your knowledge, but it appears that you have done much more reading than you admit to. So, I'll leave it to that.
The biggest inconsistency is likely to be in exposure, processing and handling, and even the lens colour rendition from lens to lens.. I've had some total shockers come back from labs. Now everything I do is mostly DIY.
I've had some major issues with C-41 masks, including but not limited to an almost disappearing mask when reversal processed (slight appearance, not colour balanced for 3200K projection... balanced for daylight/~5600-6500K projection :/), green mask instead of orange, and the weird chameleon mask that changed after I finished processing, by an ascorbic acid solution, turning toward green, then yellow. These were all my own fault/doing though, standard processing is consistent and pretty resilient too.
Last edited by Athiril; 02-15-2011 at 12:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I am sure you (and the entire world!) enjoy the color reproduction potential
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
of the masked neg-pos system.
It's just that I think there is an area of overkill here and
people can get too caught up with numbers and measurments.
Are you aware of the absolute wonderous and beautiful color images
that a professional can deliver with the non-masked Pos-Pos system?
I think in music, it often happens that technical perfection might not always be the most desirable skill and I guess this probably applies to much if not all of the Arts.
Can you not understand me when I say to you that in the pos-pos system very beautiful images are produced without the use of masks, and that makes me wonder if masking really is a must in the neg-positive system or if it is just something we have come to accept, without question?
Negs allow for flexibility of colour - you can colour correct/grade to your heart's content.
Bit hard with positive, unless you do it digitally, and then that can be very difficult to balance, I've had some unbalanceable images simply due to the colour intensity.
Colour-corrected cross-proecessed E-6 film can be very nice.. and I've had some cross-processed Reala that had beautiful colour.
I started out liking E-6, now I like C-41. There is so much freedom in it
If you really wanted to get tricky with it, you can stick your E-6 in an enlarger, play with the colour balance, print it out to C-41 film at the right light temp, would need experimenting, then print that out.
Also, there is a big thread here on APUG on people reversing RA-4 people, so it prints a positive from a positive.
Yea, I guess it depends on where you're going.
In the Pre-digital Time, high end pros (at least one subset anyway) did it at the recording stage... for them the Transparency was God! Subsequent prints were... whatever. (ok, maybe the devil) but I focused on Cibachrome for my prints and was quite happy, uh, except for the cost.