C41 for RA4 papers?

[Gerald C Koch]

I now know that no one cares about accurate dye hues or good image stability by the way you want to abuse your film and paper during processing. You may as well do things digitally.

If you wonder why I say this, see my other posts on similar or identical topics.

PE

If I might add that this also applies to using cine color negative films for srill camerra use. These films don't quite match the color papers. The problem cannot be solved with filtration during printing. But you can choose whether the small color cast will be in the highlights or the shadows of the print.

[Gerald C Koch]

In the mass color printing trade (drugstores and the like) it was said that there were only 2 primary colors not 3; these were puke and burple. Puke was greenish yellow and burple was bluish purple. Bad prints were either too puke or too burble.

[Photo Engineer]

If I might add that this also applies to using cine color negative films for srill camerra use. These films don't quite match the color papers. The problem cannot be solved with filtration during printing. But you can choose whether the small color cast will be in the highlights or the shadows of the print.

ECN can be printed, in the proper manner, to give superb slides and prints. Stay tuned.

PE

[Gerald C Koch]

I am glad to hear this as I was given over 400 ft of ECN color film. Years ago the Dignan Newletter always cautioned people about the problem with color casts. At that time their were several companies that sold respooled Kodak cine film and returned both slides and color prints. The problem was with the prints only.

When I was in college I developed and printed many rolls, It was dirt cheap.

[iranzi]

RA-4 all the way: I do the following: with Kodak dev/repl RT (roller transport) I mix as specified, then dilute that 1 + 4. I process paper at ambient (80F) for 2 - 3 minutes. I develop color film (at 105F) from 12 minutes (for ISO 100) to 16 minutes (ISO 800). I store the chems (either diluted or not) in clear, plastic soda/juice bottles) and if filled to the very brim, never expire (despite what admonishment might transpire with that statement). It works for me and will work for anyone. That is the most hassle free way to process color. Everything I do is 'one shot'. Color dev is very capable of such dilution and what 'fails' first is not the exhaustion of the developer but, rather, the presence of bromide that the film gives off. With color development a tiny bit of bromide slows things down tremendously, unlike with the more attenuated effect with BW process.

Also, I do not use or buy the BLIX. I use regular or even more diluted stop bath, then fix, then use a solution of potassium ferricyanide for the film (1 gram per 20ml water). That clears the film nicely in about two minutes and you need only enough to evenly coat the film (just use wetting agent); as this bleaching is a process 'to finality' you do not have to worry about unevenness. (NOTE: if you want slightly more contrast omit the bleach, as the color coupler plus the silver already there will add to the contrast.) Then a brief fix again (same fix) for about 30 seconds, then wash and dry. For paper, similarly, I stop and fix, then into a potassium bromide bath (this time far less potent than for films: only 1 gram potassium ferricyanide in 100ml water. That for about 1 minute, then, again fix (same fix) for about 10 seconds. Wash and dry.

I cannot come up with a more economical way to do this. The ONLY 'color' chemical involved is the dev/repl RT because the potassium ferricyanide is also a BW chemical. I buy from pdisupply.com in Rochester, NY.

Thanks so much David for this description, it was really inspiring to read this.

I think experimenting is the only way to truly learn anything about the materials at hand.

And I'm also curious what results people been getting from using C41 on paper.

[David Lyga]

Thank you iranzi: this is my method through endless experimentation and it works as well as the 'standard' way. I must say that it amazes me that it is 'OK' to develop film in coffee and, some have even inferred 'urinol' but, heaven forbid, if someone like David Lyga suggests a deviation from the Holy Grail. That manifests as absolutely sacreligious and iconoclastic. (Especially coming from me.)

Why is it considered almost 'obscene' to deviate from the promulgated norm unless such deviations are 'trendy', like using coffee as developer or using a Holga to get the 'desired' light leaks, both of which I consider BS? (I neither drink coffee nor use it as a developer and I do not think that random light leaks are 'artistic' like some 'wannabees' do.) But, perhaps, there was an alterior motive here and this deviation gave one '8 X 10 professional' the opportunity to declaim such nonsense which was coming from David Lyga.

I did not create the world and will not be the cause of its destruction, but with a highly mature RA-4 technology that is (yes it is) waning and going to be gone within our lifetimes, why is my deviation considered so 'counterproductive' and ridiculous? Perhaps my outspoken manner provides fuel to such castigation. Perhaps my 'queerness' authorizes, or at least aids, delegitimazation. I do not know, as everyone here is but an 'avatar', thus never has to worry about actually facing the human being that causes such angst. I am used to such treatment from first grade, onward, but have never bowed, obediently, to those who wish to see me conform to any proscribed norm. And I had to stay after school many a time solely because I was 'set up' by others who wished to provide a vehicle for their self-exoneration. It's fun to castigate someone whom one knows has little support. I fully belive that the moderator would NEVER come to the defense of someone so marginal like myself. However, if the roles were reversed, he would in a heartbeat. I know my place.

Remember, a truism is not always true, just readily accepted as such. Maybe truth should be more of a prerequisite than mere fashion.

Diluting the RA-4 developer does NOTHING to deviate from the wanted hues. I have tried both methods and the standard dilution is, of course, quicker: it takes only about 45 seconds development time (but if you give more time that will not change saturation much). My method is extremely economical (not all of us out there are well-financed and this could be a help to those who want to explore other ways to do things). Countless times I have advised how to prevent developer (diluted or NOT) from oxidation by storing in clear, plastic soda bottles, filled to the very rim, which do not 'breathe'. Little is heeded for my efforts and the questions KEEP coming up 'how long will such and such developer last?' Really, Mr Davis, is my projection so very harmful to the newbies out there (or is it really my OPINION that must summarily be 'cut down' by more 'legitimate' practitioners)? My intentions are not to 'molest' such virginity.

Rest assured that Mr Davis's test will be 'extremely unbiased' because, surely, he has no alterior motive to deviate from forthrightness. - David Lyga

[Greg Davis]

Rest assured that Mr Davis's test will be 'extremely unbiased' because, surely, he has no alterior motive to deviate from forthrightness. - David Lyga

Every test I have done for this site has been unbiased and presented only results without making conclusions. I can only assume you are making these slanderous accusations to claim foul if and when the results do not match up to your beliefs. I am more than willing to accept your method as a viable alternative if the tests show they are equal to the proven quality of a true C-41 process, but only direct comparison will show this. As for the unusual and off market developers used in black and white, they are changing silver salts to silver metal, here in color we are trying to form the proper dye combinations to display the original subject as close as possible. It seems clear you do not understand that concept.

[David Lyga]

see below, sorry

[David Lyga]

No slander implied or intended, Greg. I said that your results would be 'forthright'. (Need I be even more obsequious?)

I have no computer so your results cannot be (readily) visually challenged and I am therefore, yet easier to refute. But we all welcome such refutation if such manifests. I am not unchallengeable. - David Lyga

[Greg Davis]

Placing "extremely unbiased" in quotes indicates sarcasm or irony. I'll tell you the same thing I tell my students: I don't grade excuses, I grade pictures. Since you haven't put up any evidence, I will make the pictures and we will see how they stack up. Go to a library and use their computer if necessary when I post the results.