StoneNYC: No, I am 90 miles south of NYC, in Philadelphia. But I lived in New York City from 1971 to 1983 when it did not cost so much to merely breathe.
Skipping the bleach step is only one way of deviating from the standard aesthetic. It is a way to be 'creative' with color processes. In these pictures I did NOT omit the bleach step.
Seriously, in opposing the theoretically limited ways of being able to create color images anew (unlike with the more variable B&W process) you really can deviate from this mantra and develop the negative more or less in order to change the contrast. I find no color crossover per se but, beware, if you get TOO contrasty you get an exaggeration of hues, like in taking a picture of a sunlit scene you will get shadows that look TOO blue. If you do not develop the negative enough, you end up with a dingy, muddy print that captures all the detail but offers no 'life'. This endless expeirmenting would cost a king's ransom if I did not make 'tests' using only about one inch of film carefully placed upon the camera's film aperature gate. I then process in a plastic film can in total darkness (with color film, especially, I trust nothing with regard to fogging). I also load my 35mm cameras in total darkness using tape wrapped around the take up spool and extening onto the emulsion at the start of the film), without a film leader. This allows me to 'waste' only about one inch of film per 'load' and, importantly, does not force me to wait until the roll is finished in order to process what I want to process. I have cut down reels to smaller sizes in order to accommodate the shorter lengths and use smaller containers than the standard tank. I am frugal, let it be said. I MUST be frugal, let it be said!!!
Generally, developing the negative a bit more gives purer colors. Once, for an experiment I took a picture of a color swatch and underexposed about three stops. I then gave about four TIMES the development time to the negative. Honestly, I have never seen purer, bolder colors in my life as a result. BUT... if the 'scene' had been of the standard variety it would have looked terrible with totally black shadows and 'poster paint' color in what was recorded. This is an extreme example but offers a window onto the possibilties.
Back in 1966 during the first few years of starting darkroom (I started in 1964 at 14) I asked the store clerk if it was possible to do color because he had chemicals there. He said that it was but 'don't attempt this' because you would never be able to hold the temp to within 1/4 degree. I now know that he destroyed my desire then and there (I was brought up to be obsessively obedient and would NEVER dream of disagreeing with an adult!) and I held for over a decade that the world would come to an end if I dared deviate from the Yellow Father's mandated prescription. Now, I know that, for generally acceptable results, there is much room for deviation with both time and temperature. In fact, early color processes (Ansco Printon, late 1940s) offered a considerable RANGE of temperatures and those temperatures were ambient!
I am not challenging the lab quality that Kodak and PE insist upon. I am simply saying that if my photos are acceptible then: 1) the world will not come to an end if you deviate and 2) you might actually like the results. Few people actually WANT what is ACTUALLY presented in the scene. Low contrast scenes generally benefit, aestheticlly, from enhanced contrast and somewhat bolder colors. In summation, color accuracy and contrast accuracy are mere tools in forging the optimal visual result.
Perhaps my being forced to be so 'obedient' caused me to result in being such a 'deviant'! - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 12-31-2012 at 09:40 AM. Click to view previous post history.