Color Beginner: Chemical or Digital
LMG50
to do it at home. We have a color enlarger (I use the color head for VC B&W
printing) but no color processor, chemicals, etc. When I inquired about what
to get from my local camera shop, they told me that they would be glad to sell
me the stuff, but that most amatures these days are doing color digitally, and
that I might be better off buying a scanner and a HP color printer instead. I
would appreciate any advice from members of the group about whether we should
buy the equipment to do color in the darkroom, or should hop on the digital
bandwagon. Thanks in advance.
Lee Goodwin
Mr. Muckle
upper end of the market there is some kind of price war going on. What is
interesting is that the price of replacement cartridges equals the price of some
printers.
The advantages of digital - it's easy to set up, easy to adjust color balance and
easy to experiment. Some of the stuff (the cover of the most recent Shutterbug) is
just tasteless. But then again, I'm not a particular fan of Jackson Pollock or Cy
Twombly. The disadvantages to digital printing that I have found are time and
permanence.
I don't think that the price of inks are going to come down a lot. Both HP and
Lexmark have stated that they intend to have the consummable part of the business
drive their profitability.
With wet chemistry you can pull a sample print in less than two minutes, give it a
quick wash, squeegee and use a hair dryer to tell whether you've got a final
product. If you've got to make a dozen prints you're not going to wait 30 minutes
for the ink-jet print to pop them out. Papers like Fuji Crystal are wonderful to
use.
There's no reason not to do both!
Jim Mowreader
lm...@aol.com (LMG50) wrote:
> My daughter just learned about color processing in school, and wants to be
> able to do it at home. We have a color enlarger (I use the color head for
> VC B&W printing) but no color processor, chemicals, etc. When I inquired
> about what to get from my local camera shop, they told me that they would
> be glad to sell me the stuff, but that most amatures these days are doing
> color digitally, and that I might be better off buying a scanner and a HP
> color printer instead.
> I would appreciate any advice from members of the group about whether we
> should buy the equipment to do color in the darkroom, or should hop on the
> digital bandwagon. Thanks in advance.
I am a professional Photoshop user (I run a drum scanner for a
commercial printer), so please take my comments in this context.
Buy the equipment to do color in the darkroom. You've already got one
of the most expensive parts--the color enlarger. Add to that some
sort of print processor, which can range from a cheap used print drum
that you roll back and forth in the sink to a $10,000-plus roller
transport processor (which I wouldn't buy until you decided that you
really, really liked to print color), maybe a color analyzer once you
can recognize good color by eye, a refrigerator to store the paper
in, and you're set for equipment.
Chemicals and paper? A RA-4 chemistry kit and a package of 8x10 RA-4
paper will do it for starters.
These are the advantages of doing your color the old-fashioned way:
1. It's faster to do it the darkroom way, even if you have a 450MHz
Power Mac G3 like I do. Especially if you need more than one copy.
2. Once you're set up, it's cheaper. I bought a set of black and
color cartridges for my inkjet printer; they cost $60, and you can't
get very many prints out of them.
2a. Getting set up for darkroom color is even cheaper than setting up
for digital color. Adobe Photoshop costs over $500, a decent scanner
is a couple hundred to a couple hundred thousand (beware the $50
scanner; this will not do justice to your work), a printer is a few
hundred if you get a cheap one or a few thousand if you get a decent
one, and a Mac is at least $1200. As Cartman would say, Windows
pisses me off.
3. Adobe's not going to move around all the controls on your
enlarger, timer and color analyzer like they did with all the
controls in Photoshop.
4. You don't have to upgrade your whole enlarger every year or two to
remain current; not so with computer stuff.
5. I don't remember the last time my enlarger crashed and deleted the
picture I was working on, or all of the filters, the bulb, or the
lens. And have you ever heard of an enlarger virus?
6. The quality of the final work is a whole lot better. We have a
Scitex Iris inkjet printer at work, and we paid more money for it
than I make in two years. It is an excellent printer and it produces
excellent images, but IMO a cheap one-dollar reprint from Wal-Mart
looks better than the best result from the $62,000 Iris--and yes, the
Iris is calibrated. And a print from my Iris looks far, far better
than a print from your basic HP or Epson.
These are some of the disadvantages:
1. It takes a few minutes to realize you screwed up on an enlarger.
And there are just so many ways to screw up!
2. Color chemistry has a really nasty smell to it.
3. Temperature is critical in color processing.
4. Getting rid of used chemistry is not easy, though your local
landfill may have a "household hazardous waste collection" day (ours
does once a month) that you can use to get rid of it. And as long as
you don't show up with a barrel of expended chemistry, you should be
fine. (If you do get up a barrel of this stuff, call Safety-Kleen;
for a price they will be more than happy to come by your house and
haul off anything you want them to, as long as it's chemical.)
For me, it's Photoshop at work, darkroom at home. I don't even have
Photoshop at home, and I don't want it here.
--
--jmowreader
Tom Raymondson
(room temp) in trays. All you need is the chems (Beseler has a 1 litre kit for
under $20) and the paper (try Kodak Supra II - it costs about the same as b&w).
LMG50 wrote:
> My daughter just learned about color processing in school, and wants to be able
> to do it at home. We have a color enlarger (I use the color head for VC B&W
> printing) but no color processor, chemicals, etc. When I inquired about what
> to get from my local camera shop, they told me that they would be glad to sell
> me the stuff, but that most amatures these days are doing color digitally, and
> that I might be better off buying a scanner and a HP color printer instead. I
> would appreciate any advice from members of the group about whether we should
> buy the equipment to do color in the darkroom, or should hop on the digital
> bandwagon. Thanks in advance.
>
> Lee Goodwin
SPECTRUM
Just get a Nova Tri-Mate or Quad slot processor. It's really
nothing more than a set of vertical trays with a water jacket but I
use the 12X16 Quad every day in my professional photographer capacity.
I can proof a roll of 10 6X7 to 8X10 in about an hour . I've left it
running for months on end. It has a small footprint. Chemicals last a
very long time .
On the downside it's slightly expensive for the enthusiast.
$700 for the 12X16 model I believe. Also it's a _manual_ dip-&-dunk
processor so everything has to be done in the dark.
Also get the best color enlarging meter you can afford.
Probably over $1000 for a good one.
As far as digital, why bother ? To do it well takes longer and
more expensive equipment. Time and money. If I had enough of both to
go digital, I don't think I'd be a photographer !
Essentially I feel that digital is the modern equivalent to
the Polaroid. Good for what it is but not very good at all when
compared to traditional processes.
Regards,
John S. Douglas Photographer, webmaster & darkroom wizard !
Fine wedding and portrait photography Black & White our specialty.
Spectrum Photographic Inc. http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Bringing the fine art of photography to your wedding !
Piotto, Bryan (EXCHANGE:CAR:9P51)
>
> I am a professional Photoshop user (I run a drum scanner for a
> commercial printer), so please take my comments in this context.
> <snip>
>
> For me, it's Photoshop at work, darkroom at home. I don't even have
> Photoshop at home, and I don't want it here.
> --
Finally a photographer who tells it like it is, rather than creating flimsy
arguements to justify the HUGE investment in equipment that's required for doing
'quality' digital work.
Go Cibachrome or go home !
Bryan.
Roger Cole
[well, Macs piss me off more than Windows ever will, but that is a
techno-geek bias against things that hide the guts from me. I feel the
same way about automatic transmissions.]
>4. Getting rid of used chemistry is not easy, though your local
>landfill may have a "household hazardous waste collection" day (ours
>does once a month) that you can use to get rid of it. And as long as
>you don't show up with a barrel of expended chemistry, you should be
>fine. (If you do get up a barrel of this stuff, call Safety-Kleen;
>for a price they will be more than happy to come by your house and
>haul off anything you want them to, as long as it's chemical.)
In most places, you can safely and legally dump hobbiest quantities of
normal color chemistry down the drain. All the usual "check local
regulations.." and so on of course. But the chem makers have really
gone to great lengths to make the stuff a lot nicer than it used to
be. This, BTW, is why commercial bleachs are so expensive. The EPA
likes EDTA a lot more than pot. ferricyanide in commercial quantities.
In hobbiest quantities, you probably need not worry about p.f. either.
Roger Cole
>
>For me, it's Photoshop at work, darkroom at home. I don't even have
>Photoshop at home, and I don't want it here.
>--
>
>--jmowreader
Michiel Fierst van Wijnandsbergen
<ray...@pacific.net> wrote:
>You're in luck - you don't need any additional equipment. You can do RA-4 AT
>(room temp) in trays. All you need is the chems (Beseler has a 1 litre kit for
>under $20) and the paper (try Kodak Supra II - it costs about the same as b&w).
I would like to second this. Do not buy a drum and rollar system,
because it is spoiling to good fun. Use trays of a slot processor
instead. Trays are great for room temperature processing, but produce
fumes. A slot processor is better for the standard temperature and
produces less fumes, but it is more expensive.
I have a very clear opinion about digital:
1) the quality is far less than chemical, unless you spend a bunch of
dollars that is not considered to be a hobby anymore...
2) you learn the trade by labor in the chemical darkroom (the best
digital workers started out in the conventional darkroom...)
3) chemical is much more rewarding (but this is personal), because not
everybody can do it.
Michiel
Uri Blumenthal
> >4. Getting rid of used chemistry is not easy, though your local
>
> In most places, you can safely and legally dump hobbyist
> quantities of normal color chemistry down the drain....
Ah, but if your drain goes to your own septic tank, you might
think twice before dumping the chemicals (:-).
--
Regards,
Uri
-=-=-==-=-=-
<Disclaimer>
Mike Gaston
were going to spend $700 for color processing equipment, I’d buy a used
rollor transport off of ebay. Also, I and many others think that a color
analyzer is just a waste of money.
In article <377760c...@news.cybercomm.net>,
spec...@spectrumphoto.com says...
Manny Bhuta
I use Fujimoto CP31 roller transport processor and no longer
use my Nova Clubmate. However, I have say that for occasional
use the Nova is better.
I have read a few posts on this NG that a color analyzer is not a
useful tool. I have over time owned Beseler PM2A(L?), Colorstar,
Colorstar 3000, Colorline 5000 and Colorline 5100. I was never
able get consistent results with the PM2A. While the Colorstar
was better, it was more trouble than it was worth. The Colorstar
3000 and the Colorline on the other hand are excellent. I can
get perfect color balance and exposure on the first try most of
the time regardless of the film and processing. I can not do
this with my notes. The key is to program channels for a few
color targets, such as gray, integrated, flesh, sky etc. This is
necessary only one time unless you change chemistry.
Manny Bhuta
Randolph, NJ USA
________
Mike Gaston <mi...@cooke.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.11f139e0...@news.cooke.net...
> I don't mean to contradict one of the true gurus of this group but if I
> were going to spend $700 for color processing equipment, I'd buy a used
> rollor transport off of ebay. Also, I and many others think that a color
> analyzer is just a waste of money.
<< snip>>
Mike Gaston
experiences. I’m not attempting to say that my way is the way, only that
it’s a way. The best way for me.
My problem with an analyzer is, that unless you include a gray card
reference in your photo, the colors that you are attempting to reproduce
will never be exactly the same as the color that you used to calibrate
your analyzer. If you use a certain spot on person A’s skin as your
reference, then on the next print, when you have to use another area of
skin to analyze, the analyzer will choose a slightly different color
balance because it is trying to make that spot exactly the same color as
the other spot. Then, if you try to color balance person B’ skin using
that same program it makes that spot match the reference spot exactly.
If that spot doesn’t match the reference spot in real life, which it
normally will not, it tends to, rather than make person B’s skin the same
color overall as person A’s, make person B’s skin have some undesirable
cast.
I have a Colorstar 2000. Certainly not the most advanced analyzer
available, but if I program it to a certain color it will reproduce that
color. However, since my picture is not likely to contain exactly that
color, it rarely achieves the goal of color balancing my prints. I don’t
see what more an analyzer can do. For me, my system of rigid controls
and records works much better.
Also, I do imagine that if I were printing film that other people had
shot or developed that I would find a analyzer very handy.
Mike Gaston
In article <93162979...@news.remarQ.com>, man...@webspan.net
says...