Color Printing Hassles?
?
procedural hassles of printing in color? I likely would let the labs
continue to process my film and print me an index sheet (about $4 per 36
roll of print film)
I know total darkens is required and in my case an analyzer is likely needed
to get my filtration correct. But that is about as much as I think I know.
Right now, I use a Kodak Exposure sheet to get exposure from one or two
prints on a roll. Then it is generally only processing time for my test
prints. My darkroom (a converted bathroom) is a comfortable size for B&W up
to 11X14 and I suspect adding color will make it less comfortable.
I have read it can take upwards of an hour to get a color print.
For most color shots, Ritz is good and the price ($8) seems fair. However,
if I have something that the machine can't do automatically, then I go to
the "real" lab in town (Baltimore) and the cost can hit $25. The staff
there are very good at interpreting what I want; but the cost at both places
makes me very judicious (I agree this is a good thing). But, like most who
take photography half way seriously, I am a control freak and have some
(hopefully after getting more info, none) desire to do my own color
enlargements.
Thanks for your thoughts.
--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
Nick Zentena
> Aside from equipment (color head, analyzer, processing kit), what are the
> procedural hassles of printing in color? I likely would let the labs
> continue to process my film and print me an index sheet (about $4 per 36
> roll of print film)
>
> I know total darkens is required and in my case an analyzer is likely needed
> to get my filtration correct. But that is about as much as I think I know.
>
> Right now, I use a Kodak Exposure sheet to get exposure from one or two
> prints on a roll. Then it is generally only processing time for my test
> prints. My darkroom (a converted bathroom) is a comfortable size for B&W up
> to 11X14 and I suspect adding color will make it less comfortable.
It takes me less room to do colour then B&W. B&W means trays spread out.
Colour for me means a drum in a water bath. My water bath is a 50 quart
picnic cooler.
>
> I have read it can take upwards of an hour to get a color print.
The only time I had anything like this happen was my first print. Turned
out I had taken the photo under tungsten lighting and trying to get it right
was a pain. The others ones I've done are relatively painless and quick.
Little more then figure out the exposure. Make the first test print. Adjust
if needed. I guess a good analyzer would make it even quicker but mine isn't
working right. My setup time can be longer then B&W since I need to get the
water bath and chemicals up in temp. OTOH my cleanup time is much shorter.
Nick
John
>Aside from equipment (color head, analyzer, processing kit), what are the
>procedural hassles of printing in color? I likely would let the labs
>continue to process my film and print me an index sheet (about $4 per 36
>roll of print film)
Personally I would just have them develop the film and then
make your own contact sheets. If I'm going to have a lab proof a set
of negatives it's for display to the client.
>I know total darkens is required and in my case an analyzer is likely needed
>to get my filtration correct. But that is about as much as I think I know.
Analyzers are good for very precise work but are not really
necessary for enlarging. Personally I found color (RA-4) printing to
be very simple and I can produce a finished print in about 20 minutes
dry-to-dry.
>Right now, I use a Kodak Exposure sheet to get exposure from one or two
>prints on a roll. Then it is generally only processing time for my test
>prints. My darkroom (a converted bathroom) is a comfortable size for B&W up
>to 11X14 and I suspect adding color will make it less comfortable.
For up to 11X14, consider using the Nova dip-and-dunk
processors. They persist with their numerous flaws but they are about
the best thing going. I've had mine since '93~'94 and have had little
difficulty with it.
>I have read it can take upwards of an hour to get a color print.
Sure. It really depends on the negative and the lab processing
the film. And of course on the skill of the printer.
>For most color shots, Ritz is good and the price ($8) seems fair.
It depends on how valuable the film is to you. For commercial
work I will only use a pro lab. For personal work I will use anyone
that has a high volume and appears to have a clean operation. C-41 is
essentially standardized though chemicals will vary from lab to lab.
Of course be forewarned that most minilabs use film to clean
their floors.
>However if I have something that the machine can't do automatically, then I go to
>the "real" lab in town (Baltimore) and the cost can hit $25. The staff
>there are very good at interpreting what I want; but the cost at both places
>makes me very judicious (I agree this is a good thing). But, like most who
>take photography half way seriously, I am a control freak and have some
>(hopefully after getting more info, none) desire to do my own color
>enlargements.
This is exactly what I do. I send any films of significant
value to CPQ Colorchrome (http://www.cpq.net/) in Cleveland,
Tennessee. IMO they are one great lab and have never let me down.
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
David Starr
<zen...@hophead.dyndns.org> wrote:
> It takes me less room to do colour then B&W. B&W means trays spread out.
>Colour for me means a drum in a water bath. My water bath is a 50 quart
>picnic cooler.
>
>
>>
>> I have read it can take upwards of an hour to get a color print.
>
>
> The only time I had anything like this happen was my first print. Turned
>out I had taken the photo under tungsten lighting and trying to get it right
>was a pain. The others ones I've done are relatively painless and quick.
>Little more then figure out the exposure. Make the first test print. Adjust
>if needed. I guess a good analyzer would make it even quicker but mine isn't
>working right. My setup time can be longer then B&W since I need to get the
>water bath and chemicals up in temp. OTOH my cleanup time is much shorter.
I recently started printing color again after a long layoff - like
since the RC-74 paper days.
I'm using Tetenal room temperature chemistry in trays and Fuji Crystal
Archive paper. It took 5 prints to get the color balance right
initially, and now usually only takes 1 or 2 test prints to get what I
want. I use Kodak viewing filters & have no trouble at all.
I used to use drums, but spent a lot of time cleaning and drying them
between prints. Trays & room temperature are great. My time per
print is about the same as B&W.
One pleasant surprise was that my filter settings are the same for
studio strobe, portable flash on location, and natural light outdoors
using different Portra films. This is with 160 and 400 VC & NC films.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Professional Shop Rat: 14,267 days in a GM plant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nick Zentena
>
> I used to use drums, but spent a lot of time cleaning and drying them
> between prints. Trays & room temperature are great. My time per
> print is about the same as B&W.
Something I've never understood. If you wash in the drum shouldn't the
drum be clean when the print is?
Nick
?
thoughtful.
I think I will head in the direction of limited color printing when I get
some PayPal bucks again. I think I could tolerate spending an hour to get
the filtration in the ballpark as long as it does not have to be done for
every negative. Sounds like an analyzer may be an important timesaver; but,
that if I am mainly making 8 X 10 proofs to see if there is any gold in
the shot that I may want to send to the lab; maybe the analyzer is more
luxury than necessity. At least I would have more control than asking Ritz
for reprints from the index sheet.
I am not sure I even see me getting much more than an "entry" level color
enlarger (other than making sure it has 3 color wheels and is rigid).
My only complaint about getting older is that you start to realize there
simply is not enough time left to become competent in all the things that
grab your interest; and that you really do have to choose where you spend
your time.
Norman Worth
and exposure correct for a typical negative. That drives eveyone up the
wall. Once the primary exposure and filtration for you film, paper, and
processing conditions is determined, other negatives will differ only
sightly, if at all.
"?" <?@???.???> wrote in message news:el7Tb.2$8K4....@news.abs.net...
Nick Zentena
> I think I will head in the direction of limited color printing when I get
> some PayPal bucks again. I think I could tolerate spending an hour to get
> the filtration in the ballpark as long as it does not have to be done for
> every negative. Sounds like an analyzer may be an important timesaver; but,
Once you get more or less dialed in for a film and paper I'm not sure you'll
need much in the way of changes for filtration. I found working from the
same film that all I had to do was adjust exposure for each negative. Colour
seems a lot simpler then what I had intially thought. At least when trying
to make prints better then the local consumer lab.
>
> I am not sure I even see me getting much more than an "entry" level color
> enlarger (other than making sure it has 3 color wheels and is rigid).
With today's market high quality enlargers don't cost must more then the
most basic. You could upgrade your enlarger and sell the one you're using
for B&W.
Nick
David Starr
I had a lot of trouble with colored streaks on the prints, possibly
blix contamination. The only way I could avoid it was to clean the
drum thoroughly and dry it completely between prints.
David Starr
<nwo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The biggest hassle is making your first good print - getting the filtration
>and exposure correct for a typical negative. That drives eveyone up the
>wall. Once the primary exposure and filtration for you film, paper, and
>processing conditions is determined, other negatives will differ only
>sightly, if at all.
That's the amazing part for me. In my RC-37 & 74 days, color balance
changed depending on lighting source and from roll to roll. In the
past 2 weeks, heres what i printed and the filtration I used.......
Portra 160VC - studio strobe - 35M 75Y
Portra 400NC - portable flash - 35M 75Y
Portra 400 VC - overcast outdoors - 30M 70Y
Today I was amazed when I printed these......
VPS (shot in 1980) - sunny outdoors - 35M 75Y
Kodacolor 100 (shot in 1985) - sunny outdoors - 35M 75Y
The variety of film & light sources using the same filtration really
got my attention.
John
>My only complaint about getting older is that you start to realize there
>simply is not enough time left to become competent in all the things that
>grab your interest; and that you really do have to choose where you spend
>your time.
On the other hand you are already accomplished at so many
things.
John
>I am not sure I even see me getting much more than an "entry" level color
>enlarger (other than making sure it has 3 color wheels and is rigid).
As most on this group are aware, I'm not very keen on entry
level anything. Here are my recommendations for a decent color
enlarger.
Durst - M305 , M605 , 805 , L1000 , L1200
Omega - D5 , 670MXL , C76
Saunders - D6700
Most of the Rollei, Nikkor , Minolta , ESECO and some Phillips
and Vivtar equipment is actually quite good. Just make sure that you
get a complete package as negative carriers and lensboards are
sometimes hard to find.
John
>"?" <?@???.???> wrote:
>
>>what are the procedural hassles of printing in color?
>
>Color chemicals can be quite nasty. Be sure that you have more ventillation
>in your bathroom than you think you'll need. Much more nasty than those you
>run across when doing normal B&W.
To a minor degree. Remember that most of the color developers
are simply variations on the old fine grain developing agent
paraphenyline diamine. I do recommend the Nova for minimizing the
exposure to the air as well. Putting my hands in trays of PPD and
hydroxide (used in RA-4AT) is just not going to happen.
John
<nwo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The biggest hassle is making your first good print - getting the filtration
>and exposure correct for a typical negative. That drives eveyone up the
>wall. Once the primary exposure and filtration for you film, paper, and
>processing conditions is determined, other negatives will differ only
>sightly, if at all.
I can't entirely agree. Oh the first prints can certainly be a
challenge but for me the biggest challenge was in the minute changes
from batch to batch in the films, paper and the processing. If one is
starting a project which needs color consistency throughout then I
suggest making the first 5 prints and allowing them to dry and be
viewed outside the darkroom prior to continuing the project. Nothing
like printing out 40~80 prints and finding that they are needed -5cc
magenta. Experience. A really nasty teacher.
John
<dave...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>That's the amazing part for me. In my RC-37 & 74 days, color balance
>changed depending on lighting source and from roll to roll. In the
>past 2 weeks, heres what i printed and the filtration I used.......
>
One point worth addressing is the need for stable electricity.
When I ran a mini-lab, we had to recalibrate the printer throughout
the course of the day to allow for voltage drifts. It never got so bad
that it was obvious but then we didn't let it.
?
"Experience. A really nasty teacher."
I can't agree more. But it is the most effective.
My daughter was selling some of her stuff at a flea market and a guy came
along that was known to most of us. He bought something that they had
agreed was worth $14. I watched him carefully as he cheated her out of a
couple dollars as another customer took her attention.
After that second customer left, I asked her how much she got for the
necklace; she said $14. I told her to count her cash: $12. I then
explained to her what had happened. She looked at me with amazed anger (the
kind of look that usually takes a couple years of marriage for a woman to
master) and asked why I had not told her.
My response: "Because you would have learned nothing".
--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
"John" <use...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:777r10pii3c67jujj...@4ax.com...
?
I agree with you. I tell people who want to improve/learn watchmaking as a
vocation that should buy only the best and most complete stuff.
I have the little Omega B22 which serves me well. I refer to it as *entry
level* only because it is about as basic as you can get. Not even a
distance scale (I super glued a key chain sized measuring tape to one of the
condenser brackets). Still, I don't think I could ever part with it. It
was from the days when manufacturer's said, "Ok, this should work; but,
let's make it a little more solid just to be sure" That extruded center
column is overkill by today's standards and the counterbalance system and
focus system still do their jobs. I guess I develop emotional attachments
to equipment that serves me well.
I will certainly have saved your recommendations for color enlargers. Your
list removes the guess work out for me. Thanks.
--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution
"John" <use...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:oo1r109krmfpnkbm7...@4ax.com...
Victor Falkteg
But do it right. Do NOT try these tubes, they gives you a lot of hassles.
Do not try to make 36 small prints from a 36 roll, let the lab do it.
Do NOT use a color analyser - use a exposure meter like in black and white.
I have a color analyser but use it only as an ordinary exposure meter.
Analysers are good for mass production with integrated meassurements and NOT
topp quality.
If you want no hassles, use just one kind of film or a films that are
identical from the point of printing ( for example the Kodak Portra films ).
So, get you a good enlarger with a color head.
An exposure meter and timer.
For developing I suggest a vertical slot tank like the Nova
(www.novadarkroom.com) with heating. You can get one for $100 - $200 at
eBay.
And, I forgot, do NOT use the low temperature kits that are on the market.
Use Kodak chemicals at the recomended temperature (most versions needs 35
degrees centigrade). The chemicals can be in the Nova tank for months (there
are special lids). You do not have to use new chemiclas, just regenerate.
You save mony and can always make prints with one hour delay (for heating of
the chemicals)
Start with making a perfect neutral grey copy from a NOT exposed film frame.
At the same time you calibrate the exposure measurement for a very light but
not white spot (as black and white work). On my Omega ProLab II Chromega
head this means 000-069-058 (but changing the bulb means you need some
adjustment of the filtration). A differnt paper batch can sometimes give
soem changies in the filteration. Sometimes.
This filtration will be ok for most prints as long as the light balance was
ok when you took the picture. Use correction filters when shooting, it gives
better results then filtering in the dark room.
I have this process running since a few years and it's consistent. I make 95
percent of the prints with the same filtration and the whites and greys are
perfectly white or gray. I mostly make 30 x 40 cm prints and all on the same
paper (Kodak Ultra Endura).
The cost for one 30 x 40 cm print (chemicals and paper) is average about
$2.00 - $3.00.
The quality is as professional labs manual prints or better. The time needed
is as usual black and white in the enlarger and 90 seconds for developing
and bleechfix. 1 - 3 minutes intense washing is enough. Drying takes 5
minutes or so if you use a hot air.
But please remember, the key to success is to use the same film, the same
chemicals, the same paper and regenerate the chemicals right all the time.
Are you the kind of person that likes to experiment with every possible film
on the market, then you are looking for hassles.
Feel fre to ask if you need more information about how to do it.
Regards
Victor
"?" <?@???.???> wrote in message news:el7Tb.2$8K4....@news.abs.net...