saga of learning color printing attempt #3 sorta long
Mark Blackwell
color balance is awful.
I built some drums using pvc drain pipe. There is no light tight opening so
when you pull the plug to change chemical it must be done in the dark. Just
unscrew the cap I glued on an into a milk jug with the side cut off it goes.
With the smallest one with a 3 inch opening at the top dumping the chemicals
in in total darkness was a piece of cake. Compared to the $40 I was quoted
for an 8x10 drum an the $70 for an 11x14, I built both for $20. It elimated
some scratches I was putting on the prints while trying to do it in trays
but didnt affect the greater problem of color balance.
A few details for those new to my trials.
Bessler Cadet 35 enlarger yea I want better an hopefully soon
Bessler color printing filter kit
Bessler RA 4 AT chemistry
Kodak supra paper
temps were mid 70s development time about 45 secs
The prints came out with what I would call a blueish tint same as before
tried as suggested added more yellow didnt really help
contacted bessler an asked about IR and they said it really wasnt a serious
issue.
read a website today that you should add filtration of the color of the tint
which makes since, but the site also says that if you need cyan you have a
big problem LOL
I have a Kodak color viewing filter kit but the color is so far off nothing
really seems to help.
Two questions 1 Is the color developer an blix one shot use in color?
Should this be a use it once an then dump or can it be reused? I do suspect
some sort of contamination. How much blix would it take to foul up the
developer? Would stop bath contamitation cause the same thing? That from
the trays is more likely.
Common sense tells me that if I follow the basic directions on the kits, I
should be close enough to color balance that the viewing kit should tell me
what i need. The add filter of the color of the tint makes common sense to
me. Is that common practice?
Finally did anyone else have this much trouble learning LOL Strange enough
developing the negs of a few rolls of C41 was a piece of cake compared to
this. Thanks for the help Mark
Fredfoto1
tech support in the industry to help you.
SayChoon Ng
filtration. You should not need to use Cyan filter - leave it at zero. If
all else fails, maybe you should try checking the enlarger lamp and voltage
level to the lamp.
The RA4 chemistry is reuseable. I use trays to process with a Kaiser 590
safe light. You can make one yourself using yellowish-green LEDs rated at
590 nanometer and adjusting the power with a variable resistor and
yellow-green filter or neutral filter. You should be able to see the trays
in the dim light.
I have good experience with Tetenal RA4 Mono chemistry, not fussy about temp
and is long lasting.
Fuji paper is more scratch resistant then Kodak Supra when wet.
Mark Blackwell wrote in message <7oqoe6$7bt$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
Paul Tauger
I, too, had a Bessler Cadet. I, too, tried using it for color printing
after decades of experience printing b&w. I, too, used Kodak color printing
filters. And, I, too, got prints that exhibited a bad, bluish tint.
I was unable to correct for the tint, regardless of the filtration.
One poster suggested using a heat-absorbing glass. This makes sense, as the
Cadet doesn't have one. My guess was that the Cadet's lamp is non-standard
and too warm. It's not, however, a chemistry problem. As soon as I
replaced the enlarged, I started producing good-quality, balanced color
prints, with no change in my darkroom technique, i.e. chemicals mixed the
same way, stored the same way, and the prints were drum-processed the same
way.
Heat-absorbing glass is a cheap solution. My solution (buying another
enlarger) was more drastic, but for a couple of hundred bucks I got a very
nice Omega B-22 with both the standard and dichroic head. It's a lot easier
to twiddle dials to correct color then to start inserting filters (which
have to be kept clean and relatively scratch free, etc.).
Hans Mosberg
1. you mentioned developing your own negs: are you sure they are OK? You
might want to ask a neighborhood minilab to borrow a reference neg
("Shirley").
2. While I respect your home-made drums, a lot can be said in favor of the
"real stuff": head over to e-bay and get some for a few $$.
3. start with 0/0/0 filtration: if the prints still look blue-green, you
have a problem! Beseler used to make a great kit to get to your first
filtration: a contraption roughly 3x4" in size with various tiny color and
gray filters that you would contact-print from your reference neg through a
diffusor: you pick your neutral-gray and you have your initial filtration
and exposure: this thing actually works (was designed for pos. process like
Ilfochrome, but works just as well for neg): try to find it!
4. I use the Beseler chem-kit and it works for me: in my 8x10 drum I need 2
oc. and I can reuse once (a better way would be to replace 50% with fresh
chem. every time.
5. as color neg. paper is _very_ light sensitive, you need short exp. times
or high f-stops: a precision timer is a necessity: again, head over to ebay.
6. Most everybody doesn't use a color analyzer: I find them very useful for
both B&W and color, and if only for light / density metering when you change
enlargement factors. Once again, at ebay you find very useful Beseler units
for a few $$.
Good luck!
Mark Blackwell <av8r...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7oqoe6$7bt$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
Hemi4268
The blueish tint that can't be corrected by filters means the developer is bad
or going bad. If the blue tint is in the white border then you have bleach fix
in the developer. Just one drop to one qt will do this. This is why it's
almost impossible to make prints in a drum with RA 4 chemistry.
Larry
Manny Bhuta
Mark Blackwell <av8r...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7oqoe6$7bt$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Well just finished attempt number 3 an well some improvements but still
the
> color balance is awful.
>
> I built some drums using pvc drain pipe. There is no light tight opening
so
> when you pull the plug to change chemical it must be done in the dark.
Just
> unscrew the cap I glued on an into a milk jug with the side cut off it
goes.
> With the smallest one with a 3 inch opening at the top dumping the
chemicals
> in in total darkness was a piece of cake. Compared to the $40 I was
quoted
> for an 8x10 drum an the $70 for an 11x14, I built both for $20. It
elimated
> some scratches I was putting on the prints while trying to do it in trays
> but didnt affect the greater problem of color balance.
The PVC pipe is much thicker than the walls of the drums made by
Jobo, Beseler, etc. This limits the heat transfer. But since you are
working with room temperature chemistry, this should not be a concern.
> A few details for those new to my trials.
>
> Bessler Cadet 35 enlarger yea I want better an hopefully soon
>
> Bessler color printing filter kit
>
> Bessler RA 4 AT chemistry
>
> Kodak supra paper
>
> temps were mid 70s development time about 45 secs
You should be able to make prints with good color balance using the
above.
> The prints came out with what I would call a blueish tint same as before
>
> tried as suggested added more yellow didnt really help
Remember that you are printing a color negative. This means that:
- adding yellow filtration will make the print bluer and reducing yellow
will make the print yellower. Yellow and blue are complementary
colors.
- adding magenta filtration will make the print greener and reducing
magenta filtration will make the print more megenta. Magenta and
green are complementary colors.
- adding both yellow and magenta will make the print more cyan and
reducing both yellow and magenta will make the print redder. Yellow
and magenta make red which is opposite of cyan.
If the print is blueish, you have to reduce yellow filtration and not add.
If the print has a cyan tint than you need to make it redder by reducing
both yellow and the magenta filtration.
> contacted bessler an asked about IR and they said it really wasnt a
serious
> issue.
> read a website today that you should add filtration of the color of the
tint
> which makes since, but the site also says that if you need cyan you have a
> big problem LOL
Adding cyan is the same as reducing yellow and magenta. So if the
print has a cyan tint just reduce yellow and magenta.
> I have a Kodak color viewing filter kit but the color is so far off
nothing
> really seems to help.
Could this be because you are increasing yellow filtration instead of
reducing it?
> Two questions 1 Is the color developer an blix one shot use in color?
> Should this be a use it once an then dump or can it be reused? I do
suspect
> some sort of contamination. How much blix would it take to foul up the
> developer? Would stop bath contamitation cause the same thing? That from
> the trays is more likely.
Any contamination of developer is a problem. I suggest that while
you are learning, you use the chemicals as one shot. While this does
not use all of the capacity of the chemicals, it eliminates two variables -
contamination and reduced strength of the chemicals as it is used.
After you have mastered color balance, you can get in to replenishment
and thus reuse chemicals with very consistent results.
> Common sense tells me that if I follow the basic directions on the kits, I
> should be close enough to color balance that the viewing kit should tell
me
> what i need. The add filter of the color of the tint makes common sense
to
> me. Is that common practice?
Common sense is usually right. But IMHO it is not that easy to judge
color. After practice you will be much better at judging color with the
Kodak's viewing filters. But until then it is a learning process.
> Finally did anyone else have this much trouble learning LOL Strange
enough
> developing the negs of a few rolls of C41 was a piece of cake compared to
> this. Thanks for the help Mark
I started working in color around 1965 using Ektaprint C process. It had
eight steps including three washes and took 31 minutes plus drying time
to make a single print. Just imagine spending the whole night in a tiny
bathroom converted to a darkroom and ending up with may be four
prints all of them off color.
Glenn Stewart (Arizona)
> Hi
> Larry
Larry,
In the darkroom, cleanliness IS godliness.
I've made hundreds of RA-4 prints in drums and have never had a cross
contamination problem. I split the recommended wash cycles, thus
diluting the chemistry with the first half of the wash, then removing
the remainder of the greatly diluted first half wash with the second
half.
Drum processing won't cause developer contamination by the bleach,
anyway, because the bleach step occurs after the developer step.
All parts of the drum must be thoroughly rinsed in running water and
thoroughly dried between prints. This is the reality (and to some
people, the pain in the a..) of drum printing. Since I'm not in a big
hurry, and since I take care to keep my equipment clean I don't have any
problems. There's no need to condemn a reliable processing method when
the real culprit is sloppy technique.
Best regards,
Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
UNIX: It's not just 'User-Unfriendly', it's 'Proactively User-Hostile'!
Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an
undeniable truth which is contrary to that person's beliefs.
Manual cameras, Luna-Pro's and stick shifts.
Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY:
gste...@inficad.com E-mail responses to my Intel address will be
cheerfully ignored (Intel policy).
The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.
TImothy L. Shumaker
got the hang of printing.
You did not state how you processed the paper, but if you are not using a
pre wet, this will leave an overall blue tint. The other posters are
correct in saying that just one drop of bleach will severely effect the
developer. I would not recommend reusing the chemicals. If you don't reuse
them, you can skip the stop bath step.
One thing that is definitely true is that you must wash the drum clean after
each print to avoid blix from being carried over to the next print. If you
do get carry over, you will get a very light blue tint, but it will be
streaks not necessarily an over all blue cast.
Don't get discouraged, I wasted almost 10 liters and 200 sheets of paper
getting the process down reasonably well.
Hope this helps.
Tim
Mark Blackwell <av8r...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7oqoe6$7bt$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Well just finished attempt number 3 an well some improvements but still
the
> color balance is awful.
>
> I built some drums using pvc drain pipe. There is no light tight opening
so
> when you pull the plug to change chemical it must be done in the dark.
Just
> unscrew the cap I glued on an into a milk jug with the side cut off it
goes.
> With the smallest one with a 3 inch opening at the top dumping the
chemicals
> in in total darkness was a piece of cake. Compared to the $40 I was
quoted
> for an 8x10 drum an the $70 for an 11x14, I built both for $20. It
elimated
> some scratches I was putting on the prints while trying to do it in trays
> but didnt affect the greater problem of color balance.
>
> A few details for those new to my trials.
>
> Bessler Cadet 35 enlarger yea I want better an hopefully soon
>
> Bessler color printing filter kit
>
> Bessler RA 4 AT chemistry
>
> Kodak supra paper
>
> temps were mid 70s development time about 45 secs
>
> The prints came out with what I would call a blueish tint same as before
>
> tried as suggested added more yellow didnt really help
> contacted bessler an asked about IR and they said it really wasnt a
serious
> issue.
> read a website today that you should add filtration of the color of the
tint
> which makes since, but the site also says that if you need cyan you have a
> big problem LOL
> I have a Kodak color viewing filter kit but the color is so far off
nothing
> really seems to help.
>
> Two questions 1 Is the color developer an blix one shot use in color?
> Should this be a use it once an then dump or can it be reused? I do
suspect
> some sort of contamination. How much blix would it take to foul up the
> developer? Would stop bath contamitation cause the same thing? That from
> the trays is more likely.
>
> Common sense tells me that if I follow the basic directions on the kits, I
> should be close enough to color balance that the viewing kit should tell
me
> what i need. The add filter of the color of the tint makes common sense
to
> me. Is that common practice?
>
Manny Bhuta
printing color. Once you get it, it is a lot easier. However,
I never prewet my prints and do not have the problem of
blue tint in my prints. Just last night I processed a little over
100 8x10s and none of them show blue tint. IMHO Mark's
problem is related to either contamination or filtration.
--
Manny Bhuta
Randolph, NJ USA
________
TImothy L. Shumaker <cob...@mics.net> wrote in message
news:93445875...@brain.mics.net...
> This sounds like some of the problems I had with my JOBO processor till I
> got the hang of printing.
> You did not state how you processed the paper, but if you are not using a
> pre wet, this will leave an overall blue tint
<<snip>>
William Laut
I, too, use a Jobo rotary processor (the CPP-2) and have never had any
problems whatsoever doing color negs or prints in it. If anything, the
quality of my work went up, not down, and in spite of Larry's earlier
assertion (of bleach contaminating the developer in a drum), I've not lost
a single print due to carryover. In fact, when running RA-4 I've often
done nothing more than simply dry the drum without first thoroughly
rinsing it and have never had any contamination. (Granted, though, if I
were doing *serious* work, I'd disassemble and rinse out the drum between
prints.)
The hardest (and most expensive) part of learning to print good color is
establishing the initial filtration in your enlarger. This is something
you will have to do for each combination of paper, negative emulsion type,
and lighting condition. Keep a notebook and once you finally nail the
right combination, record in your notebook the correct filtration,
exposure time, and f/stop to correctly print a full-frame 8x10
enlargement. This will go a *long* way from saving you future grief and
expense.
I also concur with both Tim and Manny's advice that, for now, you should
only use the chemicals as "one-shot." I realize how expensive the
pre-packaged kits are, but as you reuse them you will encounter slight but
increasing shifts in D-max and color balance with each reuse. This will
only increase your frustration and expense.
Once you finally obtain that "perfect print," then you can try reusing the
chemicals, reprinting the same print again and again, each time noting how
far the colors shift and the D-max lightens. Use your Kodak Viewing
Filters to gauge how far the colors have shifted and note that in your
notebook as well. After awhile you can then anticipate how much to
correct for partially-used chemistry.
Finally, depending on how much color printing you are planning to do, you
can economize by either purchasing your kits in large (125-litre) sizes,
or by buying the bulk chemicals and a scale and mixing it yourself. I
myself prepare my RA-4 from bulk, because while I enjoy puttering around
with color printing I don't do that much and being a miserly scrooge I
cannot deal with watching the developer oxidize while I try to find negs
worth the cost of the chemistry to print. When prepared from bulk, my
current chemistry cost is around $2.00/litre, plus I can mix up as much as
I need, when I need it, and since most of the component chemicals are dry,
they will last far, far longer than a prepackaged concentrate ever will.
Accordingly, and for anyone else who is interested, here's a simple RA-4
formula. The developer is based upon one that Bill Cox gave me, and the
Blix was reverse-engineered from a Besseler RA4-AT kit and then diluted
down for economical one-shot processing (which I'm currently also doing to
the developer). I would also like to express my appreciation to Ron
Spiers for all the advice and tips he has given me while I've been working
on this stuff.
I use this formula with Fuji Super FA-5 paper and have gotten excellent
results. Use with other paper, or in trays or roller machines, YMMV:
RA-4 DEVELOPER -
Water (Room Temp) 750.0ml
Triethanolamine 6.0ml
Sodium Sulfite, Anh. 1.0g
CD-3 5.0g
Potassium Carbonate, Anh. 40.0g
Sodium Chloride 0.5g
Tinopal SFP 0.5g (Optional)
Water to make 1.0L
RA-4 STOP BATH -
Glacial Acetic Acid 15.0ml
Water to make 1.0L
RA-4 BLIX -
Water (Room Temp) 750.0ml
Ammonium Thiosulfate, 60% 80.0ml
Ferric Ammonium EDTA 10.0g
Water to make 1.0L
RA-4 PROCESS SCHEDULE (at 35C)
Water Prerinse 0:30
Developer 1:00
Stop Bath 0:30
Rinse 0:30
Blix 2:00
Wash 1:30 (3x 0:30)
MISC NOTES -
1) The developer could probably be used in trays or roller machines as
is, but I have no idea how long it would last.
2) The amount of CD-3 could almost surely be reduced, perhaps by
having a longer development time, thereby further reducing the
formula's cost.
3) When measuring the Triethanolamine (TEA), I use an eyedropper-like
pipette from Potographer's Formulary. It measure out in 1.5ml
quantities, and then I rinse out the pipette into the solution.
N.B.: TEA is rather alkaline (pH around 10.4), and will cause burns
if it touches your skin. Handle with care.
4) The amount of Sodium Sulfite and Sodium Chloride in this formula are
small, but can have a significant impact if not correctly weighed.
Either use a Torsion Balance (who's accuracy is down to +/- 0.001g)
or prepare a percentage solution of the Sulfite and Chloride.
5) I have noted the use of an optical brightening agent as "optional"
in the developer. I have compared prints side-by-side between
this formula without the Tinopal and a Besseler kit (that has a
whitener in it), and IMO the differences are neglible, at least on
Fuji paper. Again, for other papers, YMMV.
6) There is not much TEA or Sulfite in this developer. I've found that
increasing both will tend to decrease the D-max. Therefore, as
regards to shelf life, I've not tested this formula beyond about
48 hours (since it's usually gone by then :-), but I wouldn't expect
it be viable more than a few days, a week at most. But, then again,
if you're mixing from raw chemicals that shouldn't be an issue. :-)
Hope this helps,
Bill
TImothy L. Shumaker (cob...@mics.net) wrote:
: This sounds like some of the problems I had with my JOBO processor till I
: got the hang of printing.
: You did not state how you processed the paper, but if you are not using a
: pre wet, this will leave an overall blue tint. The other posters are
: >
: >
:
:
Bruce McLaughlin
here goes.
Although I haven't used the Bessler chemistry (I use Kodak) I strongly
suspect that processing for 45 seconds at 70 degrees may be a
significant part of your problem. The RA-4 process is intended to run
at 95 degrees for 45 seconds. So you may be significantly
under-developing (and under bleaching and fixing). I know that some of
the other chemistries will run at 70 degrees but I suspect the
processing times are correspondingly longer. So, I would first double
check to be sure that Bessler really says 45 seconds at 70 degrees
rather than at 95 or so degrees.
Contamination of the developer by the blix is very serious in RA-4. It
takes only a drop or so for irreparable damage. The short answer is,
don't allow it. If it happens, through the developer out and start
over.
Chemistry used in any kind of drum process (manufactured or homemade) is
pretty maxed out after one use. The quantities used for each print are
small enough that they usually are used to exhaustion or close to that
for each print. However, the advantage of drum processing is that the
quantities used are small enough that you can afford to use them one
shot. Do so. Another problem with rotary processing, aside from the
chemical capacity situation already mentioned, is that a lot of air gets
mixed into the chemistry during rotation. While that is not so much a
problem with the blix, it is the kiss of death for the developer. And a
final reason for one shot use is that, particularly at your stage, you
must eliminate as many variables as you can from the process. It's
tough enough learning about filtration and exposure without wondering if
your bad results may be caused by suspect chemistry. At least you can
eliminate that possibility very easily by using the chemistry as a one
shot deal.
In neg-positive printing, you eliminate a color cast my adding
filtration of the same color. (As I'm sure you know, you use only
magenta and yellow filters - - never cyan which would only add neutral
density). But don't go over board until you learn a bit more. If the
print is, say VERY yellow, try adding 30 cc of yellow and see what
happens. You may need to add a bit more on the second print. But be
careful about going past the proper amount, that is, going from an
overly yellow color cast to another cast because you added more
filtration than was needed. It's better to "walk up" to the correct
color balance in reasonably sized steps than trying to do it all at once
by brute force.
I also assume you have a chart explaining about subtractive filtration.
That is, you don't always add filtration to add a color to the printing
pack. Depending on the color cast your trying to eliminate, you may do
it by subtracting yellow and magenta (or both) in varying proportions.
If you don't have a chart that clearly explains the process, get one.
The Kodak Color Print filters come in a book which very well explains
this and I'm sure there are many other sources for such info as well.
Also, before you even worry about correcting the color, you should have
the proper print exposure. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to
judge appropriate corrective filtration if your print is far from the
proper density in the first place.
I also suggest you include a gray card in some of your images for a
while, or even shoot an extra frame of the gray card alone under the
same light as the scene you are shooting. Then work to print a neutral
gray image of the gray card. Once you get it, note the filtration
used. It should be very close to being correct for the actual scene
negative.
And finally, judge print color balance and exposure only after you dry
the print. Use a hair dryer to dry it. Look at the test print under
approximately the same light as you will use to view the completed
print. And, perhaps hardest of all for some new printers is the ability
to differentiate the colors -- is it cyan or really blue -- red or
really magenta. If the print is fairly close to proper balance those
questions can become vexing until you gain experience. Prints that are
far off in color are easier to judge. Prints that are close to right
can be a bear.
I recommend getting a set of Kodak Color Print viewing filters but do so
with a couple of reservations. They will help you gain a sense of the
difference between cyan and blue, etc., and they can be helpful when you
are close to proper color balance to help you decide what slight
filtration change might be needed to improve the print. BUT, don't
stare through them at the print. If you do, your eyes will adapt and
the results will be unreliable. Remember, we can have problems telling
the difference in color balance between quartz lighting and daylight
because of eye adaption. That same process happens with the viewing
filters. I recommend you quickly flick them in and out before your eye
for only a second or two at a time. That tends to keep the adaption
process under control. And when looking at the print through the
filters, judge only mid-range densities. Trying to look at highlights
or shadows can be very misleading. If the mid densities are brought to
proper color balance in the print, the highlights and shadows should be
OK unless you have color crossover problems. Depending on the cause of
the crossovers (they could be caused by bad chemistry or improper
processing which are fixable) you may or may not be able to fix them.
And don't mistake the blue color cast on shadows on snow caused by a
clear blue sky for example, with a crossover. Again, our eyes sometimes
see what they want to see in a scene. The color film is not that
adaptable.
Once you get over the first few hurdles, I think you will find that
getting a decent color print can be easier than getting a decent B&W
print. Of course, advancing beyond "decent" to the fine print level in
either medium takes a lot of practice, patience, judgment and a nit of
artistry.
Good luck.
Bruce McLaughlin
I just can't resist making a few more suggestions. Since these will
cost some money you may or may not want to go with them.
As another person mentioned, I too began color printing in the mid 60's
when the process was much longer and my tools were very limited. I was
so frustrated, I gave up color printing for many years.
If you are reasonably serious about color printing, I just don't believe
there is any substitute for certain tools. the key is not your in
larger. Although, you may wish to acquire a more sophisticated unit in
the future, your present machine should work quite well.
However, I do strongly suggest that you look into acquiring a Nova slot
processor. With that unit, your chemistry becomes reusable, you have
absolutely precise temperature control and any variables you may have in
processing should be eliminated. Although not inexpensive, I believe
that is the best investment a color printer could make at the outset if
you are at all all serious about getting consistent results. While I
disagree with one person who stated that it is impossible to get a good
results with drum processing and the RA-4 process, the amount of time
and effort required to carefully wash and dry the drum after each print
is very likely to increase the frustration level. With the slot
processor, you will get a ready to dry print in two minutes. Another
minute or two with the hair dryer will give you a dry print which is
ready to evaluate. That short turnaround time is very useful for the
beginning printer.
I would also then contact Jobo to purchase the test color negative and
gray key which Bob Mitchell developed and Jobo sells. They are
reasonably inexpensive and I think they will be the best learning tools
you could get. Although they contemplate using a color analyzer, they
are useful even if you don't have an analyzer and don't contemplate
getting one.
I would also contact Photo Techniques magazine to see if they have
reprints of the Bob Mitchell series on learning color printing. I
believe they have reprinted them as a package. I took a workshop with
Bob and learned more about color printing in a couple of days than I
could have learned in weeks on my own. Unfortunately, Bob has passed
away, but the articles contained most of what was included in the
workshop.
Then follow his methods, at least at first. If you do, you should have
a relatively painless learning experience which will give you a good
basis for experimentation later.
Can you learn color printing without the Mitchell materials or do it
adequately without the slot processor? Of course you can. but if your
results vary from print to print because of poor temperature control or
chemical contamination, you will very quickly become so discouraged and
frustrated you may give up in disgust. If you are interested only in
experimenting then obviously, the $300 or $400 investment in a used
slot processor would hardly be worth it. But if you really are
interested in making very high quality color prints with a minimum of
fuss, I strongly suggest you look into such a purchase.
My suggestion is to nail down the processing first then be sure your
enlarging lens is decent. Then, and only then, if you are still
interested you may wish to consider upgrading your enlarger and
acquiring a color analyzer.
As I said before, good luck.
Manny Bhuta
Bruce McLaughlin <bmcl...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:37B32995...@primenet.com...
<<snip>>
> I would also then contact Jobo to purchase the test color negative and
> gray key which Bob Mitchell developed and Jobo sells. They are
> reasonably inexpensive and I think they will be the best learning tools
> you could get.
<<snip>>
Bob Mitchell was a friend and we all miss him and his very witty humor.
I hope he will not mind when I tell everyone that if you live in the USA,
you can get a gray formica chip for free by going to your local Home
Depot and ask for Formica color chip #928. I have checked this chip
with my denistometer and it is true gray.
<<snip>>
Mark Blackwell
You know what surprised me the most? Not a single flame. grin. I put on
a fire suit now every time I post on any newsgroup. Nice to know it wasn't
needed for once.
The next step seems to be to try again with fresh chemistry. Use it as a
one shot but save it for later when I know more about what Im doing. If I
can learn fast enough I may be able to add some replenisher later to save a
buck, an at worst I just toss it later. I suspect the developer would be
the most sensitive to air, an if this drags out it might be just a toss
anyway. If nothing else a good experiment later.
The notebook with settings once I hit it right is a great idea. Just good
common sense I should have thought of myself. Though I remember what I did
now, I doubt I would in 3 months.
Thanks again everyone an Ill keep you posted with the next in the serial to
follow. Mark
Manny Bhuta wrote in message ...
the_real_...@my-deja.com
feel really dedicated to color printing and want to do it accurately and
rapidly you will have to invest in a color analyzer and a reflection
color densitometer and then communicate with me. I know that there will
be controversy about this advice, but the individuals who have followed
it before seem to be fully satisfied.
Bert Miller — <bertm...@laguna.com.mx>
The MILLER METHODS II/III
Sensitometry-based, computer-controlled color printing
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
blue...@prodigy.net
>When you have tried everything else and are still frustrated, if you
>feel really dedicated to color printing and want to do it accurately and
>rapidly you will have to invest in a color analyzer and a reflection
>color densitometer and then communicate with me.
Bzzzztttt... Wrong answer, Bert!
He *may* want to buy those things and communicate with you,
but he dosen't *have* to. Plenty of people do just fine with a
notebook and a little practice.
Carry on.
Jon Croft
blue...@prodigy.net
the_real_...@my-deja.com
blue...@prodigy.net wrote:
> the_real_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> Bzzzztttt... Wrong answer, Bert!
>
> He *may* want to buy those things and communicate with you,
> but he dosen't *have* to. Plenty of people do just fine with a
> notebook and a little practice.
>
> Carry on.
>
> Jon Croft
Hi, Jon,
Our philosophies and prejudices seem to be at it again. It may just
depend upon what is meant by "just fine." It seems to mean something
which does not greatly insult the senses. As you have already stated,
some people never do attain good "color balancing" sense. What do they
then do? Do they follow the Duke of Windsor and take up tatting?
Bert Miller — <bertm...@laguna.com.mx>
The MILLER METHODS II/III
Sensitometry-based, computer-controlled color printing
William Laut
: In article <37b8f852...@news.prodigy.net>,
With all due respect Bert, what was "insulting to the senses" was the
appearance of you trying to exploit the innocent trust of a NEWBIE,
"advising" him to buy *thousands* of dollars of equipment that is beyond
his current skill set so that you can then swoop in like a vulture to
pick the bones of his wallet by selling him your "Miller Method" software.
Your advise isn't "controversial," as you described it; it's shameless,
even for you, Bert, and all too vapidly transparent. Next time, please
make a formal sales pitch instead of fecklessly trying to hide your true
motives. Thank you.
Bill
the_real_...@my-deja.com
>
> Bill
>
>
Thank you, Bill,
Of all the Louts I have ever had contact with you are no doubt the most
loutish.
Bert Miller — <bertm...@laguna.com.mx>
The MILLER METHODS II/III
Sensitometry-based, computer-controlled color printing
William Laut
:
: >
: > Bill
: >
: >
: Thank you, Bill,
:
: Of all the Louts I have ever had contact with you are no doubt the most
: loutish.
Thanks, Bert. In debate, resorting to ad hominems is the classic sign of
intellectual capitulation, as no better counterargument could be
formulated and offered.
Thank your for conceding to me. You've made my day. :-)
Bill
Mark Blackwell
First I confirmed that it was a filtration problem when I got a perfectly
white border an the same blueish tint. Next I removed all but 5Y of the
45Y recommended. Got a greenish tint. Next removed all but 5 M of the
Magenta filters a an WHA LA IT WORKED. It turned out very nice.
As for the homemade drums, I believe they would work just fine but didnt use
them today. I found some used ones in a camera shop I just happen to
stumble into for the first time over the weekend. Got an 8x10 drum for $10
an a 11x14 drum for $15 an I can work with the lights on grin. For the
larger drums I would make them with no hesitation if I couldnt find another
used one.
I use a number of different films an it looks like it might be trial an
error to get a base filter setting to work from each paper an film
combination. Now that I know HOW it works I can do it, but the cost to do
it that way seems a bit much if there is a better way. Does anyone have a
cadet 35 that they wouldnt mind sharing the base filtration with me?
I would be interested to know if everyone else has gone through the same
process. I would be willing to put such data on a website if it will save
me an others the same trial an error method. Yet if it wont help, why
bother. Thanks for all the help Mark
Bruce McLaughlin
USA, you can get a gray formica chip for free by going to your local
Home Depot and ask for Formica color chip #928."
Yep. I don't think he ever made a secret of the fact that it was made
of commercial formica, although, I don't recall a specific
indentification of the formica. And yes, I had the privilege of taking
a workshop with Bob at his home. He was a very special person.
Manny Bhuta
I can not speak for everyone, but I had a hell of time getting that first
good print. Now keep good notes. My notes include the info on the
picture (camera, lens, film, location and lighting), info on exposure
(enlarger, lens, paper, filtration, aperture and time) and info on
processing (chemistry, temperature and times through each step).
I recognize that not all of this is needed for good prints. But it takes
very little extra effort so I record all of this information. I find that
the
filtration to make a good print changes with:
1. film - not just the brand because manufacturers often change the
formulation without changing the film name.
2. lab - may be because many labs do not properly control their
processing. Also probably because there are many different brands
of chemistry used by labs.
3. photo location - I have measured the color of ambient light with
a color meter and find that the color of daylight varies quite a lot.
4. paper - for the past few years I have used Fuji exclusively and find
that its batch to batch variation to be almost negligible. Before that I
used to use Kodak and there was small but significant variation from
batch to batch. May be the new Kodak papers also have a negligible
variation.
5. chemistry - not only is there a variation from brand to brand, but also
as the mixed chemicals age, you need to change the filtration and
exposure.
--
Manny Bhuta
Randolph, NJ USA
________
Mark Blackwell <av8r...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7pd1p4$o0o$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
Jimfinkle1
>From: "Manny Bhuta" man...@webspan.net
>Date: Wed, 18 August 1999 10:48 AM EDT
>Message-id: <rrliok...@corp.supernews.com>
You, or your lab needs to have a densitometer to do a set up. My friend just
bought a lab and sent some serious money getting set up with all new chemistry,
and had the repair person from the maker of his equipment come for set up. It
stunk for years with the previous owner, but now is right on the money. You can
reach him at: photopr...@aol.com
Jim F
Manny Bhuta
because they make the life in the darkroom much easier.
I do have both. But, I did not feel that I should push Mark to
invest in these high priced pieces of equipment. But, you are
absolutely right about proper setup of equipment with a good
densitometer. I do this and as a result, I usually get my prints
with correct color and exposure on the first try.
BTW, I appreciate that you quoted the original in your post. I
wish other AOL subscribers would do the same.
--
Manny Bhuta
Randolph, NJ USA
________
Jimfinkle1 <jimfi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990818121751...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
<<snip>>
> >filtration to make a good print changes with:
> >
> >1. film - not just the brand because manufacturers often change the
> >formulation without changing the film name.
> >
> >2. lab - may be because many labs do not properly control their
> >processing. Also probably because there are many different brands
> >of chemistry used by labs.
> >
> >3. photo location - I have measured the color of ambient light with
> >a color meter and find that the color of daylight varies quite a lot.
> >
> >4. paper - for the past few years I have used Fuji exclusively and find
> >that its batch to batch variation to be almost negligible. Before that I
> >used to use Kodak and there was small but significant variation from
> >batch to batch. May be the new Kodak papers also have a negligible
> >variation.
> >
> >5. chemistry - not only is there a variation from brand to brand, but
also
> >as the mixed chemicals age, you need to change the filtration and
> >exposure.
<<snip>>
> >Mark Blackwell <av8r...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:7pd1p4$o0o$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> YEA A sucessful print today. FINALLY things reacted as they
should.
<<snip>>
> >> I use a number of different films an it looks like it might be trial an
> >> error to get a base filter setting to work from each paper an film
> >> combination. Now that I know HOW it works I can do it, but the cost to
do
> >> it that way seems a bit much if there is a better way. Does anyone
have a
> >> cadet 35 that they wouldnt mind sharing the base filtration with me?
<<snip>>
William Laut
I say that in all seriousness, because all of us who do color know exactly
what you've been through. It really is an accomplishment to get that
first color print.
As I read Manny's advice, I found my head nodding in agreement, and I so
want to underscore the *importance* of taking good notes. At this point,
the next step for you is to begin to identify and then control all of the
variables involved in getting excellent color prints, and Manny summarized
most (if not all) of what you should be observing. I would, though, like
to expand upon some of his remarks.
You mentioned that you use a number of different films. For now, I
suggest you should try to standardize on one single film, paper, and
chemistry until you can consistently color-correct your prints well, and
develop (no pun intended) a critical eye for judging when the colors are
correct and when they still need to be tweaked a bit more, as well as to
gauge when the printing paper is either under- or over-exposed. Then,
gradually add variables, such as sunlight vs. flash, and then after that
try a different film.
As Manny stated, a given film's spectral response can vary with each
different emulsion/batch #. Accordingly, it is a standard practice in
larger photo stores and/or sellers (like Calumet) to let you stipulate
that for a given order all the film be of the same emulsion #. Therefore,
you may want to consider ordering a reasonable supply of film, all of the
same emulsion #, and then storing it in your freezer. This will keep you
from getting stymied from one batch or make of film to another while you
continue to cement your skills.
Your results can also vary from kit to kit of chemistry. I've been stung
by that one myself, and it's what led me to brewing my own C-41 and RA-4
from bulk chemicals (the formulas of which I'll be posting later today).
Eventually, you may want to consider preparing your own chemistry from
scratch, not only for the cost savings but also for the consistency
because your "kit to kit" consistency will be as good as the care to put
into weighing the individual chemicals out. Additionally, should you not
do any printing for awhile, the dry chemicals will last nearly
indefinitely on your shelf, which the liquid concentrates (and certainly
not the mixed solutions) will not.
Finally, I'm going to reverse myself here and say that you may want to
consider buying a Jobo Colorline analyzer. After reading Manny's response
to my previous query, I found and glanced through the Colorline's online
manual at www.jobo-usa.com, and confirmed for myself how they go about
adding the (IMO) all-important step of objectively measuring the grey in
the test print. While the technical purist in me cringes at how they
eliminated the reflectance densitometer, nevertheless their solution does
work and it combines both measurement of the print and negative into a
single easy-to-use package that is reasonably priced.
If I were to offer a criticism/suggestion of the Colorline's calibration
technique, it's that I'd like to see the grey measurement split into two
steps with the addition of measuring a fixed-out sheet of paper so that
any non-neutral coloring in the base can be differentiated from the color
dyes being measured. However, since I've not worked with the Colorline,
my criticism is purely academic.
For myself, I'm convinced enough that I'm considering buying a Colorline
sometime after the New Year (to celebrate the new Tax Year).
Bill
Manny Bhuta (man...@webspan.net) wrote:
: Congratulations!
:
: I can not speak for everyone, but I had a hell of time getting that first
: good print. Now keep good notes. My notes include the info on the
: picture (camera, lens, film, location and lighting), info on exposure
: (enlarger, lens, paper, filtration, aperture and time) and info on
: processing (chemistry, temperature and times through each step).
: I recognize that not all of this is needed for good prints. But it takes
: very little extra effort so I record all of this information. I find that
: the
: filtration to make a good print changes with:
:
: 1. film - not just the brand because manufacturers often change the
: formulation without changing the film name.
:
: 2. lab - may be because many labs do not properly control their
: processing. Also probably because there are many different brands
: of chemistry used by labs.
:
: 3. photo location - I have measured the color of ambient light with
: a color meter and find that the color of daylight varies quite a lot.
:
: 4. paper - for the past few years I have used Fuji exclusively and find
: that its batch to batch variation to be almost negligible. Before that I
: used to use Kodak and there was small but significant variation from
: batch to batch. May be the new Kodak papers also have a negligible
: variation.
:
: 5. chemistry - not only is there a variation from brand to brand, but also
: as the mixed chemicals age, you need to change the filtration and
: exposure.
:
: --
: Manny Bhuta
: Randolph, NJ USA
: ________
:
: Mark Blackwell <av8r...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
: news:7pd1p4$o0o$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
: > YEA A sucessful print today. FINALLY things reacted as they should.
: > First I confirmed that it was a filtration problem when I got a perfectly
: > white border an the same blueish tint. Next I removed all but 5Y of the
: > 45Y recommended. Got a greenish tint. Next removed all but 5 M of the
: > Magenta filters a an WHA LA IT WORKED. It turned out very nice.
: >
: > As for the homemade drums, I believe they would work just fine but didnt
: use
: > them today. I found some used ones in a camera shop I just happen to
: > stumble into for the first time over the weekend. Got an 8x10 drum for
: $10
: > an a 11x14 drum for $15 an I can work with the lights on grin. For the
: > larger drums I would make them with no hesitation if I couldnt find
: another
: > used one.
: >
: > I use a number of different films an it looks like it might be trial an
: > error to get a base filter setting to work from each paper an film
: > combination. Now that I know HOW it works I can do it, but the cost to do
: > it that way seems a bit much if there is a better way. Does anyone have a
: > cadet 35 that they wouldnt mind sharing the base filtration with me?
: >
: > I would be interested to know if everyone else has gone through the same
: > process. I would be willing to put such data on a website if it will save
: >
: >
:
:
Paul Tauger
using a Bessler color analyzer with reasonably good success. I'm
unfamiliar, however, with a densitometer. What does it do, exactly, and how
does it do it? I'm all in favor of anything that will let me pull a good
print on the first try.
Manny Bhuta wrote in message ...
>Jim, I am a believer in both color analyzer and densitometer
>because they make the life in the darkroom much easier.
>I do have both. But, I did not feel that I should push Mark to
>invest in these high priced pieces of equipment. But, you are
>absolutely right about proper setup of equipment with a good
>densitometer. I do this and as a result, I usually get my prints
>with correct color and exposure on the first try.
>
>BTW, I appreciate that you quoted the original in your post. I
>wish other AOL subscribers would do the same.
>
>--
>Manny Bhuta
>Randolph, NJ USA
>________
>
>Jimfinkle1 <jimfi...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19990818121751...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
>
><<snip>>
>
>> >filtration to make a good print changes with:
>> >
>> >1. film - not just the brand because manufacturers often change the
>> >formulation without changing the film name.
>> >
>> >2. lab - may be because many labs do not properly control their
>> >processing. Also probably because there are many different brands
>> >of chemistry used by labs.
>> >
>> >3. photo location - I have measured the color of ambient light with
>> >a color meter and find that the color of daylight varies quite a lot.
>> >
>> >4. paper - for the past few years I have used Fuji exclusively and find
>> >that its batch to batch variation to be almost negligible. Before that
I
>> >used to use Kodak and there was small but significant variation from
>> >batch to batch. May be the new Kodak papers also have a negligible
>> >variation.
>> >
>> >5. chemistry - not only is there a variation from brand to brand, but
>also
>> >as the mixed chemicals age, you need to change the filtration and
>> >exposure.
>
><<snip>>
>
>> >Mark Blackwell <av8r...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7pd1p4$o0o$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >> YEA A sucessful print today. FINALLY things reacted as they
>should.
>
><<snip>>
>
>> >> I use a number of different films an it looks like it might be trial
an
>> >> error to get a base filter setting to work from each paper an film
>> >> combination. Now that I know HOW it works I can do it, but the cost
to
>do
>> >> it that way seems a bit much if there is a better way. Does anyone
>have a
>> >> cadet 35 that they wouldnt mind sharing the base filtration with me?
>
William Laut
: I'm also fairly new to color printing, though I'm an old b&w guy. I've been
: using a Bessler color analyzer with reasonably good success. I'm
: unfamiliar, however, with a densitometer. What does it do, exactly, and how
: does it do it? I'm all in favor of anything that will let me pull a good
: print on the first try.
Densitometers are used for the precise measurement of the density of a
given medium, and display this as a percentage or as a logarithm. They
come in two versions, reflectance and transmission, and also as a hybrid.
The transmission densitometer measure the opacity (or density) -through-
the medium, hence the name, and it does this in accordance with industry
specs. It is used for measuring film density, including negatives and
transparencies (depending on the unit's filters). It is the more popular
of the two, because it is also used in B&W photography for objectively
calibrating your choice of film and developer to the Zone System paradigm.
Additionally, if you like to tinker with developers or specialty
"intermediate" films (such as Eastman 5366, 5234, and 5369 motion picture
lab films, or various color internegative films), a transmission
densitometer is *mandatory* for detecting and eliminating color shifting
and/or alterations in contrast and/or density throughout the duping process.
The reflectance densitometer measures the density of the medium by
reflecting light through it, and thus has a more limited scope. It is more
commonly used by the larger commercial labs whose printing operation uses
large processing tanks to feed spools of exposed paper through, much like
what the movie industry uses for processing film. In these installations,
the processing chemistry is replenished rather than used "one-shot," and
accordingly control strips are run through the machine at regular
intervals to insure that the process is within spec. When I was learning
this stuff 25 years ago, the calibration strips for the reflectance
densitometer arrived from Kodak packed in dry ice, and were stored for no
more than one month at 0F or below. Once calibrated, the reflectance
densitometer was used to measure the control strips that were run through
the machine and the chemistry adjusted as necessary.
For anyone who uses one-shot processing, all that a reflectance
densitometer is used for is calibrating a new batch of paper to your
collection of grey-card negatives, or when you get a new chemistry kit or
(if you mix from scratch) a new bottle of CD-3. What you do is print your
grey card neg using the new paper/chemistry, and then measure the print to
see if the new paper/chemistry forces a change to your filterpack that, in
turn, would affect the calibration of either your transmission
densitometer or analyzer.
When I bought my Speedmaster T-85 transmission densitometer from Calumet
a couple of years ago, the price was $1,679. Its matching reflectance
densitometer is the R-75, and I now wished I had bought it as well,
because its price has gone up $500 since then to around $1,800. :-(
Densitometers will let you calibrate, then monitor your process and
printing more quickly and accurately than any other method, because that's
all they are designed to do. However, if you are anything less than
*seriously dedicated* to color printing you're going to swallow hard,
because for both of them you're looking _easily_ at over $3,500.
And that's just the "economy" models!
From a home dark enthusiast's perspective, all that that $3,500-plus
investment buys you is a few saved sheets of paper when you buy new paper
or chemistry, or if you shot some negatives (and remembered to take a
grey-card shot) under lighting of unknown color temperature.
Is it worth it? If I were running a private color lab, you bet. If it's
my home darkroom, well...
You mentioned that you owned a Beseler analyzer. Analyzers can be good,
but in the past they had to be used in conjunction with a reflectance
densitometer so that the correct filterpack could be established via the
densitometer in order to null the analyzer. If you didn't have the
densitometer, then you were at best approximating grey in your grey-card
test prints, which in turn meant you were approximating your analyzer's
performance.
In color printing, an analyzer is more flexible than a transmission
densitometer because once true grey (and its filterpack) are established
with the reflectance densitometer, the analyzer can be nulled not only to
the grey card but also to the subject in the photo. Accordingly, if you
were doing *serious* shooting and had the slightest misgivings about the
lighting's color temperature, you could first shoot the subject holding a
grey card, and then shoot without the card. Later, after the film is
processed you could then print the grey-card shot and adjust the
filterpack using the reflectance densitometer, then null the analyzer on
the subject's face instead of the grey card. Then, put the target
negative into the enlarger and recheck the filtration using the face, then
print away.
Recent trends in analyzer design, while certainly not eliminating
reflectance densitometers in pro labs, have gone a loooong way in
eliminating them from home darkrooms. In particular, the one that's made
me stand up and take notice is the Jobo Colorline (which has been recently
discussed here). It combines pseudo reflective densitometry with analysis
function in a single package, as well as calculate reciprocity
independently in all three primary colors, and do it at a reasonable
price. I'm still learning more about it, but what I've seen so far I like.
Bill
Paul Tauger
William Laut wrote in message <7pfi66$v...@alpha.delta.edu>...
TEC...@photo-rescue.com
wrote:
>Paul Tauger (tauger...@SPAMusa.net) wrote:
>: I'm also fairly new to color printing, though I'm an old b&w guy. I've been
>: using a Bessler color analyzer with reasonably good success. I'm
>: unfamiliar, however, with a densitometer. What does it do, exactly, and how
>: does it do it? I'm all in favor of anything that will let me pull a good
>: print on the first try.
>:
>
>Densitometers are used for the precise measurement of the density of a
>given medium, and display this as a percentage or as a logarithm. They
>come in two versions, reflectance and transmission, and also as a hybrid.
<snip>
>When I bought my Speedmaster T-85 transmission densitometer from Calumet
>a couple of years ago, the price was $1,679. Its matching reflectance
>densitometer is the R-75, and I now wished I had bought it as well,
>because its price has gone up $500 since then to around $1,800. :-(
You can get reflection/transmission densitometers for less than that
new, muc less used.
>Densitometers will let you calibrate, then monitor your process and
>printing more quickly and accurately than any other method, because that's
>all they are designed to do. However, if you are anything less than
>*seriously dedicated* to color printing you're going to swallow hard,
>because for both of them you're looking _easily_ at over $3,500.
>
>And that's just the "economy" models!
No need for two densitometers .. X-Rite has several models that do
both reflection and transmission. I think most are under $2,000 new,
but some of those don't offer 'spot' readings. (Something I need, so I
bought a better model) Other manufacturers also offer combination
units, but I haven't priced them lately.
>From a home dark enthusiast's perspective, all that that $3,500-plus
>investment buys you is a few saved sheets of paper when you buy new paper
>or chemistry, or if you shot some negatives (and remembered to take a
>grey-card shot) under lighting of unknown color temperature.
Actually, even for the home enthusiast, it tells you if that chemistry
is OK to put your film into or not.
>Is it worth it? If I were running a private color lab, you bet. If it's
>my home darkroom, well...
I know that you 'old hands' get a 'feel' for things after a while..
but I just cannot put my film into ANYTHING I haven't tested with a
densitometer yet. Sure, call me a 'fraidy-cat' if you want.. I just
can't do it.
I've used X-Rite densitometers for years, as they are pretty much a
standard accessory when purchasing a lot of lab equipment. I've used
several models, but as I mentioned before, I prefer the ones that
allow me to 'spot' read portions of the film or paper.
For that I use the X-Rite 810, 811 (or variations of them)
(transmission/reflection)
I've seen them used for as little as $350 from labs that went under,
and as low as $450 in newsgroups. Most of these needed lamps, which
might set you back another $50-100, depending on where you get them.
I think it is around $2600 new.
I would never attempt to run a lab without a densitometer (and
control strips) . I wouldn't even want to think about it. I've even
refused to install $100,000 worth of equipment because the customer
didn't have a densitometer.. and the manufacturer agreed. They told
the customer that without a densitometer, there was no warranty, no
recourse, no service and no guarantee that the installation would be
correct. The customer finally borrowed one, but it was written into
the warranty that there would be
NO service regarding film or print quality. Ever.
William Laut
was unexpectedly out-of-town for a few days, and just arrived back home.
I'm planning to post my "homebrew RA-4 & C-41" later tonight, and then
perhaps catch up on the threads.
Bill
Paul Tauger (tauger...@SPAMusa.net) wrote:
: Thanks for the extremely thorough and helpful explanation!
:
: