color neg or slide developing at home
klat...@el.net
Having developed and printed black and white photos at home for a long
time, now that I have a computer I find it much better suited to color
work. Black and white loses depth whereas color seems to gain in some
luminosity. What I'm wondering is if there's a viable means of
developing one's own color negs or slides. Last time I looked into it
was a long while back. At that point, good results were unattainable
without purchase of prohibitively expensive temperature-regulating
equipment. Is there a simpler, cheap method now which still produces
good images? If so, I will venture into color photography work for the
first time, buy a negative scanner, I think. The other question is
whether to continue working in medium format, as I have been, or to go
to 35mm, also better suited to computer work, it seems (medium
format negative scanners run at about 8,000 dollars or so, whereas a
good (Nikon) 35mm one can be had for 1,000 or so, I note). Any advice
would be appreciated. Also, I'd be interested to hear from anyone with
experience making a web gallery.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Baron
Having developed many a color roll for work using the Kodak Hobby Paks I
can vouch for their ease of use. Temperature is important but a few
degrees here or there (for the E6 pak) doesn't seem to cause much of a
diff.
Working in the news business the E6 Hobby-Pak that's supposed to last for
6 rolls of film, I've used them for 8 rolls before, two sessions of
back-to-back 35mm film in a 16oz tank with good results. Just so long as
you do the sessions in the same day or so. I think it'll oxidize after
more than that, you'll lose Dmax after roll #8.
I've found that scanning 35mm slides (into both a Coolscan and
SuperCoolscan) allows richer colors than negs. Probably b/c of the direct
RGB process rather than scanning through that orange mask on negative
film. Slides do tend to scan higher contrast which can be a problem.
Good luck. I just bought a Kodak DC120 and it's funny how much the images
look like they've been shot on slide film scanned-in because of the
saturated colors, harder contrast and less latitude in general. Of course
slide film has much more resolution that won't be beat by digital for
awhile at affordable costs.
Digital is getting better, but hey, film ain't sitting still either, it's
improving too.
Aloha,
Baron
Bob Martin
klat...@el.net wrote:
>
> Having developed and printed black and white..... were unattainable
> without purchase of prohibitively expensive temperature-regulating
> equipment.
1997, It's real easy now, two step negs, three step slides.
Temperature doesn't need regulating... MEASURE it, then adjust the
times accordingly. Usually only one of the steps matters anyway.
The overly complex 6-7 step commercial slide processing is
designed for auto-replentishing. You can get plenty of control
at home by doing all of the film at once with one set of chemicals
mixed in distilled water then thrown out.
It's a lot easier to drop off at the one-hour place, and cheaper too.
Not all do slides so fast. One hour places print garbage.... but the
slides and negatives are fine.
You might wanna budget a bit more for a scanner... you won't be
happy with anything less than a SprintScan35 if you're used to
2 1/4s
Bob
Jim Williams
>Having developed and printed black and white photos at home for a long
>time, now that I have a computer I find it much better suited to color
>work. Black and white loses depth whereas color seems to gain in some
>luminosity. What I'm wondering is if there's a viable means of
>developing one's own color negs or slides. Last time I looked into it
>without purchase of prohibitively expensive temperature-regulating
>good images? If so, I will venture into color photography work for the
>first time, buy a negative scanner, I think. The other question is
>whether to continue working in medium format, as I have been, or to go
>to 35mm, also better suited to computer work, it seems (medium
>format negative scanners run at about 8,000 dollars or so, whereas a
>good (Nikon) 35mm one can be had for 1,000 or so, I note). Any advice
>would be appreciated. Also, I'd be interested to hear from anyone with
>experience making a web gallery.
You CAN do C41 (color neg) or E-6 (color slide) processing at home -- but
if you want consistent results, I'd stick with a good custom lab. Not only
is it less of a headache and more consistent, but you avoid the need to
work with chemicals that are a lot more toxic and caustic than those used
in b&w.
You're right about the cost of medium-format scanners. Shifting down to
35mm would make sense, not only for scanner-cost reasons but because the
additional image quality of medium format doesn't really translate into the
digital realm -- a digital image scanned from medium format won't look
significantly better than one scanned from 35mm, because of the limitations
of digital viewing and output devices. (Unless, for example, you're talking
about going from a Hell drum scanner to an Iris large-format printer!
However, if you just want to make a Web gallery with small images of your
medium-format work, you might do okay with a flatbed scanner and
transparency attachment. I've had acceptable results scanning 6x6
transparencies with an HP Scanjet IIcx scanner, although it really works
better with 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies.
I've had modest experience making a Web gallery of my ballet photos (have a
look at www.novia.net/~jlw/index.html, then follow the links to the
"Gallery" section), although I don't claim to be an expert. All I'll
suggest is: (1) get a visual page editor such as Adobe Pagemill or Claris
Home Page -- you need to know HTML coding to do complex, interactive Web
sites, but Pagemill or Home Page is plenty good enough for a simple but
tasteful photo gallery. (2) Use JPEG compression for color photos and GIF
for grayscale; (3) If you've got a lot of images, make a page of thumbnails
(small version of each image) with links to the full-size versions; (4)
burn a copyright notice into a corner of each image. Most people assume
that anything they find on the Web is theirs for the taking if they want
it; this won't stop 'em, but at least it'll let them know you DO consider
it yours!
Charlie
klat...@el.net wrote:
>
> Having developed and printed black and white photos at home for a long
> time,
> What I'm wondering is if there's a viable means of
> developing one's own color negs or slides. Last time I looked into it
> was a long while back. At that point, good results were unattainable
> without purchase of prohibitively expensive temperature-regulating
> equipment. Is there a simpler, cheap method now which still produces
> good images?
Since you are an experienced B&W darkroom worker, you shouldn't have
much trouble with color.
When I built my darkroom I installed a separate water system from the
faucet. I made this from 1/4" tubing. It has high quality regulator
valves for the hot and cold water. It can be set to hold temp quite
well. I just let it run into a tub and overflow.
I shot and developed several rolls of color negative film and the water
bath worked fine.
You might have just as much luck with the faucets in your current sink.
Try it and see how good a temp you can hold. As long as nobody else in
your family takes a shower or flushes the toilet, you might be ok.<g>
--
Charlie Newark, DE
To reply by email please remove antispam "TY" from address.
Kevin Craske
In article <B064513...@208.149.120.90>, Jim Williams
<j...@NOSPAMnovia.net> writes
>>Having developed and printed black and white photos at home for a long
>>work. Black and white loses depth whereas color seems to gain in some
>>developing one's own color negs or slides. Last time I looked into it
>>was a long while back. At that point, good results were unattainable
>>without purchase of prohibitively expensive temperature-regulating
>>equipment. Is there a simpler, cheap method now which still produces
>>first time, buy a negative scanner,
>You CAN do C41 (color neg) or E-6 (color slide) processing at home -- but
>if you want consistent results, I'd stick with a good custom lab. Not only
>is it less of a headache and more consistent, but you avoid the need to
>work with chemicals that are a lot more toxic and caustic than those used
>in b&w.
>
>
I feel that the comments are a bit sweepng. I am chairman of the Colour
Reversal Club in the UK and members regularly achieve quality results
consistantly. As for chemicals, it is like a lot of things, it is only
the user who creats the danger. I have yet to see a chemical open it's
container and leap out at the user. Car batteries contain acid which is
oxidising and dangerous, do we all stay at home? No we treat
accordingly.
--
Kevin Craske
Norfolk UK