Orange mask

[Lou Baleur]

Apparently there are some color negative films without the orange mask. How do you tell which films have the mask and which don't? It appears that movie films designed for scanning don't have this mask, but is this true of all color negative movie films? Is there a list or some special keyword or process designation that would indicate no orange mask on the film?

Film with no orange mask could possibly be cross processed as a color transparency, correct?

 

[AgX]

You find that information in the product presentation/datasheets of the manufacturers.
These are Agfa and Kodak only anyway.

In the classic neg-pos copy process the error due to dye deficencies is doubled, thus this process benefits most from masking of the negative.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Your question indicates that you do not fully understand the reason for the mask or how it works. The mask is not uniform across the entire negative. Rather it is formed as a negative image where there is no dye formation. The sum of these masks is used to correct for spectral deficiencies in the dyes formed during development. In a perfect color negative the three dyes have no gaps between their individual spectra nor would there be a serious overlap. The mask solves this problem. There is no reason why a color reversal film cannot be developed to a negative. There are even some people who do this for special effect because they desire the color distortions.

 

[RobC]

I suspect OP may be mistaken about maskless negs. Some modern negative films had their masks changed some years back to make them more suitable for scanning but I don't remeber anything about masks being completely removed.

 

[AgX]

As I hinted at, there are indeed films completely lacking a mask. They are even converted to consumer formats.
The OP is right on track.

 

[frank]

On motion picture film, isn't there a coating that gets removed in the processing, caledl remjet or something similar?

 

[AgX]

Remjet is a coating to counter as well static electricity as halation.

Technically there are more modern means by now.


The orange mask is NOT a coating of its own, but a specific characteristic of coupler layers, more precise of couplers themselves.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh. This brings up an old sore memory. I had just completely a particularly strenuous mountain trek when the pro lab accidentally souped
my chromes in C41. Then to appease me, they offered to print all the images for free, even with all the color balance issues. Let's just say
this came out "interesting', "like fine art", in other words, hopelessly weird.

 

[AgX]

In the classic neg-pos copy process the error due to dye deficencies is doubled, thus this process benefits most from masking of the negative.

With reversal film intended for direct projection the copying is lacking. (A mask thus would not work...)

With film intended for scanning, the copy medium is different.

 

[RPC]

Rather it is formed as a negative image where there is no dye formation.

I believe the mask is formed from dye coupler (colored orange at the factory) that does not convert to dye, and therefore forms a positive image. The dye coupler that converts to dye of course forms a negative image, and carries along with it the dye impurities (collectively orange) which the positive dye coupler image cancels since both are orange. Together, they form a uniform orange color all over the negative which is filtered out during printing or scanning.

 

[pentaxuser]

In the dim and distant past were there not threads or at least posts that referred to mask-less colour negative consumer film for 35mm stills cameras? Wasn't it Rollei or Digibase that produced these films

I had often wondered how users coped with these films when doing RA4 printing without the benefit of an orange mask and what the counter benefits of a mask-less colour neg film are?

Could it be these that the OP is thinking about?

pentaxuser

 

[mjork]

I have quite a few color negatives without orange mask: though these are all reclaimed negatives from Fuji FP-100c peel-apart instant film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Many color negative products were not masked in the years before about 1960. They (and and chrome products cross processed) print just fine if you include an clear frame from a normal color negative in the filter pack, or add an equivalent amount of orange filtration to the pack you usually use. There is some tweaking but if processed properly the negative materials should be just fine. The chrome products generally suffer from crossover. The former give approximately normal but muted colors and the latter give high contrast garish results.

PE

 

[AgX]

In the dim and distant past were there not threads or at least posts that referred to mask-less colour negative consumer film for 35mm stills cameras? Wasn't it Rollei or Digibase that produced these films

In the past there weren only maskless colour films.
Then by time most different procedures of integrated masking were devised.

But then again there was a market for maskless films.
Agfa and Kodak introduced these. Even in consumer conversions.


The Rollei branded films are conversions based on Agfa masterrolls.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

See pages 40 - 43 of http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/up...plugins_acrobat_en_motion_education_H-188.pdf

 

[Photo Engineer]

That book, in a slightly modified form was available in the '50s as one part of the Kodak Color Handbook.

Early color negative films were thought to be maskless, but achieved a mask through a rinse after development (something which should not be done today). Also, silver masks were used in some films.

PE

 

[MattKing]

The motion picture film made for producing projection prints is a negative material that has no orange mask. It is, however, not designed for in-camera use. If you try to use it for that purpose, the contrast and colour of your final product - whether paper print or transparent print - will suffer.

 

[Photo Engineer]

That would be Eastman Color Print Film or whatever the current name is, I can't keep up. There are negative and positive intermediates as well. The intermediate films are masked if negative working.

PE

 

[AgX]

The motion picture film made for producing projection prints is a negative material that has no orange mask. It is, however, not designed for in-camera use. If you try to use it for that purpose, the contrast and colour of your final product - whether paper print or transparent print - will suffer.

That is a final stage material. It can't have a mask, as slide films or any colour papers.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

Film X by Washi lacks any mask. As such, one can cross develop it in E6 for some interesting results.

http://quirkyguywithacamera.blogspot.com/2016/01/fun-with-film-film-x-by-washi-in-e6.html

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Film X by Washi lacks any mask. As such, one can cross develop it in E6 for some interesting results.

http://quirkyguywithacamera.blogspot.com/2016/01/fun-with-film-film-x-by-washi-in-e6.html

As I pointed out before any slide film cam be processed as a maskless negative just run it thru C-41. For those wishing to experiment an expired slide film would be a cheap alternative. You are going to get color shifts so why buy a special expensive film.

 

[Bill Burk]

That is a final stage material. It can't have a mask, as slide films or any colour papers.

That makes sense. When making a color print, you do not need the print material to have a mask, since the necessary color correction work has already been done in the orange-masked negative that you are printing from.

 

[RPC]

The print material dyes have the same problem with color impurities as the negative dyes, but despite having no mask can give good color if the negative is masked and the impurities only appear once, in the print. If the negative is not masked, the impurities appear twice and color degradation is quite noticable, as AgX alluded to earlier, and is one reason negatives (masked) print better than slides. If only we could eliminate the dye impurities from both negative and print...