Chemistry time & temps

[inthedark]

KT,

I will try once more, but then I am done with this conversation with you. No hard feelings, next topic we will fair better.

I DO NOT PROCESS FILM EXCEPT for film I need to do reproductions. Even with say 35mm film, same roll, same processor (professional, not me), same photographer; printing each shot usually requires different filter packs, sometimes even different lights altogether. Since I am the one who is using the film for reproduction,. . .and the reproductions come out fine. . . I guess I am managing for the purposes I am discussing. IF you brought in film to be processed that you had shot in YOUR comera; you wouldn't have to "get it back" because I wouldn't accept it, I would tell you to go elsewhere. I wouldn't recommend the guy across town, but I would NOT process it for you. DO YOU GET IT, yet? I print, not process.

When I accept reproduction jobs it is with the understanding that I tweek my negatives intentionally to work well in my lab, and there is no warantee, explicit or implied, that the reproductive negative will be usable by any other lab. I further explain why and they get to decide. So far the answer is, "That's fine with me." I guess the photographers that I have coming in, understand tweeking outside the rules to get what we want.

Furthermore, I have yet to advertise myself anywhere as anything but a hard working and tenacious beginner. I do not pretend to be any other than what I am, which is a person trying to offer something that was requested of me. I always end my "sales pitch" if you want to call it that, with "if you are unsatisfied at all, I will not charge you a penny, and thank you for this learning challenge."
The thing I resent most, I think, is not that you suggest I am amatuer, because I realize that which is why I am on here asking and learning. It is that you suggest that I have no integrity and would somehow try to bullshit my customers, I don't.

Now I have lost my temper just for you, I am not proud of this. Rattle me once, shame on you, rattle me twice, shame on me. If you proceed to attack and not read before you do, I shall simply ignore your posts, or if everyone else would prefer, I will accomodate your childishness by not signing on here anymore.

JL

 

[Jorge]

now now, both of you back to your corners.

Ok, Jill....DK Thompson is a very knowledgeable person in the film processing area. I don't recall exactly but I believe he handles and manages the film processing for a museum or something like that. I believe he thought you were offering your services as a film processing lab, not as a reproduction and enlargement lab. So there lies the confusion.

DK...give the lady a break uh? I know you have been around for a long time and this is not the first time that you have read something which in your experience is not accurate and you have let it slide by.

So both of you, agree to disagree and move on, your enjoyment of this site will be much better if you don't let things get to you. Besides the fact that I don't want this site to become another photo.net where member keep griping at each other.

Deal?

 

[inthedark]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ May 7 2003, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> now now, both of you back to your corners.

Ok, Jill....DK Thompson is a very knowledgeable person in the film processing area. I don't recall exactly but I believe he handles and manages the film processing for a museum or something like that. I believe he thought you were offering your services as a film processing lab, not as a reproduction and enlargement lab. So there lies the confusion.

DK...give the lady a break uh? I know you have been around for a long time and this is not the first time that you have read something which in your experience is not accurate and you have let it slide by.

So both of you, agree to disagree and move on, your enjoyment of this site will be much better if you don't let things get to you. Besides the fact that I don't want this site to become another photo.net where member keep griping at each other.

Deal? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
***shaking hands***** deal.

 

[DKT]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ May 7 2003, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> &gt;&gt;&gt; I believe he thought you were offering your services as a film processing lab, not as a reproduction and enlargement lab. So there lies the confusion.

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That's pretty much it--but so much of this is contradictory. I feel uneasy here--like a version of Scott Eaton. I'm really a pretty nice person, I'd be glad to help or try to. But everything that I know about processing tells me not to believe you--I'm sorry, I just don't beleive the things you're saying. It doesn't matter to me if you only offer prints or reproductions--not processing--you have said otherwise above in these posts. Every post seems to contradict the other. You'd have me believe you only do b&w or line work, and then mention RA4, R3, E6 etc. What difference does it make if a customer brings you art to shoot in house on chrome film, and you only process your in-house stuff? It's ALL the same in the end. I'm not gonna beat up on you, I don't want to sound like a jerk here--but I'm going to ask you some questions I should have asked upfront--I wouldn't have become annoyed, had I understood what it was you were doing. You're not some kid processing film in his bathtub. I take it you're some sort of lab, whether you believe me or not. It's different for me, so don't tell me the answers to these questions are "trade secrets"--as far as I'm concerned there's no such thing. Believe me, there are more clever people in the lab business than you or I. They would have figured it out years ago, if they could run any of these processes without temp control or any sort of process control. It just doesn't work that way. Nobody who works in a lab will believe you. I'll tell you a "trade secret" aka common knowledge. It's no big deal to use CC filters to get accurate color on chrome films in an E6 line--even one in-control. There are so many variables, you may never even get it right. Every working pro has had to do this or maybe even does it everyday. If you said you needed a 25CC filter, then it would be a problem, but even here we go to .25CCs sometimes, so what's the big deal? It's also a trade secret--aka common knowledge--that people blame labs. Eevn labworkers blame the labs they work in. It's like an in-joke, so lighten up y'all.

My questions, and I'll keep 'em brief:

1) what film, paper, chemistry are you using.

2) how do process--i.e. by hand, processors etc

3) I read on here somewhere that you don't use any filters on the lens, so how do you set up a filter pack to print a color neg or chrome onto RA4 or R3? I could see filtering out the source with large gels, but how to do the working pack? I could see a tri-color exposure with separation filters, but not on the source-at 20x24? So, how does this work?

4) How do you evaluate the finished product, if not with grayscales, color bars, control strips etc?

I'll just quit now, because it will get esoteric...I wonder somethings--- about why it would be such a big deal to make a 30x40 off a 35mm neg--when I can do that here on a Beseler MXT, but I really don't care & don't want to sound mean or anything. I'm impressed that someone would figure out work-arounds and such, but then again--as someone who does some of this work and also farms it out, I just gotta kinda scratch my head. In the end, clients & customers don't really care about these things.

So, if you want--start over--why ask such a basic question about time & temp, and be so aloof about what you're doing? Don't tell me it's a trade secret...

Next post, I go back & remove all the above except this.

KT

 

[inthedark]

Okay, KT, first go read my introduction and the full history and current state of affairs will become clearer. Up till about 6 months ago I was pre-press, reprography (b&w), and aerial photography (b&w). One photographer came to my shop and asked if I would take on he and his group of photo friends, stay analog, and bring in color. Hence here I am.

Answer your questions:

1. I am capable of handling ra4,r3,c41,e6 BUT only RA4 or E6 for higher volume. Hence I keep the C41 and E6 to in house use only. Furthermore I am testing an alternate solution so that I will never have to use either C41 or E6 in house. It would be imminently easier to use only RA4 or R3.

2. I designed and had built some special tanks which are neither fully hand nor fully machine. A little of both. My brain has to be present and accounted for while processing, ie I am in complete control, so I guess that would put it in the "by hand" category.

3. Sorry, won't answer that except to say that nothing is between the negative and the paper/film except the lens and the copyboard glass. In extreme enlargements, I have designed and had constructed an overlay for the glass frame, so that the paper/film adheres to the front removing the glass from the equation also.

4. For color right now the finished product is always a positive and in finished display readiness, so the customer decides; after I have evaluated using concepts like color correctness, saturation, contrast. If possible (not over 36") I scan it, as I find scanning often reveals "hidden" flaws and weaknesses. Of course this is not appropriate to check color correctness, but it does catch mishandled lighting, inconsistency in whites/blacks throughout the print, etc.

My refusal to answer #3 is adamant, if it were a simple solution you wouldn't be so annoyed that I won't answer, because you would have figured it out. Since neither you nor anyone so far has figured it out, I feel it must be a unique solution and am trying to see about a patent. If and once that happens I will be happy to expound.

JL

 

[DKT]

Fair enough--I'm afraid I don't understand the scanning part, but at this point it sounds like a highly proprietary process, so I take your word for it. I'm a bit confused about what your gripe with CC filters is, they pretty much make them to be used on the rear elements, and that's why your camera has those filter slots--for doing color seps most likely. You could make three exposures, through r-g-b filters and build the filter pack that way. You'd have it made with that vacuum back & easel.

btw--I'm editting this in here--I have this nagging feeling that you're pulling my leg, but since April Fool's Day has come & gone, I'll take one more shot at it.

Something is missing here--I'm at a disadvantage because all I know is you have a process camera--or some sort of aerial/horizontal type camera, or two. You still haven't said *what* the final print is made on. Most people would just go out, spend a couple of hundred bucks on an enlarger, maybe some CP filters or splurge on a dichro head. Throw in a couple of trays and some RA4AT, and you got your color lab on a shoestring budget right there. But no...no...not you, you reinvent the wheel....So, my question here is this: if you're not altering the color of the lightsource with gels either before the negs (at the source) or after it (in the path), then *how* do you make a c-print or an r-print? In my book, this is impossible. So what's the final material? Some sort of graphics film or paper? Are you printing this photogaphically, or by some other means? I keep thinking c-prints and r-prints because you've mentioned these processes, but I think we're talking about different things here....and, uh, the trade secret part bit won't work for me at this point because if you say it's a c-print or an r-print, the only answer I can come up with is that you're waving a magic wand over the print, casting a spell or holding a seance with your clients. The magic 8-ball on my desk here says, this is highly unlikely.

that said--good luck with the patent.

KT