Color film developing c41 advice

HEllo every,

I need you're an opinion and advise what I'm doing wrong?!
I never had a chance to learn anything about film photography, I started photography with DSLR, but last 11months I'm really interested in it. I bought Nikon f100 and 2months ago I wanted a mechanical camera and medium format and I bought 645 Bronica ETRSI...
Currently, I'm more interested in color negative films and also I would like to develop it by my self best as a possible in-home condition. Please don't take me wrong, I totally understand that time and knowledge is definitely necessary for everything we are doing and it's hard to learn something complex like that over the night.

I developed around 30 35mm rolls and around 10 rolls of 120mm of c41 different types of films and I always had a similar problem...Very strong purple color around the image especially shadows...
I'll show you a couple of examples...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LqjKxIxuUd4VWYZIeLpYNF9lWBdwYasM
https://drive.google.com/open?id=18en-49xOL7cgHYur_2d3ecFeMD6D0zcU
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UtBvGEzNcwPHUKaTUJOQ2APtEWCexXJs
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BFB0mwZYRdcB3ndW7sdzhhjDhTVdahaO
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XNHg66-ehvMwl3tIXeEiAvOmtEkoVOTi
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Uj46y4MiAzGZMkXGXFkufYTfxGeM1dIK
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c4SqDvTc6gJQzNIWhpAg01Uk6plI2JD5

I decided to compare my develope with the right one (LAB develope). I had two portra 400 negatives 120mm and I tried to shot exactly the same settings, angles in a really short amount of time. The first roll I send to the lab and they develope and scan on NORITSU scanner and Second roll I developed at home by my self.

First thing I noticed is the color of negative even if the film is the same portra400
left(LAB)-right(MY)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lvokZJb7TUWgx569yNUM0dwGGlyukGe3/view?usp=drivesdk
Lab negative is more Red, mine one is more Yellow.I'm wondering is it just because of different chemicals?or just because I did something wrong?

I used the SilverFast to scan negatives and I keep everything by default without ant color correction just because of comparison...

LAB neg (epsonv550 my scan)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l1fK3NwVl5_ZUc8W6dggOMNVnUB7WI4x
my neg (epsonv550 my scan)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=11xk_IKPVg9gPNU82KhqGb5Ic3OdvgQhZ
LAB neg (NORITSU LAB Scan)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1k_lLKjY0hn0HHEe9mOnxIXzxvIGjXmsk

LAB neg (epsonv550 my scan)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fOLLhKfdOf4HLeSmc4TrK9D0IFE1WLfO
my neg (epsonv550 my scan)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TqTdGK5EmWimjhQyXNpAGARIS-Nhs971

Obviously something is wrong and I can't expect from you to tell me precisely what I'm doing wrong because of that forensic question.

I used DigibaseC41 for developing because of separate bleach and fix it's.
I'm warming chemicals with hot water and I don't have any temperature controller...I tried to bring back my tank in hot water which is around 38 degrees but not to much luck for me...

I have agitation first 10 sec and every minute.

my current dev process is:

preheating tank 5min

developer 3:15
wash 30sec
bleach 4min
wash 2min
fix 6:30
wash 4min
wash 1min
wash 1min
stabilizer 1min

for a developer, I'm trying to keep 37,8 and for rest of chemicals I'm trying to have something between 32-40

I found this recipe somewhere over the internet and I think think that is fine...(please let me know what do you think)

I understand that in postproduction I can fix purple color, but I would like to correct what's wrong...I also thought of buying ( Precision Cooker) just to make sure that my temperature is constant...
Also, I would like to ask what the temperature of water for washing has to be...something around (38 or something else?)>>???


Thank you everyone for you're time,
Djordje

Welcome to Photrio.
Can you share a photo of the negatives themselves - not scans of the negatives?
It is best to backlight them.
If you can show the negatives you developed beside the lab developed negatives, with appropriate labels identifying which is which, that would be very helpful.

MattKing said:

Welcome to Photrio.
Can you share a photo of the negatives themselves - not scans of the negatives?
It is best to backlight them.
If you can show the negatives you developed beside the lab developed negatives, with appropriate labels identifying which is which, that would be very helpful.

Click to expand...

Hi Matt and thank you.I forgot to attach link...
Ill share with you this negative from the test shot... most of my negatives looks similar.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lvokZJb7TUWgx569yNUM0dwGGlyukGe3/view?usp=drivesdk

Thank you a lot,
cheers

My impression is, that your negatives are perfectly alright, but that Noritsu scanners use postprocessing to get the colors and tones right. Your negatives have a little bit more contrast, and if you use Silverfast with default settings, you have to expect a slightly different look right out of the box. This is nothing, which couldn't be adjusted in digital post, and yes, that's an important aspect of hybrid processing.

In case you ask "so why bother with film if you have to adjust the colors anyway?": there is more to image appearance than color balance and saturation. Visible light comes as a continuous spectrum, and film and digital sensors, just as human eyes have to divide this into three discrete colors. I am not aware of any technical light sensitive medium which would remotely replicate the spectral sensitivity of human eyes. That's where characteristics of good film like Portra really shine - Portra isn't accurate at all, but it gives beautiful results which are at least difficult to replicate digitally.

Hi, I had a look at your scanned images and your neg shots and to be honest, while I can see a little difference, I wouldn't be too concerned.
The negs look good to me, even if there is a slightly different in the neg mask colour. Just remember different films have different neg mask colour (the orange cast in the negs).
Your negs look clean and the edge markings look good and the neg mask is clear so that rules out any contamination.
If you had temp problems it would show in the edge markings, the same as under or over developing.
I also looked at the scanned negs, from your own and from the lab and again there is a difference in colour but again I would put that down to different scanners and colour preference
If these were negs I developed myself, at home, I would be happy.
Sorry I can't be of better assistance.

Rudeofus said:

My impression is, that your negatives are perfectly alright, but that Noritsu scanners use postprocessing to get the colors and tones right. Your negatives have a little bit more contrast, and if you use Silverfast with default settings, you have to expect a slightly different look right out of the box. This is nothing, which couldn't be adjusted in digital post, and yes, that's an important aspect of hybrid processing.

In case you ask "so why bother with film if you have to adjust the colors anyway?": there is more to image appearance than color balance and saturation. Visible light comes as a continuous spectrum, and film and digital sensors, just as human eyes have to divide this into three discrete colors. I am not aware of any technical light sensitive medium which would remotely replicate the spectral sensitivity of human eyes. That's where characteristics of good film like Portra really shine - Portra isn't accurate at all, but it gives beautiful results which are at least difficult to replicate digitally.

Click to expand...

Thank you Rudeofus,

I definitely understand and agree with you. I guess Nortisu i better scanner than mine and software is also different as well.
My scanner is Epson v550 and reason why I tried default setup of silverfast is just to see raw result of inversion, but I still think that silverfast has auto correction under the hood.
Ill tried conversion in photoshop manually.
My main consideration is behavior of the film,lab film is instantly more correct in terms of color and contrast on my film i can see some purple, blue color. (I'm comparing negatives scaned on epson on same settings)
You can see example of lab neg and my neg on the top of the thread...

I wondering maybe my chemicals is not mixed properly... I mix just for 500ml of package for 1l(I split chemichals... Maybe I have to mix 1l just to get right percentage of chemichals,I follow instruction and I think that is right... but still I'm wondering... )

Thank you foc,

Just remember different films have different neg mask colour (the orange cast in the negs).

Click to expand...

I'm wondering even if it's same film and same type of filme...Roll of cellulodid can be different?

Your negs look clean and the edge markings look good and the neg mask is clear so that rules out any contamination.

Click to expand...

I'm washing my film between steps...I'm wondering maybe I had problems wash temperature...it's not constant.Is it possible to shock film with cold water and affect some colors?

If you had temp problems it would show in the edge markings, the same as under or over developing.

Click to expand...

Oh I didn't know that...On which way?

I also looked at the scanned negs, from your own and from the lab and again there is a difference in colour but again I would put that down to different scanners and colour preference

Click to expand...

This is the trick it's same scanner...I scanned lab film and my own.(sorry for bad explanation I edit my post on the top of the thread.

If these were negs I developed myself, at home, I would be happy.
Sorry I can't be of better assistance.

Click to expand...

Thank you foc I really appreciate you're answer!

Djordje said:

Thank you foc,

I'm washing my film between steps...I'm wondering maybe I had problems wash temperature...it's not constant.Is it possible to shock film with cold water and affect some colors?

Click to expand...

It is not possible no.

I think it's your scans too. You cannot just invert a color negative and get correct colors, it takes some special color processing and each scanner software has its own color processing, so different scans look different from the same negative.

eatfrog said:

It is not possible no.

I think it's your scans too. You cannot just invert a color negative and get correct colors, it takes some special color processing and each scanner software has its own color processing, so different scans look different from the same negative.

Click to expand...

Thank you eatfrog,
I'm talking more about behavior of color negative.I understand that is not posible do invert and get right color,but obviously we can see that negative scan reacts much better and looks more accurate in terms of color.
Tonight I'll try to invert my negative in photoshop...Then I'll know it that is post effects under the hood...
Is not problem to remove purple from the shadow in post...

Djordje said:

If you had temp problems it would show in the edge markings, the same as under or over developing
Oh I didn't know that...On which way?

!

Click to expand...

Edge markings will always show you how your developer is behaving. If the temp is too low or dev is exhausted or your time is too short then your film is basically underdeveloped and so the edge markings (put there by the makers during manufacturing) will look very faded and the numbers won't look solid.

The opposite is true if you develop over the time, or at a higher temp, Then the edge markings will look dense and the numbers "bleed or look fat."

As I said earlier, I would be happy with your results. Don't over think it.

Scanning, now that is a whole different ball game. There are so many variables.

If you look at color negative film with its orange mask, the plain, undeveloped film areas will be the most translucent ones. Assuming same films are compared: if one orange mask is darker than the other, the brighter orange mask is more correct, and the darker orange mask is the combination of orange mask plus fog. Since IIRC your own film looks brighter in this unexposed region, I am inclined to say, that the lab results are less than perfect, and that their optimized scanner software saved the day for them.

foc said:

Edge markings will always show you how your developer is behaving. If the temp is too low or dev is exhausted or your time is too short then your film is basically underdeveloped and so the edge markings (put there by the makers during manufacturing) will look very faded and the numbers won't look solid.

The opposite is true if you develop over the time, or at a higher temp, Then the edge markings will look dense and the numbers "bleed or look fat."

As I said earlier, I would be happy with your results. Don't over think it.

Scanning, now that is a whole different ball game. There are so many variables.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much foc for nice explanation.Yes it's really tricky to scan properly...Very helpful.

Rudeofus said:

If you look at color negative film with its orange mask, the plain, undeveloped film areas will be the most translucent ones. Assuming same films are compared: if one orange mask is darker than the other, the brighter orange mask is more correct, and the darker orange mask is the combination of orange mask plus fog. Since IIRC your own film looks brighter in this unexposed region, I am inclined to say, that the lab results are less than perfect, and that their optimized scanner software saved the day for them.

Click to expand...

Thanks Rudeofus for you're time,
I just found some interesting test which showing developed negatives with fresh and old chemicals and I can noticed that fresh one is more orange...
https://www.35mmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/KodakEktar_examples.jpg
https://www.35mmc.com/11/11/2017/ex...film-home-chemicals-dilemma-guest-post-aukje/

here also I can see more purple in shadows because chemicals are 55days old...
https://www.35mmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ektar_4mei.jpg?ezimgfmt=ngcb1/notWebP

I'm really not sure...I would like to get more proper result,but I'm very confused not.

that the lab results are less than perfect, and that their optimized scanner software saved the day for them.

Click to expand...

This example I share is scaned on same scanner under same settings:

lab negative ( my scan)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1fK3NwVl5_ZUc8W6dggOMNVnUB7WI4x/view
my negative (my scan)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11xk_IKPVg9gPNU82KhqGb5Ic3OdvgQhZ/view

thank you so much for you're time

foc said:

As I said earlier, I would be happy with your results. Don't over think it.

Click to expand...

It's something is hard to control I have to think,because I would like to get perfect as possible in (home conditions)

Thank you so much!!!!

Your results film developing may very well be within normal tolerances. It may just be that the film profile your software and scanner are using just needs a small manual correction.
If you find that you have to consistently make similar corrections, it is easy in most software to record those corrections in a "batch" and apply that "batch" to every negative before making final adjustments.
Some software allows you to incorporate that batch into the profile itself.
That may very well be what the lab is doing.

MattKing said:

Your results film developing may very well be within normal tolerances. It may just be that the film profile your software and scanner are using just needs a small manual correction.
If you find that you have to consistently make similar corrections, it is easy in most software to record those corrections in a "batch" and apply that "batch" to every negative before making final adjustments.
Some software allows you to incorporate that batch into the profile itself.
That may very well be what the lab is doing.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for answer Matt,
that's the reason why I wound to try manually correct my negative in photoshop just to keep control under my hands...

Do you have any software to recomend for epson v550 flatbad scanner?Currently I'm using silverfast...I noticed some extra noise on my negatives very generic,I'm not sure that is best solution.


Thank you so much

I had some nice results as well.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/29392353@N08/33785710288/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29392353@N08/40696514433/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29392353@N08/40696514693/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29392353@N08/40696513723/

is not that bad,but frustrate me when is too purple and not nice and saturated...as this one.
btw I like photo as photo,but on the technical side looks incorrect to me.I'm not sure...Maybe I'm to picky
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29392353@N08/40696514933/

Thank you

Djordje said:

Do you have any software to recomend for epson v550 flatbad scanner?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that there is any software choice that will result in not having to regularly make corrections.
I've never used Silverfast, but I understand it to be extremely capable and flexible, which of course means that it can be quite complex.
I use mostly use the Canon software on my Canon scanner. When I need more flexibility and capability, I use VueScan , which adds similar levels of complexity.
Have you tried the Epson software designed for your scanner?

Djordje said:

is not that bad,but frustrate me when is too purple and not nice and saturated...as this one.
btw I like photo as photo,but on the technical side looks incorrect to me.I'm not sure...Maybe I'm to picky

Click to expand...

You have to take Kodak's consumer film for what it is: it was geared towards entry level point&shoot cameras, which had terrible optics back then. These horrible optics created low contrast and poor saturation, while typical consumers yearned for string colors. Consumer film aimed to compensate for this by being a bit more contrasty and by upping color saturation. If you shoot a scene with this film in a decent camera, chances are high, that you get excessive contrast&saturation at first.

Do yourself a favor and accept, that a raw scan will not do the film justice. As you process more film you will figure out, how to post process these scans to get you the results you want. Noritsu's professional scanning software would do this for you, that's why you get nice pics from the lab. If you scan yourself, you have to walk this extra mile. BTW there are RA-4 papers with different contrast and saturation, so changing these in digital post is not even cheating in the strict sense!

MattKing said:

I'm not sure that there is any software choice that will result in not having to regularly make corrections.
I've never used Silverfast, but I understand it to be extremely capable and flexible, which of course means that it can be quite complex.
I use mostly use the Canon software on my Canon scanner. When I need more flexibility and capability, I use VueScan , which adds similar levels of complexity.
Have you tried the Epson software designed for your scanner?

Click to expand...

Hi Matt,
sorry for the late reply and thank you for your answer.
Yes I have Epson software, but I noticed some artifacts when I scan.
Please check link below.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gSDmedtH7mykacVbY61eMFKKOYisgq4L

Thank you once again,
Djordje

All I can see is artifacts - in both scans .
Your scanner is like most consumer grade flat bed scanners. It has, at best, the capacity to achieve an optical resolution of something like 1700 ppi. Anything else you see in the file is interpolation brought to you by the software.
So adjusting to the capabilities of the scanner and software is critical.
I mostly use a Canon scanner which has capabilities similar to yours. With the Canon software, my initial results were terrible. I've since got better at using it within its capabilities.
One thing that does work for me is using the scanner at a resolution that never exceeds 2400 ppi.

Rudeofus said:

You have to take Kodak's consumer film for what it is: it was geared towards entry-level point&shoot cameras, which had terrible optics back then. These horrible optics created low contrast and poor saturation, while typical consumers yearned for string colors. Consumer film aimed to compensate for this by being a bit more contrasty and by upping color saturation. If you shoot a scene with this film in a decent camera, chances are high, that you get excessive contrast&saturation at first.

Do yourself a favor and accept, that a raw scan will not do the film justice. As you process more film you will figure out, how to post-process these scans to get you the results you want. Noritsu's professional scanning software would do this for you, that's why you get nice pics from the lab. If you scan yourself, you have to walk this extra mile. BTW there are RA-4 papers with different contrast and saturation, so changing these in a digital post is not even cheating in the strict sense!

Click to expand...

Hi Rudeofus and thank you for an answer and sorry for the late reply.

I spend more than 5 minutes to edit my photo and I get a bit better result. Definitely I get rid of purple color in shadows and negative conversion is better, but still, I can notice the difference when I'm editing my and LAB negative. I did my conversion in photoshop. It's hard for me to explain the differences and I'll share my negative with you guys and You'll be able to download raw .tif scan...You can try by your self and understand what I'm trying to understand.

labNEG(mySCAN)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1y1CkEHURjx1-9So0cgi_JhXOlvhtB8Gj

myNEG(mySCAN)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1doTgXVj0mHI9un6HWyF97eHBJNBNnRKU


Here I'll show you some results of my second conversion in photoshop of the pictures that I already take as an example...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1G1dnnh_Mn8AYUbrP4bq1eTEi5rCRLzSn
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Vl2dJLtrXtyEqmCz-CixESEkT1VZPa1Z
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1elLap2_AU2SKgI4Tri4ZJN8_KxFIwk4R

comparison with lab scan
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yMr4xrX3sBVdUPXmBC9_BCDuOIUHgad4


I really appreciate all you're suggestions and for sharing your knowledge with me. I still think that is a lot of space to improve my negative and soon as I understand where the purple coming from I'll get back to you.
I would be more than happy if you test raw .tif scan by your self and let me know what do you think and do you need more time to tweak mien negative in comparison with lab one.


Thank you once again every one!!!!!!
Djordje

MattKing said:

All I can see is artifacts - in both scans .
Your scanner is like most consumer grade flat bed scanners. It has, at best, the capacity to achieve an optical resolution of something like 1700 ppi. Anything else you see in the file is interpolation brought to you by the software.
So adjusting to the capabilities of the scanner and software is critical.
I mostly use a Canon scanner which has capabilities similar to yours. With the Canon software, my initial results were terrible. I've since got better at using it within its capabilities.
One thing that does work for me is using the scanner at a resolution that never exceeds 2400 ppi.

Click to expand...

You're definitely right,
I'll test that as well.I'm waiting for museum glass( I noticed that my negatives are bended...)
I hope that glass will help a bit to achieve sharper results.

Thank you so much,
Djordje

You have a take a few things in account:

1. Lab scanners are much, much better in performance than flat bed scanners or cheap consumer scanners. They have much better dynamic range
2. Scanner noise and grain are givens, and scanner software does different things to deal with it.
3. Lab development stations these days suffer from low volume, which may make their process liquids affected by aerial oxidation rather than exhaustion, and as a result their results may be worse than you may think.
4. You own process at home runs at much smaller liquid levels per roll than lab processes, and accurate temperature control at home is at least difficult. Your results may be less than ideal even if you followed the instructions to the letter.
5. Lab scanners have different adjustments for each film product, which means they can make adjustments that you haven't tried yet and that nobody is free to tell us about. There's a chance, that lab scanners try to recognize image content and use this info for "optimized" adjustments.

Good old Ansel Adams used to say "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.", and this seems to apply to negatives and scans as well. You'll have to accept digital port processing as part of the hybrid process, and only with some experience will you be able to automate some steps of this process.

I'm not sure what to make of these. The Dmin (mask) varies all over the place, but it is manufactured into the film, and so something is changing in the process that changes the mask and that is usually fog or uncontrolled seasoning if the process is replenished. Use of a rinse after the CD is not advised. Use a stop if you must.

PE