Color images from B&W film...

[foc]

Would it be triple-cross processing or xpro to the power of 3 ?

 

[dourbalistar]

Would it be triple-cross processing or xpro to the power of 3 ?

Haha, I have no idea...

 

[dourbalistar]

2020.05.09 Roll #244-04734-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[guangong]

Very interesting thread and results posted are fantastic. Nevertheless, I’ll stay with my Marshall’s coloring set. To each his own, but I enjoyed the prints.

 

[dourbalistar]

Very interesting thread and results posted are fantastic. Nevertheless, I’ll stay with my Marshall’s coloring set. To each his own, but I enjoyed the prints.

Thank you, guangong! It's probably not for everyone, but I'm having fun experimenting.

 

[dourbalistar]

Some roses from our front yard.


2020.05.09 Roll #244-04738-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[dourbalistar]

2020.05.14 Roll #245-04793-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[foc]

2020.05.14 Roll #245-04793-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

I really like the colour fringing (it looks similar to chromatic aberration) of the leaves in the tree caused by movement between each of the 3 exposures.
I wonder would it work with a portrait?
You might have to clamp their heads as they did in the early days of long exposure photography.

 

[138S]

As many will know...

We may use tri-color cameras to have the 3 images in a single shot:

 

[dourbalistar]

I really like the colour fringing (it looks similar to chromatic aberration) of the leaves in the tree caused by movement between each of the 3 exposures.
I wonder would it work with a portrait?
You might have to clamp their heads as they did in the early days of long exposure photography.

Thanks! The color fringing is interesting, and adds a surreal element to the images. You can definitely do portraits, though as you mentioned, the subject would have to remain perfectly still between the 3 exposures. I don't have any willing models for portraiture, so I'll probably stick to non-moving objects for now.

 

[dourbalistar]

As many will know... We may use tri-color cameras to have the 3 images in a single shot.

Interesting cameras! I imagine they are quite rare, and difficult to find.

 

[dourbalistar]

2020.05.14 Roll #245-04796-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's called tricolor photography, and has been around for about 120 years in many variations, including some of the best photographic processes ever invented in terms of color accuracy and richness. Just compare a true Technicolor movie to the alternatives, or a real dye transfer print to an inkjet. You don't need a tricolor camera unless something moves. Old Curtis and Devin tricolor cameras are not really that rare, but are difficult and expensive to restore. A good optical machinist could make their own, albeit at considerable fuss and expense. That would be for "simultaneous" RGB exposures. But for "sequential" RGB exposures you just take three shots in a row through appropriate color separation filters of something that hopefully doesn't move or shake in the meantime (including the camera itself), and then register the separate images for sake of printing. One of the earliest applications was to use three aligned carbon arc projectors, each with its own filter, and holding its own respective large glass plate, to yield an overlapping full-color image superior to anything possible with color slide film afterwards. But those would have been some awfully slow, hot projection sessions! I once had an old-timer describe it to me. That could be done again. Just make sure it isn't Aunt Maude's vacation pictures of Peoria, like most family slide shows were.
The best current film for this kind of applications is TMax 100. HP5 is a really poor choice.

 

[dourbalistar]

It's called tricolor photography, and has been around for about 120 years in many variations, including some of the best photographic processes ever invented in terms of color accuracy and richness. Just compare a true Technicolor movie to the alternatives, or a real dye transfer print to an inkjet. You don't need a tricolor camera unless something moves. Old Curtis and Devin tricolor cameras are not really that rare, but are difficult and expensive to restore. A good optical machinist could make their own, albeit at considerable fuss and expense. That would be for "simultaneous" RGB exposures. But for "sequential" RGB exposures you just take three shots in a row through appropriate color separation filters of something that hopefully doesn't move or shake in the meantime (including the camera itself), and then register the separate images for sake of printing. One of the earliest applications was to use three aligned carbon arc projectors, each with its own filter, and holding its own respective large glass plate, to yield an overlapping full-color image superior to anything possible with color slide film afterwards. But those would have been some awfully slow, hot projection sessions! I once had an old-timer describe it to me. That could be done again. Just make sure it isn't Aunt Maude's vacation pictures of Peoria, like most family slide shows were.
The best current film for this kind of applications is TMax 100. HP5 is a really poor choice.

Thanks for the information, Drew! I think I understand why T-MAX 100 would be good (extremely fine grain for stacking exposures), but is there a particular reason why Ilford HP5+ is a really poor choice? For my own fun experimentation, I just used what I've been shooting lately, which is Ultrafine eXtreme 400. Might not be the best film to use per se, but it works!

 

[DREW WILEY]

First of all, TMY100 was specifically engineered for this particular application in the first place (among numerous other features intended to replace several previous films). It has a very long straight line, correctly balanced spectral sensitivity, and is the only film I am aware of where, if one calibrates the 3 exposures correctly, is capable of having all three attain the same contrast gamma when developed together for the same length of time. A LOT of testing work and densitometer plotting has to go up front to learn to properly balance a set of negatives. Of course, on forums like this you're going to encounter plenty of fun stuff that isn't fussy in that regard, or else has been twisted and bludgeoned half to death via software to make the different separations sorta get along. But it is possible to do it well via totally darkroom workflow, just like it was routinely done countless thousands of times in the past when this was the routine mode of color reproduction. HP5 has none of the characteristics I described above. FP4 would work, but needs significantly more development of the blue exposure to match the gamma of red and green. With TMax 400, it's the green exposure that differs from the other two. I have a set of 8x10 filmholders right now loaded with TMX, and with precise filtration aperture settings listed on each, but just haven't run into the correct subject yet. It's been an unusually windy year around here, and obviously not an ideal travel year. But I do sometimes make color separations in the lab from color chrome film originals, where it can be very precisely done that way. More recently, I've made a number of single-color filter separations from 4x5 and 8x10 chrome originals for sake of black and white prints. I hope to print a couple of those tomorrow. Typical color separation filter sets would include 25 red, 47 blue, and 58 green. A more precise but slower exposing set of even deeper filters would be 29 red, 47B blue, and 61 green.

 

[dourbalistar]

First of all, TMY100 was specifically engineered for this particular application in the first place (among numerous other features intended to replace several previous films). It has a very long straight line, correctly balanced spectral sensitivity, and is the only film I am aware of where, if one calibrates the 3 exposures correctly, is capable of having all three attain the same contrast gamma when developed together for the same length of time. A LOT of testing work and densitometer plotting has to go up front to learn to properly balance a set of negatives. Of course, on forums like this you're going to encounter plenty of fun stuff that isn't fussy in that regard, or else has been twisted and bludgeoned half to death via software to make the different separations sorta get along. But it is possible to do it well via totally darkroom workflow, just like it was routinely done countless thousands of times in the past when this was the routine mode of color reproduction. HP5 has none of the characteristics I described above. FP4 would work, but needs significantly more development of the blue exposure to match the gamma of red and green. With TMax 400, it's the green exposure that differs from the other two. I have a set of 8x10 filmholders right now loaded with TMX, and with precise filtration aperture settings listed on each, but just haven't run into the correct subject yet. It's been an unusually windy year around here, and obviously not an ideal travel year. But I do sometimes make color separations in the lab from color chrome film originals, where it can be very precisely done that way. More recently, I've made a number of single-color filter separations from 4x5 and 8x10 chrome originals for sake of black and white prints. I hope to print a couple of those tomorrow. Typical color separation filter sets would include 25 red, 47 blue, and 58 green. A more precise but slower exposing set of even deeper filters would be 29 red, 47B blue, and 61 green.

Wow, thanks for the detailed response, I'll note that for future attempts! I'm just a rank amateur, but hopefully I haven't twisted and bludgeoned my results half to death.

 

[dourbalistar]

At least I used the "correct" set of filters (25 red, 47 blue, and 58 green) that Drew mentioned...


2020.05.14 Roll #245-04799-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[dourbalistar]

2020.05.14 Roll #245-04802-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[dourbalistar]

2020.05.14 Roll #245-04808-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[foc]

Great to see more of your images. (love the Solaris box)

 

[dourbalistar]

Great to see more of your images. (love the Solaris box)

Thank you, appreciate it!

 

[dourbalistar]

2020.05.14 Roll #245-04811-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[ProfessorC1983]

Wow @dourbalistar this is amazing stuff and now I have something else on my long list to try! Mind if I ask what film this is? Are you developing all 3 frames together and then manipulating the gamma in post? Based on the comment above it sounds like TMax100 is the way to go for minimal fuss. I'm wondering how challenging it would be to make in-camera negatives suitable for a tricolor gum process and skip the D phase altogether.

 

[dourbalistar]

Wow @dourbalistar this is amazing stuff and now I have something else on my long list to try! Mind if I ask what film this is? Are you developing all 3 frames together and then manipulating the gamma in post? Based on the comment above it sounds like TMax100 is the way to go for minimal fuss. I'm wondering how challenging it would be to make in-camera negatives suitable for a tricolor gum process and skip the D phase altogether.

Thank you, @ProfessorC1983! I shot a bunch of trichrome images, and developed everything together. These were done with a Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Ultrafine eXtreme 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes. Three individual black and white frames shot through Tiffen #25 Red, #58 Green, and #47 Blue filters, respectively, then combined using GIMP to create a trichrome color image. I followed this very good tutorial, but I'm happy to share more details. Unfortunately, I know nothing about gum process...

 

[dourbalistar]

2020.05.14 Roll #245-04814-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr