Colour neg analyser suggestions?

[Jim Michael]

Please explain-

Which part? I used different analyzers over time, some read the mixed light prior to going through the neg/trans, some used a probe on the easel and IIRC (it's only been 20 years or so) my usual practice would have been to calculate the color correction using y and m, make the density calculation and come up with the new pack and adjust the filtration and f-stop to get the calculated adjustment. If you're reading white light (vs. what's going through the neg/trans) you don't have to worry about positioning the probe in the same spot.

Re second part, if you have a big stack of work to get out that's similar in nature (e.g. the wedding example someone gave) then once you make your first print to your satisfaction you should be able to probe a similar region in the next neg/trans and dial in a similar correction (which most of the time should be pretty consistent color-wise, mainly trying to nail the density.)

Way back then I had written a little computer program on an Osborne computer that predated the PC that I used to calculate color filtration and density corrections for all the enlargers in the custom area. It had weightings to adjust for inconsistencies in the curves for the various emulsions we were using. Most challenging was color interneg material that had two different sets of curves. That stuff could be really hard to print with.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Back when I made custom prints I usually used the analyzer to make fine color adjustments for which the analog dials on the color head were not sufficiently accurate. Also as previously described to get a skin tone or neutral area color and density close enough for use of viewing filters.

"...For which the analog dials in the color head were not sufficiently accurate."
What color head were you using?


"...To get skin tone or neutral area color and density close enough for use of viewing filters."
A test strip with filtration set at 55Y/50M will do this.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I don't quite know how to respond to this. In my 25 years of printing color professionally, including countless portfolios for regional media photographers, a 5cc shift was automatic grounds for rejection.

This was the result of "blind testing". I would make four or five prints from one negative/ transparency, and present them, one at a time, to my wife and others who CLAIM a nearly "mystic" eye for color balance. The correlation (from the questions of "Which is more cyan ?" 0r, What changes in color filtration do you think are appropriate ?") is really zero. I could do as well flipping a coin.
Thre are as many variables affecting the PERCEPTION of color as are introduced by ambiet conditions and the "mindsets" of the evaluators.
I could tell the differences betwen color balance with an analyzer ... I cold not, and, frankly, I tend to doubt those who claim to do as well, or better, "by eye".

I guess the obvious question would be, who calibrates your analyzer? And, without a gray card or color wheel in the corner of every sheet of film or on every roll. how do you use the analyzer to correct color balance when their is no reference point for your negative?

*I* "calbrate" the processed information when I use the analyzer. The specifc method would best be described in the ColorStar 3000 manual. I'll try to condense:

1. Select a point on a test strip, exposed from a sample ~ 18% gray area.

2. Press "Analyze". The ColorStar will measure the densities of yellow, cyan, and magenta - and an integration indicating overall density - and "reset" the ColorStar to indicate a "null" for (close to) 0.55 density. Another test strip, exposed to those values and analyzed again, will be closer to 0.55.

3. Contiune until the strips are within +/- .01 or so.

4. Without an image of 18% gray, repeated analyses will be averaged, in the same way as an exposure meter averages the brightness levels, to give a more or less "close" color head setting.

... channel on the analyzer for ONE combination of paper emulsion and film emulsion, how can you then transfer these unique values to different film emulsions and expect the the same neutral balance? Try doing this with Kodak Gold 200, Kodak Portra 160 NC, and Fuji Pro 160 S.

You can't. The ColorStar is designed to establish information about a specific paper, chemistry, light source, and target color balance -- not to calibrate an entire system. A change of paper, for example, from Fuji to Kodak requires the establishment of a new "channel".

Clearly, you will need to adjust to the unique characteristics of each film emulsion. If you establish a benchmark of "Neutral" for Portra 160 NC lot# xyz123, printed on Fuji CA lot# abc456, and you then analyze Fuji Pro 160 C lot# lkj890, for printing on Fuji CA lot# abc456, the analyzer, of course, will only tell you what is "correct" for its benchmark, not your task at hand.

Not dependent of emulsion. The ColorStar will digest the characterstics of the light received from any emulsion, and translate it to dichro head settings to duplicate a specfic color combination/ overall density.

I have not even addressed the issue of changing light. Many of us shoot early morning or evening due to the warm, gentle light these times provide. Does your analyzer allow for these intentional differences in color? On the contrary. It will correct for them, leaving a dull, neutral print.

Well ... I have a series of images exposed with the only source of light being the output of color transperencies projected throuhg a Hasselblad PCP80 Projector, and onto AgfaColor *Daylight* balanced film. The Color temeperature of the projection lamp is somewhere around 3800K, and really, all bets are off after the light passes through the various transparencies, anyway. Trying to print these "by eye" would be a nightmare. Using the Colorstar, at least the effort was coherent, and far less painful. Yes, cyan filtraion - a lot of it - was necessary.

I said previously in this thread that it must be a religious thing. So I guess that makes me a preacher for the opposing religion, "You don't need a stinkin' analyzer." If you can calibrate an analyzer, you can balance a print.

I guess I'll have to agree with that last part: I CAN and do "calibrate" the ColorStar 3000, and I "balance" prints - very well, thank you.

I have three (3) ColorStar 3000s. None of them "stink".

 

[Nick Zentena]

I guess the obvious question would be, who calibrates your analyzer? And, without a gray card or color wheel in the corner of every sheet of film or on every roll. how do you use the analyzer to correct color balance when their is no reference point for your negative?

"You don't need a stinkin' analyzer." If you can calibrate an analyzer, you can balance a print.

Which gets back to my point about people who have never used something like the Colorstar.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Which gets back to my point about people who have never used something like the Colorstar.

This point I will gladly concede. I have never used a Colorstar. I understand from those who have difficulty balancing color that it may be $1,000.00 well spent. But to suggest that it is necessary for high quality color printing belies decades of truly fine work produced by countless custom color labs.

None of the fine labs I have printed for, nor those I have toured, used color analyzers. These labs' reputations depended on producing color prints of the highest quality, not simply a print balanced to an average of numeric values for an average customer. And I can assure you these labs were not in business to waste paper, chemistry, or time.

If you believe that you need a color analyzer to produce a well balanced print, so be it. But I'll bet you're better than you think.

In the spirit of APUG and its commitment to a traditional, old school, approach to photography and darkroom work, I will try to dissuade those new to color printing from buying a computerized crutch before trying to develop skills of their own. Almost anything is easy once you learn how to do it.

 

[Dave Dawson]

Alright, Alright, Alright!

I'll start by using some viewing filters and my mince pies!

Cheers Dave

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have to jump in here and agree with Thomas on this.

I started printing colour and black and white prints for others in 1976, I am still printing daily for others in various print outputs.
During this period I have had the pleasure/pain of working for a continuous stream of photographers, artists, gallerys and museums.
I have had the pleasure of working in a few very high quality custom labs and met hundreds of excellent printer/technicians in this time.
One fact: If you cannot see 1-2 point colour drift you certainly would not cut it in any top shop.
Analysers were used in paticular labs where a printer was handed a series of negatives and needed to complete the job. But in every situation where I worked the analyzer was only used as a first step , and from there it was always manual.***with one exception***

(I spent a short period working in a colour room where there were 20 darkrooms all hooked up to analysers and two shifts sometimes three shifts of printers working during the 80's , this lab was the only game in town for art printing up to this point.
Here they relied on the on a supervisor to give corrections and used the gear to find the balance. This lab's quality was suspect and in the late 80's , small custom labs started popping up and basically took all the cream jobs away and I can assure you these labs did not rely on analyzers , but rather skilled technicians who could see slight colour drifts and had a good grasp on colour theory.)

With all this said , I have no problem with the devices one uses to make prints, but I have to agree with Thomas , one does not need them, and to the OP original questions, the best printers I have seen never needed them.
Just a good starting pack on the enlarger, fresh paper, a few notes, two stops from wide, and a good mixture of light to look at the prints.

Colour Printing today in a custom lab, is all PS and calibrated profiles and good moniter first print reliability .
But from there I still pull out the filters in good light and make a manual colour correction that is applied to the image.

The day that a device is required to tell me that a print is good is the day I stop printing and drive the Zamboni and rake the ball diamond.

This point I will gladly concede. I have never used a Colorstar. I understand from those who have difficulty balancing color that it may be $1,000.00 well spent. But to suggest that it is necessary for high quality color printing belies decades of truly fine work produced by countless custom color labs.

None of the fine labs I have printed for, nor those I have toured, used color analyzers. These labs' reputations depended on producing color prints of the highest quality, not simply a print balanced to an average of numeric values for an average customer. And I can assure you these labs were not in business to waste paper, chemistry, or time.

If you believe that you need a color analyzer to produce a well balanced print, so be it. But I'll bet you're better than you think.

In the spirit of APUG and its commitment to a traditional, old school, approach to photography and darkroom work, I will try to dissuade those new to color printing from buying a computerized crutch before trying to develop skills of their own. Almost anything is easy once you learn how to do it.

 

[Ed Sukach]

This point I will gladly concede. I have never used a Colorstar. I understand from those who have difficulty balancing color that it may be $1,000.00 well spent. But to suggest that it is necessary for high quality color printing belies decades of truly fine work produced by countless custom color labs.

The use of an analyzer is NOT "necessary". I would never suggest that the information from the analyzer is absolute, nor the only way to go.
Look at an analyzer as you would an exposure meter. There are those, certainly, who make wonderful exposures without one - but exposure meters are, undeniably, useful tools... and it is the same with a ColorStar (or other) color analyzers.

None of the fine labs I have printed for, nor those I have toured, used color analyzers. These labs' reputations depended on producing color prints of the highest quality, not simply a print balanced to an average of numeric values for an average customer. And I can assure you these labs were not in business to waste paper, chemistry, or time.

Inarguable. "In your experience" ... which differs from mine. *I* WILL waste a lot of paper, chemistry and time without the occasional use of an analyzer.

If you believe that you need a color analyzer to produce a well balanced print, so be it. But I'll bet you're better than you think.

I don't (as much as possible) "judge" others, let alone myself. I can only hope that I am not as "bad" as some would have others believe.

In the spirit of APUG and its commitment to a traditional, old school, approach to photography and darkroom work, I will try to dissuade those new to color printing from buying a computerized crutch before trying to develop skills of their own. Almost anything is easy once you learn how to do it.

Will you do the same with exposure meters?

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Will you do the same with exposure meters?

Nope!

 

[Nick Zentena]

This point I will gladly concede. I have never used a Colorstar. I understand from those who have difficulty balancing color that it may be $1,000.00 well spent. But to suggest that it is necessary for high quality color printing belies decades of truly fine work produced by countless custom color labs.


If you believe that you need a color analyzer to produce a well balanced print, so be it. But I'll bet you're better than you think.

The most I paid for a colorstar is $150. I bought one for 50ish. It's 2009 and this stuff is free or close to it.

Nobody is better then I think I am

The colorstar handles any negative film I might use. I have different channels for different papers. It adjust itself for chemistry drift. Bulb aging.

I can understand somebody that is in the lab every day not feeling the need. But the colorstar or the newer colorline make things trival for those of us who might go a month without touching a colour enlarger. Obviously it has it's own learning curve. I also think it works best the better you know how to print color. But then I also think it teaches things that then make it easier to print without it.

 

[Dave Dawson]

Well there ain't no Colorstars on eBay at the moment!

Cheers Dave

 

[pentaxuser]

Well there ain't no Colorstars on eBay at the moment!

Cheers Dave

Dave they come up rarely on the U.K. e-bay but I have seen at least one in the last 12 months although never for as low a price as Nick Zentenna quotes in the U.S.

They are the Rolls Royce of analyser but take a while to learn how to operate them. The Paterson machine which also goes under the name of Philips but is the same machine comes up more frequently. It is much cheaper but relies on you making a "perfect"( perfection being in the eyes of the beholder, namely, you) print and calibrating the analyser from this print.

I'd choose a good neg with a variety of colours including if possible flesh tones and a neutral grey and make a perfect print from this. This may take several prints so be prepared to waste some paper. Alternatively a good minilab shoud be able to make a good print and you can try and replicate this.

Once calibrated it is easy to use and accurate in probably 95-98% of prints, Being an analyser that relies on integration it can be fooled if there is a predominance of one colour in the neg. Unless a Colourstar 3000 were to present itself in the next week or two I'd go for a Paterson. The few prints that the analyser will produce with a colour cast can be corrected by eye so you waste a couple of sheets of paper only.

From a strict economics of colour printing point of view there's a case for buying the Paterson and accepting the odd colour cast which is then corrected rather than the Colourstar. It all depends on what extra you are willing to pay for 100% perfection as compared to say 95% perfection

Deviating slightly to materials I have found Kodak paper easier to get right than Fuji paper. It seems more tolerant of slight deviations in Yand M and at least the Kodak site gives a starting value of Y and M which gets you close. There is no such help on the Fuji site unfortunately.

pentaxuser

 

[Dave Dawson]

Hi All, Thanks for the good advice that has been given by many.....As I have ordered a set of viewing correction filters I will start (when I get round to getting some film and paper!) with a series of test prints. Getting a good lab to do a print for me is a good idea and will give me something to work towards.

I will be working with 5x4 and shooting mainly still life in a 'make shift' studio so one good neg followed by one good print from each session will be my goal.

Slightly off topic....How long does unopened bleach fix Kodak Ektacolor last?...I was given some old chemicals which mixes to 25L

Cheers Dave

 

[Ed Sukach]

Nope!

Noted.

This all is sometthing akin to the introduction of exposure meters - way back ... MANY moons ago.

The arguments are much the same ... "They are `crutches'"; "They prevent the student from `learning by ...trial and error? Not adding to the struggle/ sufffering?"; One is "better off" by trusting one's own eyes" ... ad infinitum.

Surely neither is NECESSARY, but either are as useful as are many other tools in the box.

 

[Dave Dawson]

Well I have won TWO sets of viewing correction filters off feabay so I am one step nearer getting started on colour printing again.

Thanks again for all your suggestions....Cheers Dave

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Use veiwing filters, but I found that using your eyes is the best way.

Jeff

 

[Ed Sukach]

I've recently downloaded an image to the "Techinical Gallery", taken with "Reflected Averaging" metering.

The use of "Daylight Balanced" film required extensive correction in printing. I have *no* idea of the color temperature of the light illuminatimg the interior of the entrance ... certainly it was nowhere near 5500 - 6000K.
The image was analyzed in the enlarger, using the ColorStar 3000. A great deal of cyan filtration was necessary. The first print was "close" in color balance, but it was obvious that pre-flashing would be useful in controlling excessive contrast - 10% proved to be adequte.
The fourth print (from memory) was "good". I hate to think of the struggle here if I did not use the ColorStar.

I'll confess to one "manipulation" with the Epson V500 Scanner; One (1) degree of counter-clockwise rotation, as a mal de mer prventative for the more sensitive viewing this image (no tripod used - only bracing the camera against the vehicle).

 

[jscha]

Analyzer FEM Kunze MC5000 / CFL 4012

I use the FEM Kunze MC 5000, and am quite happy with it. You get a testnegative which you use to calibrate to neutral gray (the MC 5000 also does the positive analysis for you i.e. telling you when you have neutral gray ;-) Takes usually 2-3 prints until you get it right.

Derived from this calibration you also get calibrations for skin-tone and integral measurement.

If I enlarge a print, I use a diffusor disk in front of the enlarger lens to measure = integral measuring. (it takes a couple of tries to get a feel for the "right" spots where to measure.)

The first print is usually within 5cc of what I like.

Mr Kunze is very helpful and will walk you through calibration on the phone if necessary. (He was a development engineer for Wallner many years ago and if you read a little into coloranalysis theorie his name pops up on various papers) He by the way recommends Fuji paper as more suitable for analog enlarging. The analyzer comes with test-negs for color and b&w, the diffusor disk and a reference graystrip.

Also consider that this is one of the few still made and serviced analyzers. I got mine second hand from a friend, send it to FEM Kunze for service and EPROM update, where it turned out that this analyzer had done over 350000 exposures, a couple of elkos in the powerbrick and 2 switches where preemptively replaced and that was it.

I spend quite some time and money on wallner, colourstar ..... I heard good things about the colourstar, but it is not made anymore and support was hard to get for me, so I got rid of it again. YMMV

Before I did my filtering by eye and with the kodak-view filters, which are a good help, but for me it is a big timesaver to be close on the first try.

I am absolutely pleased with the analyzer and the service. Color analysis is not trivial, and requires some calibration work on your part, and not to forget you still have to learn how to use the analyzer correctly.

 

[Dave Dawson]

Being the originator of this thread the posts that have been put on here are pretty much what I was expecting. Many years ago I spent many hours in the darkroom 'chasing' that perfect colour print...It never happened due to the very inconsistant temperature control I was using and other variable factors.

Now I'm about to give it another go using much greater control by using either my Jobo Autolab ATL-2+ or a Durst Printo to take care of the processing and hoefully will get at least consistant results if not perfect results to start with.

I think gatting a good print is similar to playing darts...You have to be able to hit the bullseye every time and the only way to do that is with a lot of practice and making minor adjustments. I'll start (soon) using cc viewing filters at first and then see how an analyser might help in the future.

Due to the fact that I will only be printing a few prints periodicaly and hope to use constant stocks of film, paper etc I hope an analyser is not neccesary (or needed) The one common theme about analysers is that they have to be 'calibrated' with a perfect print in the first place, so once you have arrived at that point I would think an analyser will be of more use for higher production runs.

I do appreciate all comments and will let you know how I get on when the darkrooms waste bin starts filling!

Cheers Dave

 

[Nick Zentena]

The one common theme about analysers is that they have to be 'calibrated' with a perfect print in the first place,

No the ones I mentioned make a grey print. The built in densometer then adjusts the anaylzer. No perfect print is needed to calibrate the unit.