colour vs b/w difficult?

[DREW WILEY]

There are several factors. Yes, I can differentiate color much better than the average person. That has nothing to do with better eyes, but is due to decades of working professionally with color, not only in photography as a printmaker, but as an architectual color consultant. Learning to see color critically is largely a matter of training. There is quite a bit to it. Second, it is related to how to correctly use precise calibration targets. There's a real science to that too. Third, it is related to the colorheads. Color neg films, and especially Ektar, have steep tips to the dye sensitivity curves, where the closer you get to perfect calibration, the greater the effect of filtration changes. Most colorheads simply can't resolve these after a certain point due to a bit of residual white light contamination. None of this gets past hard additive filters. Sometimes it's a bit too much. But when you want neg colors to look clean and relatively pure like a chrome print, it does make sense. I just want to get to it. Tired of fiddling with gadgets. But now someone just offered me another big pro Durst enlarger. Ho hum. No time. Gotta feed the cats.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, 2.0 - 2.5 cc is usually considered the detection limit and is actually the production limit (-.1 - +.1 cc) for most color films.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, and that's traditionally the boundary of typical human vision too. But the response of colorhead filters is not necessarily linear, nor nowadays
are modern additive laser exposure methods. They can climb those steeper dye curves pretty precisely. And human vision can be trained to compare hues against certain neutral standards to even visually differentiate minor differences. Does it matter. Well, yes, because various minor differences cumulatively add up. I certainly would not want to be confined to using gel filters for color printing. Another problem with those is that it is difficult
to even make them accurately in less than 5cc increments, not to mention fading.

 

[Roger Cole]

I can believe that it's largely a matter of training and practice.

But I can also say that I was always able to get prints that I liked (in terms of color balance at least!) using gel filters, and that I could barely detect a difference of 2.5cc and would probably accept as just fine a print that was off 2cc either side of what I settled on as "correct" - at least most of the time. Color is more critical in some photographs than others, of course, but I always got something I was satisfied with.

Of course I didn't print from Ektar in the mid 90s when I last printed color either. Mostly consumer C41 35mm films and some Optima 100 in 4x5 and Ultra 50 in 35mm. Now that was one saturated film! I did notice that from it I always got better lab prints back on Fuji paper than I was able to make on Kodak paper myself, which was not true of any other film. I got good prints, but I could get better ones from labs that used Fuji paper. Maybe the Fuji papers matched Ultra 50 better, I don't know, but it's hardly a factor now.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Films like Ultra could give you certain saturated colors, but not necessarily across the board or in conjunction with relatively accurate neutrals. Ektar is
better at that, though not perfect by any means. It ain't Astia or Kodachrome; but it is a lot closer than any color neg film I can think of. You can actually differentiate very similar shades of greige or beige or complex brown. Traditional color neg films dump a lot of that into pumpkin or "fleshtone". I'm getting certain gray-greens in the print that I haven't achieved well since Ektachrome 64 days, though that classic film was incapable
of achieving a clean spring green unless you pre-digitally subtracted the red contamination with a dye transfer tweak. It's always about tradeoffs.
Real painters have life so much easier in that respect. Just mix pigments as needed. And yes, it is about training. Most photographers don't have a clue about basic color theory and related physiology. That's fine. Off-key singing sounds best in an enclosure like a shower, while Fauxtoshop hyper
saturation reverberates best in empty heads.

 

[nworth]

Color should be processed in total darkness. When safelights are used, they just (barely) illuminate the timer or critical controls.

Because color requires fussier controls on processing, it is a bit, but only a little bit, harder to set up. First, you need something to hold your chemicals at the right temperature. It should include space for both your bulk chemicals and three smaller containers for chemicals you will use for the film or paper you are about to process. Many rotary processors have these built in. Rotary processors come in several forms: very elaborate automatic processors, fairly elaborate and versatile (like Jobo), simple but versatile (like DevTek) and very basic (like the Beseler drum). The more elaborate processors have automatic temperature controls, and you can equip the simpler processors (like the DevTek) with a heater and thermostat to maintain temperature. Even a fish tank heater will do. With the simple drum processors (like the Beseler) you need a separate water bath to maintain solution temperature, and you use a "drift through" process to get the temperature right during processing. It isn't hard. You can process in trays, but I don't recommend it.

Your first color print is generally absolute hell. Getting that initial filter pack right is not easy. But after that, printing is very easy. It is very similar to black and white, except that you have to make occasional small color adjustments and you do not have to do as much dodging and burning.

 

[Roger Cole]

1. Drew - no dispute about Ultra. It wasn't accurate, but it was vivid. I was into cycling at the time and used it for photos of bicycle racing (in the categories I wasn't riding, of course) for the vivid team uniforms, sometimes at car shows, and some landscapes on overcast, flat days when the enhancement was useful. Caucasion flesh tones were not good - quite too ruddy. Ektar is undeniably more accurate across the board, and the most saturated negative film I've seen on today's market.

2. As for color safelights that's true with the conventional filter over 15W bulb type (though even seeing outlines of things is helpful.) But with my Duka sodium it was safe for RA4 at a level that looks brighter than the typical conventional OC for black and white. I don't know how modern LEDs will come in. I have a maxilux but haven't gone back to color to try it. However, if it tests safe bouncing off my light colored wall and at minimum setting it too will be far better than nothing.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Use a WR 13 or a WR 11 safelight filter for color paper with a 7 or 15 W bulb. You must test wattage in your own darkroom.

You cannot use any safelight for color film.

PE

 

[Wayne]

I ordered my #13 yesterday. Can't wait to "see" what I've been missing. I guess not much, since I've developed in trays twice but that's about to change in a big way.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I need to find something for aligning my big heavy rolls of RA4 Supergloss onto the roller spindles on the cutter. That is hell to do in total darkness
with my arthritic fingers. After that momentary operation, total darkness is fine. But I've never had an RA4 "safelight" option before, so don't know
exactly what to expect.

 

[Roger Cole]

Well mine tested safe with the RA4 papers (I printed mostly on the Supra of the day) of the mid 1990s. I don't know if today's papers and specifically your Fuji would be enough faster and/or different in spectral sensitivity to not be safe. The tube for my Duka 50 is no longer available anyway (one reason I am saving it for color and not using it for black and white even though it can be significantly brighter than a conventional safelight) but they do turn up used from time to time, and could probably be sold for what you pay if it proves not safe enough or useful enough.

At the time in the 90s I had a white ceiling (intentionally, for just this reason) in my darkroom, and the Duka 50 mounted just under it and shining up onto the ceiling for diffuse overall light. I had to set it at minimum for RA4, but even so it was brighter than a Kodak OC filter with 15w bulb for B&W and comparable but slightly brighter than some of the other, brighter black and white safelights. It was brighter than my Patterson I used for black and white before I got it (and the Petterson looks brighter than a Kodak OC filter with 15w in the usual bullet shaped safelight.)

 

[Roger Cole]

A quick look on Google turned this up in comparing the Duke 50 to LEDs. If I didn't already have one I'd be on the lookout for a Duka. In fact I may start looking so I'll have a spare.

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/archive/index.php/t-303.html

We did some tests on 589nm LEDs vs Duka-type sodium lamps, and the latter is a lot "safer" for RA4. As Bob says, the safe light level for RA4 with LEDs allows orientation in the darkroom only. The sodium lamp emits a very narrow wavelength range which matches the sensitivity gap of the paper, whereas LEDs have a broader spectrum which overlaps into the paper's sensitised areas.

 

[Vaughn]

One needs a good light to judge color under -- should be the same as the ultimate light source used for display. I do not like even looking at my print until I can dry it (hair drier) as the color shifts as it dries with RA4. I had some tungsten bulbs I could put dry prints under in order to judge them. The room outside the darkroom had florescents that had a touch of red in them. If one used those lights to judge color, one ended up with blue prints under tungsten.

The brain can 'adjust' color for us -- tricky thing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

This has nothing to do with evaluating color, Vaughn. It's about simple darkroom navigation using a very weak safelight. In my case I'd have it linked to a momentary-contact footswitch. Fuji ra4 papers don't really shift color as they dry, but merely go from slightly dull to saturated. Not like Cibachrome. Nor is it like checking progress in a tray as with black and white papers. You need standardized time/temp development, which goes
to completion. Even the idea of working with ra4 in trays seems nuts to me. But I'll have to team up with you once I retire and am able to travel
more casually. I'll have many northward excursions no doubt. All my time off this final year of work will probably be spent high Sierra backpacking.

 

[Vaughn]

Oh, I was just referring to light for judging one's color balance of the print, not a safe light...I thought that topic has been beat to death. I used various Kodak color papers that did shift when drying. But the most difficult thing about color is the use of color. Beginners of color take awhile (and some never get there) to start using color as one uses the tonalitly of B&W as an expressive tool.

I used an Ilfordchrome color processor, set up for RA4 (just the first machine, not with the second wash/dry module) -- made the developing part a no-brainer. After years of developing B&W sheet film, working in the dark with color print material was not a big deal. Processing, I did have trouble with 5"x12"+ prints (I had a 5"x200' foot roll!) -- I had to be at the machine when the prints first appeared out of the processor -- they had a tendency to curl back into the machine!

Hopefully, I'll put in some trail miles in the Yolla Bollys this early summer. I'd like to spend my 62nd on top of a peak all night, though I am not too particular about hitting the exact day, but Sugarloaf Mountain (as a 'peak' it is as exciting as its name) might do. And up Redwood Creek when the water drops down a bit in the late Spring -- multiple creek crossing with chest-high water is not a lot of fun...waist high is fine, as long as others don't mind seeing a pantless old backpacker! Thankfully, I usually see no one up there.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The truth behind those Sasquatch rumors is getting confirmed! It's been about five years since I had a serious early season dunking crossing a swollen snowmelt stream. But I always have my sleeping bag, clothing, and camera gear thoroughly wrapped up in plastic bags inside the pack for just
such incidents. For many years I had a Memorial Day ritual of spending the night atop a particular 1000 ft Sierra front range peak to watch the sunrise
over the main range. I had about a 50% success rate due to the fickleness of the weather. But it did provide a nice steep ice chute approach for ice
axe practice, and I only accounted the climb worthy if I had the Sinar camera system along. A good workout. Now laziness has set in - not relative to
the exercise itself, but avoiding the traffic en route, since I no longer own a house up in the hills. I got a lot of large format shots from there anyway.
Like the ice sheets breaking up on the lakes early season. Don't think I'll do much in the mtns this year till "post-mosquito" in late Aug or Sept. Nobody needs real mosquitoes anymore because they have an automated Photoshop app now that simulates a mosquito flying around inside your
bellows and landing on the film. Same suite of features that comes with the automated fingerprint-smudge on film and accidental double exposure
because you forgot to reverse the darkslide app.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Typos, as usual. 11,000 peak I meant. I'm typing using one lens on my reading glasses, with the other side taped over since the lens fell out. Gotta buy a new pair tonite. Left the other pair in the darkroom.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Typos, as usual. 11,000 peak I meant. I'm typing using one lens on my reading glasses, with the other side taped over since the lens fell out. Gotta buy a new pair tonite. Left the other pair in the darkroom.