colour vs b/w difficult?

[Roger Cole]

Regarding those colour filters - can I use those as black and white multi grade filters too?

You CAN, and it will work, but I'd recommend a separate set of MC filters. Becuase:

You can use the magenta and yellow filters to control contrast with multigrade papers. The magenta filters block green and pass blue, while the yellow filters block blue and pass green. The red passed by each is not a factor. You control contrast by exposing with different combinations.

This is exactly how it works. But the difference, besides convenient markings in contrast grades instead of having to consult a table for relative filtration values (with a little practice you get a feel for this though) is that the MC filters are speed matched. Such matching is only approximate in the sense that due to the very nature of contrast changes they can only be matched for one chosen gray value. But that's usually a pretty useful middle gray level and in practice you can swap filters and change contrast, use the same exposure (or a stop more if you go from anything 00 - 3.5 up to 4 - 5 which are half the speed of the lower filters) and get a print that looks very similar except for different contrast. You can vary exposure a bit from there. In other words speed matching isn't perfect or essential, but I do find it handy.

That said lots of people use a dichro color head to print black and white giving them the ability to dial in filtration for VC combined with the benefits of diffusion. That's probably a worthwhile trade-off for loss of the mid gray speed matching.

 

[BMbikerider]

A few have said colour printing is easier and I will agree with them except on one point. There are far more variables to contend with, but once you have a set procedure then it is easier . The temperature must be consistent every time - I use a NOVA deep tank which will keep the developer at a constant 35 degrees C. The development time has to be consistent - 45 seconds is my choice or the colour will drift I stick with the same colour film, different types (Speeds) and makes may have different shades of orange masking which we cannot see, but the paper will detect very easily. Even the film developer or age of the film may make a small difference.

The same fine points do not need to be adhered to for the stop bath or the bleach fix, it is the development stage which is critical. I also find that colour chemicals, even the developer have a very long life if replenished at a rate of 10cc per each 80 sq inches of paper.

I have been colour printing since 1992 and now more or less have it off to a fine art and can produce 1 or 21 prints in one session with little need for alteration except to correct the colour where there has been an ambient light colour change at the time of taking.

 

[Roger Cole]

I would get a starting filter pack for the different films I used. Each film required some experimentation, but once I had it, I had it, and it was close enough to start with. So using different films takes some experiment to nail each, but then that's true in black and white too albeit in different areas (development of the film in black and white, which is standardized in C41 - color pack to print the negatives in RA4.) Today's diminished though excellent choices will simplify that. I could live happily with just Ektar 100 and Portra 400. (Though I still miss the Agfa films with their range of saturation from the muted soft colors of Portrait 160 to the barn burning Velvia-rival Ultra 50 - but gone is gone, sigh.)

I also found that to be true of small variations in temperature. Yes, a variation might require .25 or .5 different filtration tonight from what you used last night, but that's a matter of one or two test prints.

 

[BMbikerider]

Adding to my post the one before last. It often confuses new colour printers who check the colour balance when the emulsion has been washed and dried. A wet RA4 print will always have a blue cast especially in the shadows which dissapears when the print is dry. I speed the drying bit by wiping the excess water away then using a hair dryer to finish it off. If the test print is OK then the main one will be too.

I always take one full frame image of a plain neutral grey piece of card at the start of each cassette and when making the 1st print from that batch of film, I adjust the filtration (if needed) to regain the neutral grey tone. everything else should then fall into place afterwards

 

[RPC]

Concerning temperature accuracy required for color printing, this is why developing at room temperature (typically 68-75F) is an attractive option. A few seconds or a few degrees either way doesn't make a noticable difference. The developing time is longer, but no more than b&w. And it makes using trays, instead of drums or processors, feasible. May not be the choices for everyone, but viable options, especially for those just starting out.

On the other hand color film must be processed at the correct temperature and time, within a very small range, to avoid noticable crossover, but can be accomplished easily with a small stainless steel tank and hot water bath.

 

[Wayne]

On the other hand color film must be processed at the correct temperature and time, within a very small range, to avoid noticable crossover

That's what I have always heard. FWIW...I suspect something is awry here that I can't put my finger on but I don't have the chops to argue the point either.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Color printing is easier if you have a color analyzer. Having done it both ways I don't even bother anymore and leave it to professionals.

 

[bvy]

.

 

[bvy]

I use my scanner. I scan my test print with "no color correction" enabled. This is equivalent to a raw, unaltered scan. From this, I use a photo editor to test for gray and make color balance adjustments. Adding 5% green, for instance, is roughly equivalent to dialing up magenta by 5 units. It's not quite that precise, of course, but it gets me in the ballpark fast.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Color printing with RA4 chemisty is really quite easy if you have a colorhead on the enlarger and good temperature control for your chemicals. Colorheads are also excellent for printing VC black and white papers. No need for something else. Like everything else, it might take awhile to master
the basics, but once they're learned, it's just a matter of fine-tuning specific images. But when developing color, good ventilation is important.

 

[RPC]

That's what I have always heard. FWIW...I suspect something is awry here that I can't put my finger on but I don't have the chops to argue the point either.

Misinformation like the link you gave is always irritating. The poster gives a good formula but it works no better at room temperature than any other. As PE has said the three emulsion layers develop properly at 100F and nowhere else, and the color couplers used also do not work well at lower temperatures. That's one of the reasons a high temperature was selected for the C-41 process. The images he showed are unreliable as they are scans and we have no way of knowing how manipulated they are or even what they really are. Anyway, gray scales and skin tones are the best ways to judge.

I have experimented with low temperature developing myself and have never gotten it to give results that did not give offish colors and noticible crossover, and my visual observations are always vindicated by my densitometer measurements. Generally, the red/cyan axis suffers noticibly.

That said, it is possible that the resulting degradation may be acceptable to some. But high quality results simply cannot be achieved.

 

[FujiLove]

^^^ Agreed. For C41, E6 and RA4: stick to the Kodak instructions. It works and it's easy.

 

[Roger Cole]

I never had a problem developing either C41 or E6 at the required temperatures using a big pan of water with my solutions (well really on the developer for C41 and first and color developers for E6 need to be well controlled but I tried to keep them all close) in metal tanks so I could run hot or cold water over them as needed. It was certainly hectic, compared to black and white, but not difficult. In the days when C41 minilabs were in every strip mall I didn't even bother as they would develop only for typically about $2.50 per roll so that's what I would do. Now I have a Jobo, bought for black and white, that I will use so that makes it quite easy.

And I agree - RA4 at room temperature is fine. C41 needs to be at 100F. That's not that hard to do so just practice a bit and do it right. It's not like printing where you are doing multiple short processing runs. You have only to get the temperature right once and keep it there for a few minutes and you're done. The only time I can think of that I might be willing to run C41 at lower temperature would be cross processing of E6 films, where you know you are going to get crossover and "incorrect" color anyway and that's part of the very reason you are doing it.

 

[Roger Cole]

^^^ Agreed. For C41, E6 and RA4: stick to the Kodak instructions. It works and it's easy.

C41 and E6 yes. RA4 it's un-necessary. Even PE posted that it works fine at room temperature. Color correction will be a bit different but no more difficult to find than at higher temperature as there's no crossover or anything like that.

The only real reasons to run RA4 at recommended temperature are 1) because you have a processor that can elevate but not decrease temperature and the processor will automatically hold that temperature, and 2) when you want the faster developing time. That's why Kodak specified a high temperature for RA4 anyway. It was and is intended for automated processing of large volumes, where machinery holds the temperature, manages the short times precisely, and allows a lot more prints a lot faster. If anything it can be BETTER to do RA4 at lower temperature manually because it makes any timing error a smaller percentage of the total time and thus much less important. If you are off even 5 seconds in a 50 second 105F process that's a 10% error. But in a 75F 3min and 20sec process (these times taken from the Arista RA4 manual where I could quickly find times for different temperatures) that 5 second variation in your timing is only a 2.5% error and you simply won't see any difference.

 

[Wayne]

^^^ Agreed. For C41, E6 and RA4: stick to the Kodak instructions. It works and it's easy.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was hinting that someone should perhaps go over there and explain why his results aren't what they seem, especially since the very reason he didn't post it here is because people have at times not been nice about it. Deliberate avoidance of exposing his ideas to the very people who know most about it about made me suspicious of the results. But I hope someone will be nice about it. Maybe he has revealed something that would be useful to some people, that acceptable images can result at room temp if you are scanning. So I don't think he should be pummeled about it. I'd hate to discourage experimentation or just plain fun.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I standardize at 86F two minutes (including the 5 second drain). I find that times shorter than this are dicier to fill and drain the drum and still hold repeatable time consistency, while lower temps and longer time bring higher risk of a temperature drop within the drum itself. And of course, you want something not terribly far off with ambient air temps to begin with. Roller-transport machines are a somewhat different topic because it is their feed rate that determines how long the print stays in any given bath.

 

[FujiLove]

C41 and E6 yes. RA4 it's un-necessary. Even PE posted that it works fine at room temperature. Color correction will be a bit different but no more difficult to find than at higher temperature as there's no crossover or anything like that.

The only real reasons to run RA4 at recommended temperature are 1) because you have a processor that can elevate but not decrease temperature and the processor will automatically hold that temperature, and 2) when you want the faster developing time. That's why Kodak specified a high temperature for RA4 anyway. It was and is intended for automated processing of large volumes, where machinery holds the temperature, manages the short times precisely, and allows a lot more prints a lot faster. If anything it can be BETTER to do RA4 at lower temperature manually because it makes any timing error a smaller percentage of the total time and thus much less important. If you are off even 5 seconds in a 50 second 105F process that's a 10% error. But in a 75F 3min and 20sec process (these times taken from the Arista RA4 manual where I could quickly find times for different temperatures) that 5 second variation in your timing is only a 2.5% error and you simply won't see any difference.

I had always assumed that the RA4 colour couplers didn't work as designed outside of the standard time and temperature (like C41 and E6), but if PE confirms they do, then that's good to know. I may try running mine a bit cooler to improve timing accuracy. Though I'm wondering how accurate you actually need to be with RA4. When I first started and wasn't good at handling the paper, I went 10-15 seconds over time (+30%) once or twice. I don't recall seeing any difference in the print compared to the accurately developed test sheet. There probably was a difference (denser shadows etc.), but it couldn't have been noticeable or I would have remembered having to run the print again. I've never done that due to timing errors.

 

[Roger Cole]

I had always assumed that the RA4 colour couplers didn't work as designed outside of the standard time and temperature (like C41 and E6), but if PE confirms they do, then that's good to know. I may try running mine a bit cooler to improve timing accuracy. Though I'm wondering how accurate you actually need to be with RA4. When I first started and wasn't good at handling the paper, I went 10-15 seconds over time (+30%) once or twice. I don't recall seeing any difference in the print compared to the accurately developed test sheet. There probably was a difference (denser shadows etc.), but it couldn't have been noticeable or I would have remembered having to run the print again. I've never done that due to timing errors.

You need to use the RA4 Replenisher straight, apparently:

Here you go:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If you are paying a premium for a room temperature kit, you should be aware that the Kodak RA-RT developer replenisher functions at 68F (20C) just fine. So, no need to pay a premium.

You should also be aware that there are reports here on APUG that Fuji CA papers do not fare as well at RT. IDK personally if this is true.

And, if your paper is black, even in the borders, then it was somehow fogged. If the picture area is black and the borders are white or orangish, then this means that the paper was severely overexposed.

PE

Some have reported problems with Fuji papers but others say they work just fine. Last I looked you could get Kodak paper cut from rolls into sheets from at least one source on eBay for pretty good prices.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It does not say that room temperature can be used with this particular kit. In fact, it probably cannot. I have found that I had to use the REPLENISHER straight for room temperature processing. So, the developer itself may yield lower contrast. IDK.

PE

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The Tetenal room temperature kit is, IMHO, overpriced when a normal kit can do the same job.

PE

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I can't comment as I have not used it.

I can generalize and say that many second party kits do not perform as well as Kodak and Fuji-Hunt kits, and that so called room temperature kits are overpriced when the regular replenisher, done right, will do the job. I can also say that single part kits from many sources have gotten bad reputations as posted here on APUG.

PE[/QUOTE

 

[DREW WILEY]

You need to standardize time and temperature or you will go crazy trying to get repeatable color. Fuji papers and Kodak chemistry work perfectly together. I have never had anything but headaches with the alternative "room temp" Tetenal chemistry. There are a few specialized lab papers specified for laser printing only. Do not confuse these with ""laser optimized" general purpose papers offered in cut sheet and equivalent rolls, which are engineered to print well optically also.

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree about the Tetenal room temperature kit, which I don't believe is available any longer anyway.

But small variations in temperature have never been a big thing - maybe .25 or .5 change in filter pack at the most, though it might take an extra test or two that it wouldn't otherwise. But that's me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks Roger. I agree with everything I said!

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

Most welcome.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh Roger. I'm working with machines where even a 1cc change in colorhead setting makes an obvious change in the print hue. Guess that's the
nature of working with narrow-band additive colorheads. They're very precise and very unforgiving. I'm eager to compare my just refurbished traditional Durst 8x10 subtractive head, with the original dichroic filters still in extremely good condition. Should lend a bit more mellow look or milder saturation. But gotta build a backyard fence first.

 

[wiltw]

I had always assumed that the RA4 colour couplers didn't work as designed outside of the standard time and temperature (like C41 and E6)... Though I'm wondering how accurate you actually need to be with RA4. .

Kodak has always published a temperature range for RA-4 chemistry, from 81-97 degrees times were between 2:00 (min:sec) and 0:45

 

[Roger Cole]

Gosh Roger. I'm working with machines where even a 1cc change in colorhead setting makes an obvious change in the print hue. Guess that's the
nature of working with narrow-band additive colorheads. They're very precise and very unforgiving. I'm eager to compare my just refurbished traditional Durst 8x10 subtractive head, with the original dichroic filters still in extremely good condition. Should lend a bit more mellow look or milder saturation. But gotta build a backyard fence first.

Maybe it's a result of YOU being able to see that difference.

With above lens filters anyway I can barely detect a 2.5 change and have to look closely. I printed RA4 for a while with a set of Cibachrome filters that didn't allow steps smaller than 5cc. That was a bit crude but even that worked well enough, though I was glad to get the 2.5 steps.

You have bionic eyes, or tastes, or something.