Cyan cast. Sign of what?

Bormental · Aug 24, 2020

I just completed my 2nd batch of C-41 at home. As I am scanning, I am noticing that many photos have a tendency to exaggerate cyan, especially in highlights. Most of the time it's addressable in post, but sometimes I can't get to a likable result and, most importantly, when I look at my post-processed roll I notice variation in tone because I haven't been consistent with the correction.

When correcting, I find myself struggling with too much cyan/magenta, and sometimes when I'm not patient I just substitute one tint for another... if that even matters.

Can it be generally argued that X cast = over/under development? What, typically, a cyan cast may indicate about my process?

(note: scanning has nothing to do with it, I'm using the same hardware as I've used for lab-developed rolls that do not exhibit the cast).

Here's the somewhat corrected Portra 160 shot, but you can tell I was fighting the cyan tint on it (still present in the highlights):

Here's another, also Portra 160. On this one I may have over-corrected towards green but you can probably still tell:

Mainecoonmaniac · Aug 24, 2020

A cyan cast could mean you need more red. Can't really tell if it's a processing error unless you shoot a color balanced control patch like a Macbeth Color checker.

David Lyga · Aug 24, 2020

The important thing here is to determine whether there is even a slight cast mismatch on your negatives. Look carefully at the base area of your negatives. Is that base area nice and orange, or it that color somewhat compromised. I will assume that the negatives are fine.

One thing that you are going to have to get used to is the fact that there have been no greater enemies created since RA4 developer met BLIX. So much as a drop of developer getting into that blix, or one drop of blix getting into the developer (even worse) can spell trouble. As a hunch, I'll bet that there is some contamination. And this contamination is carried forward if you reuse your chemicals, rather than do one shot processing.

Between the developer and blix I not only use stop bath, but also rinse in clean water. If you are using a drum for your prints, that drum holds onto developer like crazy. Maybe for those who use drums, it is better to use trays for the subsequent chemicals, leaving that drum to develop only.

Also, I have never used safelights for anything. I do not trust them. - David Lyga

Bormental · Aug 24, 2020

@David Lyga the base looks fine to my eye... I suspect I have a case of slight under-development, simply because I mostly see this cyan problem on my medium format rolls. 35mm looks great, so I'm thinking my temp drops a bit more in a larger Paterson tank, despite me holding it in a 102F water bath... Ughh this drives me nuts.

koraks · Aug 24, 2020

There's no point in trying to troubleshoot negative development on the basis of digital scans. For all I know this might just as well be an issue with digital post processing and not with the film/development itself.

Adrian Bacon · Aug 24, 2020

Bormental said:
I just completed my 2nd batch of C-41 at home. As I am scanning, I am noticing that many photos have a tendency to exaggerate cyan, especially in highlights. Most of the time it's addressable in post, but sometimes I can't get to a likable result and, most importantly, when I look at my post-processed roll I notice variation in tone because I haven't been consistent with the correction.

When correcting, I find myself struggling with too much cyan/magenta, and sometimes when I'm not patient I just substitute one tint for another... if that even matters.

Can it be generally argued that X cast = over/under development? What, typically, a cyan cast may indicate about my process?

(note: scanning has nothing to do with it, I'm using the same hardware as I've used for lab-developed rolls that do not exhibit the cast).

Here's the somewhat corrected Portra 160 shot, but you can tell I was fighting the cyan tint on it (still present in the highlights):

View attachment 253138

Here's another, also Portra 160. On this one I may have over-corrected towards green but you can probably still tell:

View attachment 253139

typically if you’re seeing cyan, you either need more temperature, or a longer development time. It’s best to verify the temperature in the tank at the 1 minute mark and adjust your starting temperature until you’re at the 100 degrees (or whatever your kit specifies) in the tank after the pour. You’ll always lose temperature when pour the solution in no matter how much you pre-heat, so your starting temperature is typically higher than you process temperature. You just need to determine what that difference is. It could be a degree, it could be 3-4 degrees. It will depend on your setup and you won’t know until you test it. You can do it with plain water and some scrap film, just make sure the number of reels and volume of film on the reels matches what you typically process.

David Lyga · Aug 24, 2020

Bormental said:
@David Lyga the base looks fine to my eye... I suspect I have a case of slight under-development, simply because I mostly see this cyan problem on my medium format rolls. 35mm looks great, so I'm thinking my temp drops a bit more in a larger Paterson tank, despite me holding it in a 102F water bath... Ughh this drives me nuts.

First, be clear with what you are saying. "Base" of what? Print or Negative? I cannot respond unless I know what you are talking about.
"Underdevelopment" of what? Negative or print? Please be specific; I am not smart enough to be a mind reader.

Where is the cyan? Print or negative or both. Be specific.- David Lyga

MattKing · Aug 24, 2020

David Lyga said:
First, be clear with what you are saying. "Base" of what? Print or Negative? I cannot respond unless I know what you are talking about.
"Underdevelopment" of what? Negative or print? Please be specific; I am not smart enough to be a mind reader.

Where is the cyan? Print or negative or both. Be specific.- David Lyga

David:
Bormental is not printing. The cast is in his scans.

Bormental · Aug 24, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
typically if you’re seeing cyan, you either need more temperature, or a longer development time.

Super. Exactly what I needed, thank you Adrian.

Bormental · Aug 24, 2020

David, you said:

David Lyga said:
The important thing here is to determine whether there is even a slight cast mismatch on your negatives. Look carefully at the base area of your negatives.

I responded:

Bormental said:
David, the base looks fine to my eye...

David Lyga said:
First, be clear with what you are saying. "Base" of what? Print or Negative? I cannot respond unless I know what you are talking about.

Thank you for trying to help, but the exchange above is funny.

David Lyga · Aug 24, 2020

OK, if the base in BOTH instances is fine, in other words, white on the print and on the negative there is no 'color pollution' with the nice orange base, then I think that your problem can be none other than bad filtering. OK, with prints, if you have severely UNDER developed, you will lack contrast and saturation. Same with negatives. But, as long as the bases for both are fine, there is no contamination. (I hope that that explanation was even funnier because i live by humor.) - David Lyga

Bormental · Aug 24, 2020

@David Lyga Thanks! You guys always make me jealous with your printing references. Where I live, only billionaires can afford a dark room ;-)

David Lyga · Aug 24, 2020

Bormental said:
@David Lyga Thanks! You guys always make me jealous with your printing references. Where I live, only billionaires can afford a dark room ;-)

Bormental:

Yes, my independent wealth co-exists with my verbal largess and capacity for proper demeanor.

I LIVE in a 10 foot by 11 foot efficiency apartment for $655 a month in Center City, Philadelphia. My 'darkroom' consists of a whole corner of that grand expanse and measures about two feet by six feet. My enlarger is the opulent, envy-provoking Meopta Axomat 5, a true luxury vehicle for 35mm, (making the mere Leitz Focomat drown in its self-pity). Only a few are privileged to live this way, "on the other side of the RR tracks".

It is a rare celebration for all of Photrio to be able to see the extent of this wealth; such should invest most with an understanding of my generosity, which is then fully completed when matched with my outpouring of prolixity and continual self-deprecation. Few have been so fortunate as to become a part of this monument to photography, (though the 'part' is only visual, at best). I make no apologies but, nevertheless, wish all of you hoi polloi to have, someday, the affluence which most on this forum pine for, lust for, and oftentimes pray for. - David Lyga

MattKing · Aug 24, 2020

Where Bormental lives, that $655 place would probably be at least $2,000.
It would probably be close to $1,200 CDN here where I live.

David Lyga · Aug 24, 2020

MattKing said:
Where Bormental lives, that $655 place would probably be at least $2,000.
It would probably be close to $1,200 CDN here where I live.

No, you err. STUDIOS in high rises, just one block away, go for $2,000. I am fortunate NOT to have a greedy landlord and the apartments all have drop ceilings. In sum, if I left tomorrow, it would be rented in five minutes. I have been with this landlord since 1991, moved to this different unit only two years ago.

The proximity to New York (90 miles) prevents crime-ridden Philadelphia from remaining cheap. That is how life is. Have you priced apartments in the south Bronx? You would be shocked. Harlem is 'luxury'. And the Bowery is no longer 'the Bowery'. Real Estate here is almost up to SF BAY levels. - David Lyga

peter k. · Aug 24, 2020

Bormental said:
Super. Exactly what I needed, thank you Adrian.

Ah... thank you both for the question and the answer .. it has solved a noticed tend in the last two rolls we developed.

pentaxuser · Aug 24, 2020

Bormental, if you can find a willing volunteer it would make sense to send that person a couple of your negatives so they can produce an RA4 print and also a scan replicating that print. That way you may be able to eliminate one or both potential causes such as development and scanning

I can't tell from a scan, nor I suspect can anyone else whether it is a development problem or simply that scanning is a skill that still needs some honing on your part to get the scan to look like you want it to

I hope that longer development and higher temperature may give you what you desire but I feel that it may still leave you disappointed.

In short and sticking my neck,out, I admit, I think that your negs may actually be fine

pentaxuser

MattKing · Aug 24, 2020

Even if the negatives have a balance toward cyan, they may be quite good.

Bormental · Aug 24, 2020

Agreed. I actually love the look of the dog shot. But it's nice to have some consistency, as the lab-developed rolls are much easier to scan. So I will politely decline your guys suggestions to blame my scanning. I have carefully isolated the variable here, and it appears to be medium-format, home-developed rolls. I suspect it's because the tank is bigger and probably I'm not pre-heating and submerging it into the hot bath as consistently as the smaller one I use for 35mm.

warden · Aug 24, 2020

David Lyga said:
Real Estate here is almost up to SF BAY levels. - David Lyga

Not even remotely close to San Francisco. Everything is much more expensive there, but especially real estate. Any cost of living calculator chosen at random will show a giant disparity in real estate prices between these two metro areas. Philly seems expensive until you look elsewhere. (I like Philly, btw: just big enough to be interesting, and small enough to be affordable by mere mortals.)

https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/philadelphia-pa/san-francisco-ca/60000

(sorry for the OT)

David Lyga · Aug 24, 2020

jawarden said:
Not even remotely close to San Francisco. Everything is much more expensive there, but especially real estate. Any cost of living calculator chosen at random will show a giant disparity in real estate prices between these two metro areas. Philly seems expensive until you look elsewhere. (I like Philly, btw: just big enough to be interesting, and small enough to be affordable by mere mortals.)

https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/philadelphia-pa/san-francisco-ca/60000

(sorry for the OT)

Actually, I am quite surprised that you said that, given how fast rents have been rising here. You have to admit that New York prices are at a par with SF, however, and I am always comparing rents here with NYC. Anyway, I don't want to hijack this fine thread. - David Lyga

pentaxuser · Aug 24, 2020

Bormental I await eagerly the results of higher temperature and longer development.

pentaxuser

Bormental · Aug 24, 2020

@pentaxuser I would love to satisfy your curiosity but it will be a while. I have finished my last C-41 kit and will have to collect at least 4 rolls for a new batch, which means 6-8 weeks. I have slowed down my color shooting a bit. Also, I want to try Kodak chemicals with separate bleach and fixer next time, so some reading & research will be required.

David Lyga · Aug 25, 2020

Bormental said:
@pentaxuser I would love to satisfy your curiosity but it will be a while. I have finished my last C-41 kit and will have to collect at least 4 rolls for a new batch, which means 6-8 weeks. I have slowed down my color shooting a bit. Also, I want to try Kodak chemicals with separate bleach and fixer next time, so some reading & research will be required.

Not so much to learn: Develop, stop, fix thoroughly, then wash for a few minutes to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THERE IS NOT A MOLECULE OF DEVELOPER RESIDUE IN THAT FILM OR ELSE YOU WILL GET A BASE THAT HAS SOME UGLY CYAN, then:

BLIX for 5 minutes (temp can even be ambient), which consists or the following: (NOTE: bleach + fixer will not last for more than maybe 15 minutes so mix just before use):

BLIX = 1 part FRESH, UNUSED paper strength fixer + 1 part bleach + either no water or you can add up to 2 parts water if you extend your blix time to about ten or fifteen minutes.

Bleach is made simply by putting 1mL (or gram, since for potassium ferricyanide, they are the same) of potassium ferricyanide into every 50 mL of water. Bleach keeps 'forever' so you can mix up a liter if you want, but don't store it in direct sunlight. Then wash thoroughly. - David Lyga

Rudeofus · Aug 27, 2020

The cyan layer is the innermost layer of your C-41 film, which makes it the most difficult to develop layer of your film. The developer needs the longest time to reach this layer and is replenished the slowest. There are some process parameters which affect the color layers to different degrees:

strong restrainers exhaust easily and therefore affect outer layers more than inner layers. Therefore iodide has more effect on yellow and magenta than on cyan layer.
higher temperature speeds up both development and diffusion, but not necessarily at the same rate.

The most important thing right now is that you get a proper handle of what's exactly wrong. Is the cyan layer shifted or tilted? Do you get roughly the same film speed in all three layers? Is film contrast where it should be? You can use color checker cards to establish some reference, and start tweaking the process from there.

Cyan cast. Sign of what?

Bormental

Mainecoonmaniac

David Lyga

Bormental

koraks

Moderator

Adrian Bacon

David Lyga

MattKing

Moderator

Bormental

Bormental

David Lyga

Bormental

David Lyga

MattKing

Moderator

David Lyga

peter k.

pentaxuser

MattKing

Moderator

Bormental

warden

David Lyga

pentaxuser

Bormental

David Lyga

Rudeofus

Cyan cast. Sign of what?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency