first time color enlarging. so what comes first, the chicken or the egg....

im finally gonna get off my butt and do some color printing. Ive been very happy sticking with B&W and really enjoy it. anyway...

i have a lot of color negs i want to enlarge as well as many hundred of rolls that need some contact sheets. I am clearly gonna be behind the eight ball when it comes to color work and my big worry is color balancing. not that it cant be done, just that its gonna take a while to get it right. keep at it, im told, and the results are worth it. so in that regards, do you color printers, when you first started, start with a test print, get the color balance right and then go to town on the contact sheets or do you start with contact sheets and try to get balance doing those. My thinking is that I should start with a small print for each of my different film types, get the color balance right and then use that for my contact sheets. am I on the right track or am I way off?

any help, suggestions and or ideas would be welcome!

thanks
john

Start with 50R + the filter pack on the box. Make one proof print and work from there.

PE

destroya said:

start with a small print for each of my different film types, get the color balance right and then use that for my contact sheets.

Click to expand...

This. Make it big enough so you can see, RA4 paper is so cheap I just make an 8x10. That way I can also close in on density adjustments because my first prints to see if I like a negative are going to be 8x10 anyway. Have fun, it's not that hard. I happen to really like the Kodak viewing filters for making adjustments, but everyone has their own favorite techniques.

Be prepared to deal with friends and loved ones who cannot see the difference between two prints you are agonizing between.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

If you can find it get a set of Kodak Color Print Viewing Filters to aid you in making color corrections. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-R-25...644289?hash=item3628236d01:g:ID0AAOSwPDBaEIrK

Get the density right first. Once you nail the base exposure time, regardless of color correction, then go back and adjust the color filtration. Depending on how far off the color is, you may need to make adjustments to exposure as well, because changing the filter pack will alter the amount of light passing through the negative. When in doubt, or if you can't find the suggested starting point for your paper in the documentation, begin with 45Y/45M and correct from there. Those Kodak color viewing filters are an absolute lifesaver - find a set and use them. Also, get a color-balanced viewing box for judging your prints - if you color-correct them under a single type of light source (tungsten, fluorescent, LED, etc) then the color balance will be off under anything else. Back when I took color printing, we had a viewing box set up for judging our prints made of plywood painted titanium white, with both incandescent AND high-CRI fluorescent bulbs for the light source (this was back in the day before LEDs). LEDs, better though they are now, still tend to lean into blue/white light, so they will skew your color balance to too much yellow/red.

Photo Engineer said:

Start with 50R + the filter pack on the box. Make one proof print and work from there.

PE

Click to expand...

I recall seeing this in colour threads going back a good many years but I haven't seen a filter pack on the box ever and I have been colour printing on and off for about 9 years now.

Short of owing a Colorstar analyser which allows via the analyser the correct density of neutral grey to be set and inputted into the analyser to get you in theory correct colour balance, I see no alternative to the "cut and try" method to the balance right i.e. reproducing the negative to give what you know to be the correct colours or how you want the colours to be. If the rest of the negatives exhibit a good range of colours then the filtration for the correct colours on the test frame will get you very close for the correct colours for the rest of the frames
Once you have the "perfect" print then a contact sheet of say 36 frames will be close using the filtration that gave you the perfect print, provided of course that the negative from which you got the perfect print had an average range of colours and the rest of the frames are similar

My experience is that a colour contact sheet of a roll of 35mm or 120 will give you a close approximation only, to what will be the correct print in normal sized sheets of 5x7, 8x10 etc

I have seen posts from some colour printers who say that they even print their contact sheets in B&W as all they require from the contact sheet is a positive( as opposed to a negative representation in photographic terms) of what each frame contains.

pentaxuser

If all of the manufacturers have stopped adding a filter pack, then just start with 50R. It is as good as any.

PE

The egg. In the evolution of the species egg was already a fact among the first reptiles. Chickens came a long time after that. About the other question, as PE said any filter pack will do. One advice is to keep a little enlarging journal and to standardize your workflow as much as you can

Good "OLD" Kodak would list recommended a starting filter pack on the box. Only cut paper is Fuji Crystal archive, so that's what I use. I never used anything but magenta and yellow filters (equal parts yellow and magenta makes red) I don't know if anyone still makes 6x6 on 3x3 inch acetate filters?? If you have a dichro head as noted above try to get density close. RA-4 is so fast and cheap I would make ring around prints.
Ideally you would have a expensive light booth to judge your prints, I've found that a daylight LED lamp works fine for judging.

Modern paper and films are so stable I've found that once I get a filter pack for a given emulsion down it doesn't vary much from lot to lot.

I use the old Kodak Rapid Color processors, you can find them on Ebay for 100 bucks or less. Everyone makes fun of these because you work in the dark (I use 3 Thomas safelights). RA-4 works well in a range of temperatures. (Trays, tubes, tanks) I run my machines at 95F, dev. 45 to 60 sec, stop bath 30 sec., Blix 45 to 60 sec then wash print in running water for 90 seconds. that's it. Stabilizer is used for washless minilabs, I have never used it without any troubles, if after washing off the Blix you want to dip it in stabilizer go right ahead. Time isn't as critical as it once was. You will develop to completion in 45s at 95 F, if you get busy letting it go longer wont make any difference, same with Blix (This is assuming fresh unused chemistry).

You can't judge anything until it's dry, in the old days I used a blow dryer, now I have an Ilford Ilfospeed, 10 second dryer, It's a miracle!

Viewing filters help, but ring around prints will nail it. Some people use analyzers, and they work great, but to calibrate the analyzer you need to make a perfect print first. And even then unless you include a gray card in your future shots, or some sort of standard, (Flesh tone was called out in the old days ?) it won't make a perfect print on the first try.

Different films call for different filter packs.

Today I only shoot Portra 160 and 400. Such beautiful film. And YES an optically printed 8x10 from a 6x7 cm negative will blow your socks off. Optical vs. minilab scan and laser/LED is very noticeable.

Color is much easier and faster than black and white. Usually there's only ONE truly correct color print (filtration and density). Black and white can be interpreted in a hundred ways and takes forever. I can calmly, process a color print dry to dry every 4 or 5 minutes on my old drum processors, with no tubes or trays to clean up. Get an old print basket and a 1 gallon tank you can develop 12 8x10's in 5 minutes (Of course that assumes that each one has the same exposure).

Get an old Kodak Color Dataguide , that's all you need to start. I bought a mint 1980's vintage Beseler Color analyzer a while back for 40 bucks, so far it's a display piece I do plan to try to give it a try.
Use THE FORCE and plunge in.

Best Mike.

Besides all the good advice preceding, it really helps to have a master negative on your chosen color neg film. A Macbeth Color Checker chart is an ideal subject. But if you can't afford that, take a representative range of color strips from a paint store, including a full range of neutral gray from black to white. Shoot an exposure of this under ideal standardized ideal conditions, including camera filtration if needed to the films specified Kelvin balance, or if unknown, to 5000K. Borrow a color temp meter if you don't already have one. And use a standard light meter precisely. A gray card helps in the scene for metering, but don't assume all of them are correctly made (one more reason to buy a MacBeath chart in the first place. This preliminary step will save you a lot of wasted effort later, because you can enlarger balance each new paper batch to the same standard. If you go straight to ordinary subjects, it becomes a new ballgame with each negative. Get to first base first. After that, it gets easier.

DREW WILEY said:

Besides all the good advice preceding, it really helps to have a master negative on your chosen color neg film. A Macbeth Color Checker chart is an ideal subject. But if you can't afford that, take a representative range of color strips from a paint store, including a full range of neutral gray from black to white. Shoot an exposure of this under ideal standardized ideal conditions, including camera filtration if needed to the films specified Kelvin balance, or if unknown, to 5000K. Borrow a color temp meter if you don't already have one. And use a standard light meter precisely. A gray card helps in the scene for metering, but don't assume all of them are correctly made (one more reason to buy a MacBeath chart in the first place. This preliminary step will save you a lot of wasted effort later, because you can enlarger balance each new paper batch to the same standard. If you go straight to ordinary subjects, it becomes a new ballgame with each negative. Get to first base first. After that, it gets easier.

Click to expand...

I checked, Freestyle has the Macbeth color checker, 80 bucks US. BH has a very similar X-Rite. I have a fresh gray card but not a color chart. Thus will give me a good project to really dial in my setup. Color temperature of the exposure light is critical, I know that much. I need to try to find a decent color meter.
Best Regards Mike

I think a color meter is overkill. Correctly expose your gray card/color checker in normal daylight for daylight film (mid morning to mid afternoon). That's what the film is calibrated for. When I want a late afternoon warm look I shoot in late afternoon and my daylight calibration (5-6000 k) guarantees me that warm afternoon look when I print. If you're shooting under an artificial light source you should have a gray card/color checker shot for that, filtered appropriately. I shoot with quartz hot lights (3200k) which are pretty exact for tungsten. I use a gray card/step wedge/color checker I bought from Fotokem years ago, but most of the time I am just chasing the 18 % gray patch on my test shot for a given film/light source and everything falls into place.

My experience in color printing is far away - I have no time and no optimized darkroom therefore.
But as I remember from the past each frame of your film differes. (often a every little) - may be that was from bad exposure corectness I made... ?
So to me - a contact sheed was just a quick overview from the shots I made (to decide wich shot is nice and most shots I still can forget).
So I handle (comercial made lay out prints today) - it is to have a look on the shots and it is to archive it with the negatives.
Because from differings of density from film frames you may have allways an average value from filtering and exposure time to your contact sheeds.
Therefore (to me) a contact is with less concern to optimized color adjustments.
But may be todays workflow changed.
I would say first comes the print - after this (after 36 or 12 or 8 frames) - depending on format you easily should know the set up to your contact print.
(from filtering - exposure time you have a idea from experience with contacts in general I gues)
So the print came first. But it may be to everyones own preferences.

with regards

DREW WILEY said:

Besides all the good advice preceding, it really helps to have a master negative on your chosen color neg film. A Macbeth Color Checker chart is an ideal subject. But if you can't afford that, take a representative range of color strips from a paint store, including a full range of neutral gray from black to white. Shoot an exposure of this under ideal standardized ideal conditions, including camera filtration if needed to the films specified Kelvin balance, or if unknown, to 5000K. Borrow a color temp meter if you don't already have one. And use a standard light meter precisely. A gray card helps in the scene for metering, but don't assume all of them are correctly made (one more reason to buy a MacBeath chart in the first place. This preliminary step will save you a lot of wasted effort later, because you can enlarger balance each new paper batch to the same standard. If you go straight to ordinary subjects, it becomes a new ballgame with each negative. Get to first base first. After that, it gets easier.

Click to expand...

You are a real old school fellow - DREW WILEY - aren't you ... !!!
You point with the master color chart let me just remember.
Yes indeed - to the time far behind (as color analysers were so much expensive)
a simple color chart have done this job.
And theese charts still exist todays.
To spend one frame (not to big format color photographer with 4x5 / 8x10) easy with 35mm. - you can have a reference to colors/contrast/resolution.

.....I did it during the first month of extensive color photograpy but after one
year experience I forget to use it.....
..... but as I sayed - far away from my practice but still posible today to have it in use.

with regards

btaylor said:

I think a color meter is overkill. Correctly expose your gray card/color checker in normal daylight for daylight film (mid morning to mid afternoon). That's what the film is calibrated for. When I want a late afternoon warm look I shoot in late afternoon and my daylight calibration (5-6000 k) guarantees me that warm afternoon look when I print. If you're shooting under an artificial light source you should have a gray card/color checker shot for that, filtered appropriately. I shoot with quartz hot lights (3200k) which are pretty exact for tungsten. I use a gray card/step wedge/color checker I bought from Fotokem years ago, but most of the time I am just chasing the 18 % gray patch on my test shot for a given film/light source and everything falls into place.

Click to expand...

You make a good point. As long as you are not trying to correct the lighting the meter may be over kill . Lately here in the Midwest before dusk the sun gets under high cloud cover , the light is almost red, so perfect . I am going to get a fresh color checker .
I remember a classic blunder , the company I worked for had a product shot taken of a refrigerator , the photographer balanced flash intensity to interior of the appliance with the doors open. The final shot had beautiful exterior , interior was way yellow from tungsten bulbs , looked awful .

thanks for a ll the thoughts! I have the Kodak color viewing packet and will use that. I like the idea of having a "master" neg for each film, but do not have a macbeth, so off to home depot for a few color samples and will give that a try.

john

John:
The paint samples will be good and free, but I strongly recommend buying a photographic 18% gray card as well. It is useful for both color and B&W because it's a standard.
msmchem:
That is a funny story about the fridge. Color temperatures are so important, but most of the time we can't see them with our eyes. I shot some studio portraits of my daughter lit with tungsten light, but there was a little spill from some skylights that turned the gray background blue-- annoying! Gelling the skylights with CTO would have fixed it.

Not overkill. It will save you a lot of time and money in the long run. XRite might own MacBeath now, so I don't know if the simpler chart which I recommend is identical or not. But the chart is not just a bunch of pretty colors. It's very well thought out and precisely manufactured. When you've arrived at an ideal print from your master neg, all the primary patches (R,G,B) as well as secondaries (C,M,Y) will seem to sing with EQUAL intensity and purity. The full gray scale will look truly neutral gray without hue contamination. The other patches of your print resemble your Checker Chart when both are viewed under balanced lighting, like soft sunlight. Of course, your test prints will never exactly match the Chart in every patch because no film is perfect. But you can get close, including in the tan and brown tones, which mimic skin tones. No, none of this is necessary. But it really helps. Color neg printing can be like power steering. One you're close to a balanced print, only minor CC adjustments can make the difference of getting a bullseye or not.

One point that has been overlooked and that is judge the colour balance in daylight or with a very cool bulb. I use a 6500 degrees kelvin LED which is perfect. Then only check the balance when you have a dry print, because the wet print will have a slight colour cast which disappears when the print is dry. I use an old hair drier to hurry things up a bit. The cast will be more noticeable in the shadow areas and in the case of Kodak paper it is blue. (I don't use Fuji).

As a matter of interest the basic colour filtration is not quoted on the bulk paper roll box or wrapper that I use, but I find that there is little difference between rolls. On my LPL enlarger I use a filtration around 65M 60Y. Also the filtration mentioned by Photo Engineer will probably only be valid if you are using an enlarger with Kodak values. Enlargers with Durst values will be quite different.

BMbikerider said:

....As a matter of interest the basic colour filtration is not quoted on the bulk paper roll box or wrapper that I use, but I find that there is little difference between rolls. On my LPL enlarger I use a filtration around 65M 60Y. Also the filtration mentioned by Photo Engineer will probably only be valid if you are using an enlarger with Kodak values. Enlargers with Durst values will be quite different.

Click to expand...

yeh, i found that out. A friend gave me a 500 ft roll of 10 inch endura for me to make contact sheets with and to use as test paper for 8x10 prints before i decide if i have the patience to attempt a new thing.

I have a besesler 23ciiiXL with color head for 120 film and a leitz focomat V35 for 35mm. sucks to have to get 2 filter packs dialed in with possibly the same film, but such is life when quality enlargers are almost given away

It is very difficult to judiciously evaluate prints at a high color temperature unless that is the kind of cold light the prints will be displayed under, like a north-facing window. Some commercial situations now have 6500K LED lighting, but that's very poor for print lighting, and outright barbaric for human eye physiology. What I have is a bank of different kinds of lights at different temperatures, which can be switched on either individually or in combination; and of course have sunlight too, just out the door. But critical evaluations are always made to a precise 5000K standard 98 CRI with special color matching bulbs from Germany. This is the color temp MacBeath charts are engineered for. I've actually trained professional color matchers. Here we also get a lot of gentle coastal fog which renders a soft whitish natural light which is close to ideal (versus cold bluish overcast). You get the point. You don't have to spend a lot of money. Just beware that a lot of current energy-efficient lighting is miserable for color evalation, even when the retail packaging dupes you into thinking otherwise.