Follow on: Color - Chromes or Negs? (or Digital) What do you do these days?

Soooooooooooo I'm trying to stick with film, and working it for 4X5, too. Did a huge amount of Portra 400 in France, but stretching into consider the wider field (even though my fridge still has a ton of Portra in 120). Shot some Ektar 100 for a number of rolls and Portra 160, but then there's the whole Chromes E-6 thing. Yipes! Alex Burke does beautiful work, but I'm mindful of Clyde Butcher's advice to stick with negs for the dynamic range and "forgiveness". There's enough in C41 where the kits vary that I'm not sure I'm really getting what I want to see yet. My DSLR scans.... not there yet. I need another light source! Badly. But i'm working this thing.

Reds are my challenge... not the greens like Bormetal. MacFred always puts me to shame. And of course our friend Matt King makes me think: Gee, I'm not testing these tools, I'm toast. The number of folks who've abandoned film for digital when it comes to color is long. I think about it, too. It's a lot of work almost no matter what you do. And B&W's my first love anyway. This is supposed to be fun, huh? Digital's no picnic either if you really aim to match the color balance, but hey.... we can adjust in post with a slider.

What are you folks r-e-a-l-l-y doing? Love to hear your thoughts on the modern thing. And yes, I get the "no digital period crew", but I do DSLR scanning and so that's a bridge crossed already in my case, and I don't have room for a wet printer... so I'm an ink jockey, too.

Thanks for whatever you care to share!
Skip

I like looking at chromes. One of the most religious experiences of my life was, around 1974, opening the envelope with my first roll of unmounted (because full frame) 127 Ektachrome (from a Baby Brownie -- I still have no idea how all eight exposures came out bang-on with that simple camera). A similar level of rapture came in 1975 when I first pulled a roll of 620 Ektachrome off the reel after going through the long, long E-4 process with my high school photography class.

Unfortunately, chrome film is relatively expensive, and as you note somewhat unforgiving of exposure; the chemistry kits are also relatively expensive, as is send-off processing. However...

I've got a 5-pack of 120 size Ektachrome 100. One was exposed years ago in an Ansco Viking (that'll be 6x9, about as good as film gets without bringing out the Speed Graphic or Graphic View). Another is currently loaded in my Kodak Reflex II; there are three more (long expired) waiting for me to get them exposed some way. I may also order in a couple rolls in 35mm, or I might cross-process a roll or two of XP-2 Super. I plan to do one of three things: first-dev in something (Dektol with a little thiosulfate added is said to work well), light fog, and then into C-41 -- this produces slightly off colors, but not very much so; or mix up a CD-3 version of Dignan's 2-bath color developer, or bite the bullet and order in an E-6 kit.

FWIW, I think almost everyone here scans film in some fashion -- it's the only way other than scanning or digitally photographing a print to put your work up on Photrio. I haven't gotten to print yet since getting my darkroom built, so all the film I've shot this year has been scanned. I personally try very hard to do the minimum processing to the scans to emulate a straight print. I'm not interested in creating a work of digital art based on a film photograph; I'm interested in showing my film photograph on this digital medium.

I like chromes but I find color negatives more flexible and useful. I will continue using Portra 400, VividColor 160 and UltraColor 400.

Large format chromes are mind blowing. But negative film gives you much more flexibility, both in exposure and subsequent processing.

I can project up to 6x6, so I use more transparency film than negative film when I photograph in colour.
But I still have and sometimes use colour negative film in 135 and 120, which then leads to lab development and scanning (yech).
The last birthday party I photographed I used Kodak Gold in an OM-2n with an Olympus OM-32 flash - TTl OTF flash metering.

JWMster said:

And of course our friend Matt King makes me think: Gee, I'm not testing these tools, I'm toast.

Click to expand...

I think I should be worried - do I sound that judgmental?
FWIW I have no problem if you don't want to test. I just get concerned when you don't test - if you don't test you need to be cautious about any conclusions you reach!

Matt: No. You're not judgmental, you're just talking about the North Face of the Matterhorn as far as I can follow. You wrote:

"Even under the same lighting (sometimes with the same scenes - wedding parties in the quarry gardens at Queen Elizabeth Park come to mind) you could compare and contrast how the films performed. That was because we were running a completely within spec RA4 printing processor monitored with at least daily control strips, we were using well maintained, voltage stabilized professional printers and enlargers, we were using fresh high quality paper of the same type from day to day and we were printing from negatives that, with one notable exception, were processed by the competing professional labs in our town who also maintained totally within spec C41 dip and dunk lines designed to give top quality to their professional photography customers. The exception I referred to above was a photographer who, in the interest of cutting costs, was trying to develop his own film. The machinery he had on hand was capable of high quality results, but his knowledge and skills were not. The negatives we received from him were badly processed, resulting in poor contrast, colour casts and, most importantly, real problems with colour crossover. Eventually we ended up refusing to work on any negatives he processed himself. I bring all this up because it illustrates what you need to reliably evaluate films. If you have consistent, in spec film processing, consistent, in spec printing (or post processing and digital display) and consistent, in spec viewing conditions and you do your comparison under those consistent conditions, you can come to reliable conclusions about the film itself."

T'ain't judgmental. It's simply detailing a commercial process that those of us who do C41 at home - at least the folks I've checked and read their accounts - don't even mention. Your flumoxed friend... well, he had the tools. Who else does? I follow my eye 'cause that's all I have. Digitally, I can handle these things. With film? What testing tools and where do you find these things? Probably too expensive? Dunno, but if we're talking about Jobo prices (which I paid and enjoy, but ain't seeking to pay 2 or 3X), then shooting color pixels probably makes more sense. Bruce Birnbaum bailed on color film. He's not the last, either.

Thoughts on solving these puzzles for home processing? Is it even possible?

100% of my color work is shot on slide film. Mostly e100 in 35mm(Shooting a few rolls every month) but using up the rest of my Provia 100f in 120 also. Ive also started shooting e100 in 4x5. All the photos are just of our daily life, travels, Baby's growing up, and so forth. I don't ever bracket my shots, and rarely have a slide that not within my idea of good, (unless the shutter on my camera is slow) The latitude of slide film has never been an issue for me. I rarely scan any slides, but we do project them and look at them on a light table with a loupe. My wife is really wanting to be able to scan and print a few on the pictures.

I found slides to be expensive for my volume and too limiting for my shooting habits. I have been scanning with a Fuji digital camera and practicing manual color inversion, using advice from PE and Adrian Bacon, just search the old threads. Now I am at a point where I'm mostly happy with my color reversal results:

Hand-inverted camera scan:


Same place and time, same film, same camera. Plustek 120 Pro scan:


I think I'm getting close to what I want my color photos to look like. I am not looking for "true life" look, and I am definitely enjoying Portra 160 and 800 films. There's always room for improvement, but I found the progress enjoyable.

My next challenge to get similar results with home-developed C-41 film and right now I'm not there yet.

And speaking of digital, I mostly seserve it for low light or auto-focus photography (kids, dogs, sports, etc) and I usually "butcher" color anyway in post-processing:

JWMster said:

What testing tools and where do you find these things?

Click to expand...

Basically, control strips and a densitometer.
Plus a relatively rigourous routine.
And adherence to the manufacturer's instructions on how to make use of the information you get from those control strips and the densitometer readings.
By the way, and as I posted in that thread, well I do advocate that sort of methodical and rigorous approach, I have no difficulty with and in fact encourage people who aren't able to maintain such close controls, but still do their own developing and approach that with care.
It is clearly possible to obtain satisfactory results when one is reasonably close to spec. For most people, alternatives like the Sous Vide machines for temperature control are really good alternatives to the classical - and expensive - means of controlling development temperature.
What I have difficulty with is when people assign to the film characteristics that are as likely to come from a myriad of other, uncontrolled or undefined factors.

Bormental said:

Now I am at a point where I'm mostly happy with my color reversal results:

Click to expand...

I like the examples you posted. Would I be correct in interpreting "colour reversal" in the above sentence as being making a positive digital image from your film negatives? I ask because "colour reversal" is usually used in the context of colour slide film or E6 processed colour movie film.

MattKing said:

I like the examples you posted. Would I be correct in interpreting "colour reversal" in the above sentence as being making a positive digital image from your film negatives? I ask because "colour reversal" is usually used in the context of colour slide film or E6 processed colour movie film.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Once again, I learned something new on photrio. Yes, these are inverted C-41 negatives.

Bormental: Those shots look good to me.

Matt: Thanks for detailing something of your criteria. Not likely I have access to that. I don't think I've even seen "test strips", and the Jobo makes zero mention of that. Rather, I tend to explore and experiment until I can develop and define a consistent workflow that works/satisfies. That's all I have.
What I will say echoes your comment with a twist: maybe when folks complain that X doesn't work, they actually mean "for them". Nothing more, nothing less. Too many variables to r-e-a-l-l-y have a scientific process unless you test the water, the chems, and all the rest all the freaking time.
Kodak developed a process that was purposely robust under a wide set of conditions. While you're not suggesting they didn't the fact is their biz would not have succeeded if it had been too finely attuned to "just right" conditions alone. Every step of the developing process has amazed me at how
robust things really are about this. So the key question is which variables do we control on? Clearly time and temp have an impact in a developing, but they're also more forgiving than we tend to believe, too. THus consistency in the process, the workflow, affords a means of making adjustments.
But these have to be informed on the basis of what? Can you suggest a book on this? maybe a Kodak book? I haven't seen much. B&W processing is well covered. Color.... less so as much as I can find. Thanks!

DSLR scanning introduces a different approach than a scanner. Scanners have defined algorithms that you adapt to and their own hardcode. I'm still working out the approach with C41 and DSLR scans. B&W is easy. Color is a minefield, but then it always was. Way back when my dad and I shot side by side, my shots came out "better" with Kodachrome and a Incident meter than he was able to get with his Nikon and Ektachrome of the day. Still some of the most beautiful shots I remember (though long lost at this point). I may have to recreate that with chromes... but I'm hoping to get Portra and Ektar to work more easily. C41 conversion just faces some struggles, and it is one step at a time.

I think what surprises me in C41 processes are the relatively small variations - but critically important - in terms of how the kits are used relative to pre-wet and rinse between Developer and Blix. After the survey of users here indicated that roughly 50% were using one of the C41's kits out there while the rest used Kodak, I've decided to hang with the kits since Kodak's chemistry seems to run in much larger quantities. If I can get C41 and DSLR scanned conversion to my satisfaction, then maybe. I'm waiting on some E100 chromes back from my local developer, and we'll see how that turns out, too. Maybe it'd be worth going in that direction. All too early to tell.

I like the color palette of Velvia 50 chromes shooting landscapes. Since I bracket when shooting 120 film, I usually grab the right exposure on one of them I haven't had problems with scanning. Also, I know immediately if I got the exposure right and which of the bracketed shots are best unlike with negative film. I would use Portra film if shooting people. It scans pretty well too.
Velvia 50 samples: https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...1&tags=velvia&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

Alan: You've done plenty of great work with it, too. Might have to run some down. Are you developing your own E-6?

JWMster said:

Matt: Thanks for detailing something of your criteria. Not likely I have access to that. I don't think I've even seen "test strips", and the Jobo makes zero mention of that. Rather, I tend to explore and experiment until I can develop and define a consistent workflow that works/satisfies. That's all I have.

Click to expand...

Control strips, not test strips.
JOBO wouldn't reference them, Kodak or Fuji or the other commercial suppliers of lab chemicals do.
These are strips of paper (RA4) or film (C41 or E6) pre-exposed by the manufacturer to an exacting standard . You develop the strips and then measure the patches on them with your calibrated densitometer. Then you compare the results of your measurements against the actual standards. You chart the differences between your readings and the standards. The instructions (in Kodak's case, in their CIS documents) will tell you what the differences mean - too cold, too hot, too short, too long, pH too high, pH too low, too much agitation, too little agitation, incomplete bleaching, etc., etc.
A pH meter is also useful.

B&H offers control strips but only on ECN2 films. Guess that's one for the commercial minilabs as it is sold in 100 ft + rolls. Is there a source for Portra, E100 or similar strips in more meaningful lengths, or does one control strip solve the whole of the calibration issue?
What Matt's described makes lots of sense. But it sure seems like an orphan process unsupported, unpromoted, etc. since the advent of HD digital. I'm beginning to think Bruce Birnbaum was right from a tech infrastructure perspective. Maybe we can squeak by, but
sheesh.... it's not easy without the rest of what was once an industry. Am I missing something?

@JWMster What I started doing is shooting a color calibration target under controlled light with every color roll. This "wastes" one frame, which can be painful for 120 and, of course, it is not a proper substitute for a control strip, but it helps me go back and compare my development results with past success (or failure) and with lab results.

Bormental... that's a good idea.... possibly even great.
I assume you mean like an X-Rite color checker we'd use for digital? See: https://www.xrite.com/categories/ca...-classic-family/colorchecker-passport-photo-2
Can I assume you use to calibrate post-scan?

Yes, I have one of those. No, I do not calibrate because currently my consistency is so bad that I can see roll-to-roll differences with a naked eye! But these control shots allow me to see the difference.

JWMster said:

B&H offers control strips but only on ECN2 films. Guess that's one for the commercial minilabs as it is sold in 100 ft + rolls. Is there a source for Portra, E100 or similar strips in more meaningful lengths, or does one control strip solve the whole of the calibration issue?
What Matt's described makes lots of sense. But it sure seems like an orphan process unsupported, unpromoted, etc. since the advent of HD digital. I'm beginning to think Bruce Birnbaum was right from a tech infrastructure perspective. Maybe we can squeak by, but
sheesh.... it's not easy without the rest of what was once an industry. Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

I expect that B&H's control strips are probably old, or the result of a special order. You would want to look to a lab supplier for control strips. They may not be keen to deal with individuals.
Unique Photo has a selection: https://www.uniquephoto.com/control-strips

Matt: Thanks as always. You're a gem! And I see they also have these for E-6, too. Did you (and/or do you) process E6 as well? I get the impression many no longer bother with E6.... but re-reading the Jobo book, I see there were (and are?) some significant good things with reversal film that are harder with C41.... assuming you can nail (or bracket) your exposures.
Any special thoughts there?

I currently have access to two good pro labs for C41, one good pro lab for E6, and one competent amateur lab for 35mm E6, so I'm not processing them.
For the last few years I've mostly scanned and had RA-4 prints made from the scans. Unfortunately, my main inexpensive source for that is drying up, as Costco has started closing down many of their photo centres here, as the demand for prints continues to decline.
I love transparency film. A projected slide is a wonderful thing. I have supplies and equipment to mount my own slides (up to 6x6) as well as 35mm and medium format projectors.
I even have a 110 projector, plus a bunch of 110 Kodachrome slides taken by my father.

So do you shoot mostly B&W, or have you "retired" from your own film development? And let me caveat that the more lab work I've done, the more the "thrill" is lessened... it's still there when the negs come out of the tank, but time is ever more precious as the sands run through the glass. Finding the time to actually print.... that's a challenge I haven't managed in some time. And in my view (and many others as well), if you ain't printing, you ain't doin' the half of it: "The only shots you actually make are the ones you push yourself to print." Since I shoot a fair amount of sketches with 35mm these days, by the time you bulk load, shoot, develop, scan, sleeve, etc. it's a fair amount of time involved. I sent my E-6 off so far because the quantities are low and I've not done that, but I'm used to doing C41 and B&W myself. But I wonder at the end of the day whether this is the best use of my time...

JWMster said:

Alan: You've done plenty of great work with it, too. Might have to run some down. Are you developing your own E-6?

Click to expand...

Thanks.
No home developing. I send them to dip and dunk lab. I have them sleeved in 3-3-2-2 lengths for my (10) 6x7 shots. The lab puts them in a single plastic sheet for protection and to keep them flat - better for scanning.

MattKing said:

I currently have access to two good pro labs for C41, one good pro lab for E6, and one competent amateur lab for 35mm E6, so I'm not processing them.
For the last few years I've mostly scanned and had RA-4 prints made from the scans. Unfortunately, my main inexpensive source for that is drying up, as Costco has started closing down many of their photo centres here, as the demand for prints continues to decline.
I love transparency film. A projected slide is a wonderful thing. I have supplies and equipment to mount my own slides (up to 6x6) as well as 35mm and medium format projectors.
I even have a 110 projector, plus a bunch of 110 Kodachrome slides taken by my father.

Click to expand...

Matt, Which labs do you use?