Grand Unification of Photographic Process

Stephen Frizza · Sep 12, 2010

Why have photographic manufactures not endeavored to unify all processes into 2 chemical processes? i.e imagine a Colour Positive, Colour Negative, Black and white positive and Black and white negative film all being able to run through 1 kind of chemistry. Wouldn't this mean greater accessibility for people to have their material processed at labs? and why not make such a system for printing where there is positive and negative papers both colour and black and white which all run though one chemical system.

pretty much what im asking is why haven't manufactures in this time of ecconomic rationalism tried unify all the processes?

imagine slide film being processed through C-41 just like Print film was.... the transperancies from Kodak print film were AWESOME! why cant there be a modified in camera version and we ditch E-6?

Sirius Glass · Sep 12, 2010

If they could have, they would have. They can't, so they won't.

Steve

andrewkirkby · Sep 12, 2010

Poor idea.

Stephen Frizza · Sep 12, 2010

but they could have!...... in fact i believe at one time kodak even considered such a thing but the transparency films they made which could process C-41 produced soft images? does anyone know the facts over what i just said? as its just a vague memory from a long ago conversation. Also Kodak made print film which essentially was a transparency film process c-41 (Kodak Vericolor print film 4111) AWESOME material.

I beleive in theory it could have been done.

railwayman3 · Sep 12, 2010

It may be possible in theory, but it would mean rethinking all the four different specialist emulsion groups (color and b&w, neg and reversal, each designed to be best for their particular purposes), plus all the process chemicals and equipment used.
Also, most "universal" processes in photography (and more generally) are a compromise. As a schoolboy, I started home processing using the old Johnsons "Universol" developer (a bottled MQ concentrate, different dilutions for film and paper). It worked quite well for a beginner, but, with experience, I later realised that it wasn't really the best for any one purpose, and better results could be obtained by choosing the various specialist developers designed for different films and paper.

markbarendt · Sep 12, 2010

I like your thought, it is one of the many reasons I prefer C-41.

Being able to come home and process any-and-all of my films, all in one go & in a standardized process, is a true luxury.

The only arguments I see as relevant for choosing non-standard stuff is to get a different look or fit an application where standard materials can't do the job.

Both arguments can be compelling.

Photo Engineer · Sep 12, 2010

Stephen Frizza said:
but they could have!...... in fact i believe at one time kodak even considered such a thing but the transparency films they made which could process C-41 produced soft images? does anyone know the facts over what i just said? as its just a vague memory from a long ago conversation. Also Kodak made print film which essentially was a transparency film process c-41 (Kodak Vericolor print film 4111) AWESOME material.

I beleive in theory it could have been done.

They did not consider this idea as it will not work and give optimum images.

PE

Stephen Frizza · Sep 12, 2010

:-( do you think they ever might?

Christopher Walrath · Sep 12, 2010

Why poor research into a hobby with little revenue when they can sink their teeth further into an already well established digital money maker. Someday, somebody might toy with it. But there are greater sales for manufacturers in digital than analog. That's not doom and gloom as film is still here and staying put. Film has found its niche and some improvements are still being made. But not on the scale to which you refer, Stephen.

Sirius Glass · Sep 12, 2010

Stephen Frizza said:
:-( do you think they ever might?

Probably not. As PE pointed out Nature is a bitch and Physics are son of bitches. Furthermore, nothing comes for free; unification does not optimize the results.

Steve

Photo Engineer · Sep 12, 2010

Steve;

The basic chemistry and physics of reversal and negative products are against you. Try developing some C41 film in the E6 color developer, then bleach, wash, fix, wash and stabilze/rinse. You will get foggy negatives due to the nature of the "required" E6 chemistry. Color negative and color reversal require very very different chemistries during color development.

PE

Stephen Frizza · Sep 12, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Steve;

The basic chemistry and physics of reversal and negative products are against you. Try developing some C41 film in the E6 color developer, then bleach, wash, fix, wash and stabilze/rinse. You will get foggy negatives due to the nature of the "required" E6 chemistry. Color negative and color reversal require very very different chemistries during color development.

PE

true its shitty.

removed account4 · Sep 12, 2010

i hate to say it, but i think they DID do this,
but unfortunately you have to use a different
sort of contraption to take the photographs
and you don't use photochemistry to get
the images .....

Grand Unification of Photographic Process

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency