Printing Color

[CMoore]

Maybe it is too big of a topic, but i could not really find what i am looking for.
I am just curious.......Do you need a "Color Head" with the three dials to print color prints.?
Or does that just make it faster and easier.?
Can you print color with a head that will only accept slide in filters.?
Though, in my limited experience, i have not seen a Cyan Filter.
Anyway......was it necessary for the three dial heads to come out before the "average" photographer could print color at home.?
Thank You

 

[MattKing]

Nope.
Lots of people cut their teeth on individual filters, and packs of individual filters.
CC values and the like.
Cyan filters were normally only needed with the materials used to make prints from slides.
Colour heads are a lot more convenient, but not critical.
It scares me that I was able to walk over to my bookshelf and pull a Kodak Colour Print Viewing Filter Kit off the shelf - complete with the included cash register receipt from 1979 (not mine originally - I got it used with some other stuff).

 

[iandvaag]

You can use slide-in color filters, but do know that the gelatin filters can fade (and be scratched, etc), and thus many prefer the dicroic filters in a color enlarging head. Also, working with slide-in filters is a bit of a pain. I use a "chromega" D4 (built in gelatin filters). The filters are a bit faded I think, but I've managed to get quite good results. If I ever stumble across a D-series dicroic head locally for a decent price, I will probably pick it up for convenience's sake.

There is no need for the cyan filters when RA-4 printing if you have "normal-ish" negatives (properly exposed and developed fresh film). If you are doing something weird like printing cross-processed film, or using super expired film, or film that's been pushed a lot, you might need the cyan filter. Remember, if you add all three of the filters at once (Cyan, Yellow, and Magenta), you are just adding neutral density, and are not affecting the color balance. If the print has too much Y, you would add Y filtration. If the print has too much M, you would add M filtration. If the print has too much C, you would remove both M & Y. Simple. And fun! If you have the means, you should definitely try it out!

 

[CMoore]

Oh.....OK.
Thanks for the replys. I had no idea that Cyan only sees limited use for color printing.
Try it myself.?......Maybe some day.
I have only gotten back into photography in the last two years. So i still have A LOT to learn about B&W Printing.
I DO have a "color head" though.....perhaps in a few years.
Thanks Again

 

[Malcolm Stewart]

In 1962 in the UK, Ilford supplied a colour paper which used the additive system - so, 3 exposures through 3 very narrow spectral filters, red, blue & green. Two of us offered colour graduation portraits to our fellow students for the same price that the shops were charging for B&W. I used my Rowi 35mm enlarger, and the film stock was Agfa CN17. Exposure times were long - around 2 to 5 minutes for each colour. We did produce colour portraits as offered, but sadly they faded rather quickly. A few years later subtractive processes were the norm, with single exposures through a suitable filter.
(Agfa's CN17 and the slower CN14 didn't have the familiar orange mask, and the negatives were "true" colour negatives. CN14 allowed sharp 10" x 8" prints from 35mm, the CN17 tended to show some grain.)

 

[Mr Bill]

Anyway......was it necessary for the three dial heads to come out before the "average" photographer could print color at home.?

No, in fact it would have been much cheaper for a hobbyist photographer to buy a set of color printing filters than a color head. My guess is that moderate sized pro labs were the main customers for the first color heads - it would have been economically sensible for them. The larger labs could afford the very expensive Kodak VCNAs (video analyzer) to get very close on color - smaller labs would color balance by trial and error, so the ability to simply just dial up color settings on multiple neg tests was a big time saver.

Imo, the thing that really made printing at home feasible was the introduction of the RA-4 process, for multiple reasons. I'm speaking from huge amounts of lab experience.

 

[Paul Howell]

I print color with a set of Unicolor and Kodak color correction filters in an Omega D3. The Unicolor set comes with yellow, magenta, cyan, red and UV filters, 22 in all, can be used for both subtractive and additive printing. I don't know of any additive materials left on the market. What I find helpful is a set of Kodak Color Print Viewing Filters, came as a kit. By looking at a print you use the filters to adjust the final filter pack. I would add a set of print drums and a motor base, it is possible to use trays, but I find a set of drums to use less chemistry, less likely to cross contaminate overall easier to use as once in the drum the processing can be done under house lights. I do use a tray for washing. RA 4 requires processing at 100 degrees, there are a number of printers who process at a lower temperature with extended times, I tired this tech but did not like the results. I se a waterproof heating pad with a tray of water and bottles for the chemistry setting on top, a color temp thermometer and keep fussing with the temperature control to keep the bath at 100 degrees.

 

[barzune]

I've printed colour on regular Fugi Crystal Archive, and Kodak papers, with RA4 chemistry and additive exposure through a Beseler-Minolta 45A colour head.
I was not aware that there was a separate type of paper designed for additive printing, but the pictures that I developed seemed pretty good, and have not,
after 20-odd years, faded or shifted.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Not anymore. Various members have posted about doing it with filters, but the color heads sound much less cumbersome.

Now with 16million color bulbs you can do it on a condensor head. I'm in the process of writing a tutorial but it is easy enough to figure out.

For those who haven't tried it I highly recommend it. A beautiful color print is a rewarding experience and not that expensive!

 

[wiltw]

I just looked at my notebook from the 1990s when I was printing Velvia onto Cibachrome paper on my 45V-XL with Universal head and color controller. I ended up with Y-M combinations most of the time, but I also had M-C combinations for a number of shots.

 

[OzJohn]

In 1962 in the UK, Ilford supplied a colour paper which used the additive system - so, 3 exposures through 3 very narrow spectral filters, red, blue & green. Two of us offered colour graduation portraits to our fellow students for the same price that the shops were charging for B&W. I used my Rowi 35mm enlarger, and the film stock was Agfa CN17. Exposure times were long - around 2 to 5 minutes for each colour. We did produce colour portraits as offered, but sadly they faded rather quickly. A few years later subtractive processes were the norm, with single exposures through a suitable filter.
(Agfa's CN17 and the slower CN14 didn't have the familiar orange mask, and the negatives were "true" colour negatives. CN14 allowed sharp 10" x 8" prints from 35mm, the CN17 tended to show some grain.)

Biggest surprise here is that Ilford even sold colour paper - I did not know that but I assume it would have been an ICI derived product like the short-lived, masked colour negative film that Ilford marketed. Sadly, colour was never Ilford's strong suit and I don't think the print fading you experienced would have had anything to do with additive versus subtractive exposure.

 

[John51]

No, in fact it would have been much cheaper for a hobbyist photographer to buy a set of color printing filters than a color head. .

Equipment was ever so expensive back then.

From google:

*In 1973 the average wage for men was £40.90 a week and council workers received £23 a week.*

Prices I remember from about the same time:

Zenith UPA5 suitcase condensor enlarger £20. All I could afford. Durst enlargers were multiple hundreds of quids so do the pools and hope for 8 draws. (Old fashioned version of the lottery.)

Process timer £80. I used a C90 tape player and recorded the times I needed to hear.

Durst Comask multi print easel £16. Did without.

Everything else was a similar high price. Unless you were a pro or a well heeled amateur, you bought the absolute minimum of kit necessary to make a print. I didn't even have a print easel for the first year, then got a Paterson 8x10 easel.

 

[BMbikerider]

Biggest surprise here is that Ilford even sold colour paper - I did not know that but I assume it would have been an ICI derived product like the short-lived, masked colour negative film that Ilford marketed. Sadly, colour was never Ilford's strong suit and I don't think the print fading you experienced would have had anything to do with additive versus subtractive exposure.

This only a vague memory for me. I used to buy my materials from a small shop owned by someone called Rolland Park, in a place called North Shields in North East England. (now long closed) I do remember seeing two colour prints made from the Ilford materials supplied by them for publicity purposes, both of brightly coloured parrots. The vividness and clarity of the images as I remember them was close to what you would expect from Cibachrome in later years.

Of course the development of Cibachrome was an Ilford product before it was sold off. Not only that but Ilford also made a quite decent colour transparency film but it didn't last long on the open market. In the long run, I think they did a wise move and stuck to what they did/do best and that is concentrate on conventional B&W

 

[FujiLove]

Equipment was ever so expensive back then.

From google:

*In 1973 the average wage for men was £40.90 a week and council workers received £23 a week.*

Prices I remember from about the same time:

Zenith UPA5 suitcase condensor enlarger £20. All I could afford. Durst enlargers were multiple hundreds of quids so do the pools and hope for 8 draws. (Old fashioned version of the lottery.)

Process timer £80. I used a C90 tape player and recorded the times I needed to hear.

Durst Comask multi print easel £16. Did without.

Everything else was a similar high price. Unless you were a pro or a well heeled amateur, you bought the absolute minimum of kit necessary to make a print. I didn't even have a print easel for the first year, then got a Paterson 8x10 easel.

We really are spoiled these days. I’m planning to do some colour printing this evening in my tiny darkroom that doubles up as our utility and boiler room. I’ll keep your post in mind and try to appreciate how lucky I am to have my big Durst colour enlarger and Nova tanks which make it easy to print 16x12. I’ll also try not to complain when I bang my elbows on the ironing board when I turn around to grab a sheet of paper!

 

[Ronald Moravec]

CP will work but are a royal pain and they gather dust as you add and remove filters to change color.

Chemicals and paper are difficult in smaller home size .

I would buy film in large quantities so you can keep same color balance for a long time.

 

[John Koehrer]

[QUOTE="Ronald Moravec, post: 2050787, member: 4545"
I would buy film in large quantities so you can keep same color balance for a long time.[/QUOTE]

CP paper may use different filter packs for different emulsions batches.

 

[neilt3]

Equipment was ever so expensive back then.

From google:

*In 1973 the average wage for men was £40.90 a week and council workers received £23 a week.*

Prices I remember from about the same time:

Zenith UPA5 suitcase condensor enlarger £20. All I could afford. Durst enlargers were multiple hundreds of quids so do the pools and hope for 8 draws. (Old fashioned version of the lottery.)

Process timer £80. I used a C90 tape player and recorded the times I needed to hear.

Durst Comask multi print easel £16. Did without.

Everything else was a similar high price. Unless you were a pro or a well heeled amateur, you bought the absolute minimum of kit necessary to make a print. I didn't even have a print easel for the first year, then got a Paterson 8x10 easel.

£40 in 1973 ??????
Well , the lucky .....not in the North West ......
The bugger I worked for in 1990 only paid us £37 a week !
Mind you , he was tight as a ducks arse !
My first SLR was an old Minolta 7000AF with 50mm f/1.7 ( which I still have ) and cost a months wage .
Between pints of beer , you can guess it took a while to afford !
Took even longer before I could afford the 35-70mm f/4 and 70-210mm f/4 zooms , which I also still have and use .

 

[neilt3]

You can get top quality colour enlargers for next to nothing these days .
Likely as not if people know your after one someone will probably give you one for free .

 

[DREW WILEY]

You don't need a car to cross the country either. Plenty of people once did it using covered wagons pulled by oxen. But with used colorheads and even entire enlargers selling for so little these days, I don't know why anyone would want to fumble around with sheet filter drawers. It's also hard to fine-tune color settings that way... And incidentally, all color papers respond to RGB. It's just a lot easier to make YMC subtractive colorheads.

 

[wiltw]

Equipment was ever so expensive back then.

From google:

*In 1973 the average wage for men was £40.90 a week and council workers received £23 a week.*

Prices I remember from about the same time:

In 1973, the official report of median family income was $250 per week; the price of an average SLR was $269 with 'normal' lens. the median income for an 'unrelated individual' in 1973 was $79 per week.

I tried to find ads and prices for enlargers in that timeframe, but mostly the ads in the photo mags did not have darkroom gear.

[edit] I found a Durst ad in 1968 mag. The Durst A600 was listed as $350 with 50mm Componon lens.
OTOH a Meopta Magnifax was $122, and a Bogen Super Pro was $109 in NYC, and Componon 50mm was $53.
Unfortunately no ads for dichroic heads.
In 1968 the median family income was $166 per week, and 'for men with income' it was $115.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh. Actual commercial enlargers in that era ran between $ 15,000 and $ 75,000. Now they get hauled to the dump because nobody wants them. I was offered
almost thirty of them for free, but only had room in my darkroom for one more enlarger, so settled on a classic 8X10 Durst color enlarger that originally cost around
$ 24,000. I wanted something basic enough to tune-up using my own shop skills and equipment, and not a lot of finicky fancy electronics to contend with. But it
could easily last a hundred years more. The 70's were the peak of Italian machining. By the way, not the kind of gear that was advertised in photo magazines.
Made in an entirely different division of Durst.