Question for those who actually own a Colorstar analyser.

[rpavich]

Hi,
I recently purchased a Colorstar 3000. After setting it up to make a perfect grey strip with the expodisc method that Mick Fagan recommended, I can nail the color on a new negative in new light first time, every time. It's really amazing.
What I cannot do is nail the density; that still requires a test print of differing times.

I was supplied the grey reference negative and tried to calibrate the Colorstar based on that but I never got a real true grey at .55 density as the manual says it should, I could only get that with the expodisc negative.

The expodisc negative that I made is significantly more dense than the supplied one which I think MIGHT be the source of my problems; I "zeroed" the machine based on a pretty dense negative and from my experience so far, the expodisc negative is more dense than the subsequent normally shot images that follow.

So all that to get to my question; if you OWN a Colorstar, do YOU get the density correct without strips or do you get the colors correct but must fudge with the density like I do?


My only other thought is that the makers of expodisc actually say that to make a proper exposure, you point the expodisc from the subject to the camera's position and set the camera based on that result. Shooting into the light source only sets the WB.

I'm not complaining, it works great and it's much more efficient than making strip after strip to gauge color and even having to make one print to get density that's a vast improvement in my darkroom efficiency.

 

[Mr Bill]

Hi, I don't know anything about the Colorstar analyzer(s).

That said, the traditional way to set up printer/analyzer configurations is to use a set of what they call printer setup or slope negs. This includes "normal" exposure as well as an over/under exposure series. If you don't use multiple negs, I don't believe that you will be able to nail things down except in the case where the setup neg has equivalent exposure to the negs you are actually printing. If you have a manual, see if they say anything about setting up printer "slope;" this may be the key to your issue.

 

[pentaxuser]

rpavich, how close do you get to the .55 with the negative. I have the same analyser and did the calibration as suggested in the manual and could get close after several tries but it then veered away again. I settled for a close reading. I have never has the expodisc. Do you find that the expodisc .55 give you the correct calibration or does it give you .55 but a poorer calibration than the supplied negative?

It might be worth having a look at the Frances Schultz article on the Colourstar if you can find it. I once had it but on trying to retrieve it from my bookmarks I have discovered that it is not longer obtainable. I get an error 404. Maybe someone here with more knowledge of the internet can work out how to retrieve it

The bottom line as I remember it was that "close to .55 was good enough" This suggested to me that Frances Schultz may have has some difficulty getting to exactly .55 as well but found that it didn't matter

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

rpavich if you google Frances Schultz article on the Colorstar 3000 In At The Deep End it will show up. I have now bookmarked it again. Let me know if your google search doesn't work and can try and quote it.

Way past my bedtime now in the U.K.

pentaxuser

 

[rpavich]

rpavich, how close do you get to the .55 with the negative. I have the same analyser and did the calibration as suggested in the manual and could get close after several tries but it then veered away again. I settled for a close reading. I have never has the expodisc. Do you find that the expodisc .55 give you the correct calibration or does it give you .55 but a poorer calibration than the supplied negative?

It might be worth having a look at the Frances Schultz article on the Colourstar if you can find it. I once had it but on trying to retrieve it from my bookmarks I have discovered that it is not longer obtainable. I get an error 404. Maybe someone here with more knowledge of the internet can work out how to retrieve it

The bottom line as I remember it was that "close to .55 was good enough" This suggested to me that Frances Schultz may have has some difficulty getting to exactly .55 as well but found that it didn't matter

pentaxuser

I got to .56 over all and within 2 points of Y and D and 3 points of M. I could get closer but the grey looked great and I was tired. I figured I could go farther another day. So yes...close is good enough in my book.

I found this. I used a grey neg that the seller supplied to me and I could NOT get to a grey neg. Even though the numbers said .55 .55 .55 the print was greenish grey.

So, using the expodisc I got to a great looking grey within 5 tries. The resulting prints look great...the colors are spot on as long as I do Mick's method; shoot a reference expodisc in the same light as the succeeding frames. I also found that as long as the light is very similar, you don't have to shoot one as often. In other words...daylight sun today is about the same as daylight a week from now and it's possible to use the same reference frame.

The expodisc is by far better than what other technique I've tried. I tried averaging with the Colorstar, and doing spot readings of known colors, but the expodisc is as close to "automatic" as I can imagine.

It makes shooting color a pleasure. I just did these two prints this morning and all I had to do was do a test strip for density...the colors were perfect. Test prints on the left.

 

[rpavich]

rpavich if you google Frances Schultz article on the Colorstar 3000 In At The Deep End it will show up. I have now bookmarked it again. Let me know if your google search doesn't work and can try and quote it.

Way past my bedtime now in the U.K.

pentaxuser

Thanks Pentaxuser, I've read that article over and over but it didn't help for density. Folks have said that they can nail density but I can't...not without test strips. I guess it's because I'm using Mick's method and for sure the exposure for the resulting images is different than the expodisc exposure for the WB.

I shot a roll (that I have yet to develop) where I shot the WB shots with the expodisc and also the exposure shot too. I'll see how that goes.

For now, making one test strip isn't the end of the world but it would be great to eliminate that even.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks rpavich. I felt like saying "Thank Goodness it isn't just me"" when I saw your comment on grey-green. This has been exactly my experience as well. I was almost in despair wondering how F Schultz was able to produce a grey-grey as opposed to a slight but definite green-grey.

If the expodisc gives better results as would seem to be the case then I need to read up on this thread again and study what to do when I try colour again.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Just one further thought and I could be way-out with this but I wonder if over the years the neg supplied with the Colorstar has changed in both our cases or something has changed to give is the green-grey. This may not be relevant but I recall in my early days of colour trying to set up a perfect print with Fuji neg of a girl in a Japanese garden and comparing it to the Fuji perfect print that was also supplied. Try as I might I could never get the print colours the same. The "Lucky" neg as it seemed to be called was probably several years old although not used very much, and the paper on which the print was made a good many years previously was certainly not the Fuji paper that was current when I tried to reproduce the print

pentaxuser

 

[rpavich]

Just one further thought and I could be way-out with this but I wonder if over the years the neg supplied with the Colorstar has changed in both our cases or something has changed to give is the green-grey. This may not be relevant but I recall in my early days of colour trying to set up a perfect print with Fuji neg of a girl in a Japanese garden and comparing it to the Fuji perfect print that was also supplied. Try as I might I could never get the print colours the same. The "Lucky" neg as it seemed to be called was probably several years old although not used very much, and the paper on which the print was made a good many years previously was certainly not the Fuji paper that was current when I tried to reproduce the print

pentaxuser

That's possible for sure.

I'm glad that just using the expodisc (or a shot of a grey card) was good enough though, I'd have been peeved if it truly needed that particular neg.

 

[rpavich]

Thanks rpavich. I felt like saying "Thank Goodness it isn't just me"" when I saw your comment on grey-green. This has been exactly my experience as well. I was almost in despair wondering how F Schultz was able to produce a grey-grey as opposed to a slight but definite green-grey.

If the expodisc gives better results as would seem to be the case then I need to read up on this thread again and study what to do when I try colour again.

pentaxuser

Here is the conversation that prompted me to go this route.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)