Actually it's pretty much stone simple at home. I have a Jobo now but I've done many dozens if not hundreds of rolls of color with a big tub for a water bath and just putting my chems in aluminum cans for easier temperature adjustment. I don't bother with C41 (or E6 for that matter, which is just as easy only it has more steps) these days because I don't do that much and am happy to pay a few dollars to have it done for me. But if I shot more I would. There's not a lot of creativity involved though. It's not like B&W where you can choose from a huge range of developers each with their own traits. You can push a bit or pull a bit, and that's about it.
Sensitometry, showing parallel curves at 100F, and showing crossover at lower temperatures, is what imparts the truth, and I recall a thread where someone clearly demonstrated that with your processes. If your images are acceptable to you then by all means do it. I have clearly seen the crossover in such prints and find it objectionable.
Unicolor provides data for low temperature processing, so I guess they are OK with it.
I also think a lot of the need for "spot on" densitometry was necessary for fast, quality lab processing to prints. If scanned, probably not so much.
Bob, look, we don't all have the luxury that you do, so don't dismiss our efforts to still love film. There are plenty of reasons to shoot film and then scan. And you know what? If I have the next Stieglitz on a roll, I can have it made into "real" print, color or B&W.
Each to their own, so stop trying to convince us heretics, OK?
Bob, look, we don't all have the luxury that you do, so don't dismiss our efforts to still love film. There are plenty of reasons to shoot film and then scan. And you know what? If I have the next Stieglitz on a roll, I can have it made into "real" print, color or B&W.
Each to their own, so stop trying to convince us heretics, OK?
Good work, David! Hopefully folks will believe us now when we say you can't get correct color balance from low temperature C-41 processing...
I'm not talking spot-on sensitometry, but way-off sensitometry.
There has been low temperature processes around for years, but notice that they aren't too popular.
They haven't been "aren't too popular" because its a home developing alternative vs. labs. That doesn't mean in and of itself, it's not viable.
The shirt is buff in color, not pure white. - David Lyga
They have never been popular with either labs or home users because they just don't deliver the quality. If you want find out yourself if it is viable why don't you give it a try? Then you will be qualified to argue the point. I have tried it, and that is why I am arguing against it.
You are correct, the color of me is not perfect. But the color with the purple and yellow flowers is, and that leads me to think that I might have been off with my filtering.
I still say that this temperature variation is viable. Actually, to get color perfect is very difficult, as many on this board will fully agree. The most difficult thing with processing color is to get the developing time just right. Too little development time will lead to muddy results (i.e., lack of contrast). Even a bit too much will tend to overemphasize the hue differentiation, causing this crossover. Sometimes, with only certain instances, as with my purple and yellow flowers, this is even beneficial as compared with normal processing.
In sum, much of color work delves past objectivity, into the realm of subjectivity, which can either enhance or detract from the desired, creative results. - David Lyga
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?