Reversal RA-4 experiment thread.

[bill williams]

An RA4 interneg and the RA4 contact print from it. (5x7) scanned with an epson V500 without any corrections.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Mitsubishi = Konishiroku = Sakura.

PE

???

Konishiroku = Sakura

Mitsubishi = Mitsubishi

???

Of course, I might wrong... Perhaps I be seeing the world through cherry colored glasses... Can you explain you understanding of the relationship that led you to the above equation?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mitsubishi bank owned Sakura (Konishiroku) and also the Mitsubishi plant and therefore the Hachioji plant of Konishiroku Kabushiki Kaisha and the Mitsubishi photographic paper plant were closely allied and in close communication. This is directly from Wakabayashi Yasuo Hakase San, Fukushacho of R&D at Konica. Wakarimashita?

Confirmed by Ueda Hirozo Hakase San, Fukushacho of Fuj during lunch and a tour at Kodak Parki.

All personal communications!

Sayonara, to mato ato de.

PE

 

[polyglot]

Ignoring reversal for a moment, is there any reason other than convenience to use an RA-4 interneg instead of C-41? Seems to me the C-41 would be (much) cheaper, at least for 135 and probably for MF if printing large, plus it means you can enlarge to any size. Or am I missing something?

 

[bill williams]

A correction. I'm posting this all without my notes, which may not even exist anymore. It should be obvious that you can't project through an orange mask and get an orange mask on the RA4 interneg. So, you have to project through the opposite. The mask should consist of 60 cyan and 20 magenta. This will then give an orange mask on the interneg. I think that is right. I'll continue to look for my notes.

polyglot: Yes, if you didn't have the positive to positive chemicals and papers, and didn't want a print made using digital, the likely best way to go would be to make a C41 internegative. But to do so, you have to copy the transparency onto the film, process the film, and then enlarge the film. I was looking for a way to quickly do a positive to positive and remain in the RA4 workflow. And after all that I've done, the C41 route is the only way to go if you need quality.

 

[Ray Rogers]

"All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others"

Mitsubishi bank owned Sakura (Konishiroku) and also the Mitsubishi plant and therefore the Hachioji plant of Konishiroku Kabushiki Kaisha and the Mitsubishi photographic paper plant were closely allied and in close communication. This is directly from Wakabayashi Yasuo Hakase San, Fukushacho of R&D at Konica. Wakarimashita?

Confirmed by Ueda Hirozo Hakase San, Fukushacho of Fuj during lunch and a tour at Kodak Parki.

All personal communications!

Sayonara, to mato ato de.

PE

It was my understanding the Mitsubishi group members were autonomous; your little equation above implies equality, more specifically, that the color paper was identical. Even if you are correct and they were owned by the same group*, that does not mean the products were the same, just as it does not mean that Lucky Color Film is identical to Kodacolor Film.

Are you of the opinion that Konica-Minolta is owned by Mitsubishi too?

I am given to belive that Dai Nippon bought Konika's old factory in 2006... (Dai Nippon is related to Mitsubshi) but that does not really tell me that DNP also bought Mitsubishi, or vice versa...
Konika = DNP sounds better than Konika = Mitsubishi;
At least as far as the paper goes....

So what is the relationship between Mitsubishi and DNP?
There is one, but I don't think it is as simple as your equation makes it appear.

Anyway, this is all too "icky" for me... I guess it depends on where you draw the line... Wratten= Kodak since Kodak ate them up. But, (before they pullled out) did Kodak = Lucky?
(I hear they had a 20% share (and perhaps 90% brains? so 110% Kodak?)

There are side relationships and then there are vertical relationships.

Your equation
Mitsubishi = Konishiroku = Sakura.
just doesn't do this subject justice...

... because the equality between the last two parts...
is much greater than the equality of the first two parts.
(Sort of reminds me of Animal Farm!)


Ma, watashi wa so omoimasu.
Sore dewa, mata atode.

 

[hrst]

Omoshiroi hanashi desu ne. APUG wa itsu kara nihongo ni natta kana? .

 

[Photo Engineer]

A correction. I'm posting this all without my notes, which may not even exist anymore. It should be obvious that you can't project through an orange mask and get an orange mask on the RA4 interneg. So, you have to project through the opposite. The mask should consist of 60 cyan and 20 magenta. This will then give an orange mask on the interneg. I think that is right. I'll continue to look for my notes.

polyglot: Yes, if you didn't have the positive to positive chemicals and papers, and didn't want a print made using digital, the likely best way to go would be to make a C41 internegative. But to do so, you have to copy the transparency onto the film, process the film, and then enlarge the film. I was looking for a way to quickly do a positive to positive and remain in the RA4 workflow. And after all that I've done, the C41 route is the only way to go if you need quality.

I have made internegs from slides and done reversal processing both. They are both good methods for getting acceptable prints from slides, but the interneg route is better due to the limitations of the cross process.

However, you can never introduce a mask by using filtration. All you get is "color" that duplicates the color of the mask at one density level. Remember that a mask is in the form of an orange positive image overlaid on a negative color image.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

It was my understanding the Mitsubishi group members were autonomous; your little equation above implies equality, more specifically, that the color paper was identical. Even if you are correct and they were owned by the same group*, that does not mean the products were the same, just as it does not mean that Lucky Color Film is identical to Kodacolor Film.

Are you of the opinion that Konica-Minolta is owned by Mitsubishi too?

I am given to belive that Dai Nippon bought Konika's old factory in 2006... (Dai Nippon is related to Mitsubshi) but that does not really tell me that DNP also bought Mitsubishi, or vice versa...
Konika = DNP sounds better than Konika = Mitsubishi;
At least as far as the paper goes....

So what is the relationship between Mitsubishi and DNP?
There is one, but I don't think it is as simple as your equation makes it appear.

Anyway, this is all too "icky" for me... I guess it depends on where you draw the line... Wratten= Kodak since Kodak ate them up. But, (before they pullled out) did Kodak = Lucky?
(I hear they had a 20% share (and perhaps 90% brains? so 110% Kodak?)

There are side relationships and then there are vertical relationships.

Your equation
Mitsubishi = Konishiroku = Sakura.
just doesn't do this subject justice...

... because the equality between the last two parts...
is much greater than the equality of the first two parts.
(Sort of reminds me of Animal Farm!)


Ma, watashi wa so omoimasu.
Sore dewa, mata atode.

Well, since Konishiroku KKK was the name of the company and Sakura was the brand name of their films, that part stands up. But, Mitsubishi and Konishiroku did exchange paper information and film information according to my sources. Generally, Mitsubishi was a generation behind Konishiroku though in their product lineup much as Lucky was a generation behind current Kodak products.

Konishiroku and Mitsubishi were in very close contact through the Konica plant in Hachioji and the Mitsubishi plant which was ??? (I've forgotten). Fuji, in Ashigara, was very much apart from the other two. Of course one of these 3 companies made film and paper for Oriental and others. It was a very complex situation to unravel from the distance of several thousand miles, and when the companies were not clear about all of these relationships.

As the Shacho (I believe it was Nishimura) said to me, we are "owned" by Mitsubishi for all practical purposes and they expect cooperation between their subsidiaries.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

Mitsubishi has several locatons, but Kyoto is the one I think. Their headquarters was in Kansai, but they do (or did) have something in Ibaragi (or was it Tsukuba?) as well. I don't doubt they helped each other (I'm speculating) but then doesn't Kodak also... for a fee?

As you say, they were about a generation apart... so perhaps they did little more than what Agfa did for Fuji years ago... I dunno.

Anyway, thanks for your insight! I will see what kind of info I can dig up.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Omoshiroi hanashi desu ne. APUG wa itsu kara nihongo ni natta kana? .

Yesterday, 01:09 PM, and it all started wth a "Good bye".

Mou soro soro, nihongo no forum ga hitsuyou to naru kamo ne.

 

[wblynch]

RE: Mitsubishi / Konishiroku / Sakura -- who cares? You guys are ruining an interesting thread with your bickering.

Whew! thanks, just had to get that off my chest.

 

[Ray Rogers]

RE: Mitsubishi / Konishiroku / Sakura -- who cares? You guys are ruining an interesting thread with your bickering.
Whew! thanks, just had to get that off my chest.

Bickering? Actually, this interaction went rather well I thought.
However, I am sorry you were displeased!
Rich conversations, or even thoughs in general, are not always linear.
By all means, do continue...

 

[wblynch]

Bickering? Actually, this interaction went rather well I thought.
However, I am sorry you were displeased!
Rich conversations, or even thoughs in general, are not always linear.
By all means, do continue...

You're right. I must have risen from the counterproductive side of my sleeping device !!

 

[bill williams]

However, you can never introduce a mask by using filtration. All you get is "color" that duplicates the color of the mask at one density level. Remember that a mask is in the form of an orange positive image overlaid on a negative color image.

PE

My procedure is to lay down an orange positive image(done while flashing the paper with a filter pack of 60 cyan and 20 magenta and a diffuser), remove the filter pack, insert the transparency, and then expose the paper with the transparency. This does overlay a positive orange with a negative color image of the transparency. I'm not sure this is exactly what is needed for the paper internegative to be similar to a C41 internegative, but it is as you described it should be? The filter pack for the positive orange mask is not included in the path when the paper is exposed to the transparency.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bill;

You seem to be doing it right if I understand the method correctly.

PE

 

[bill williams]

Yes, I think I am doing it as you said it should be done. And the results are decent. I've not been able to find my notes, its been several months since I did any of it and I probably tossed them accidently. I remember that there were a lot of variables to deal with.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, I think I am doing it as you said it should be done. And the results are decent. I've not been able to find my notes, its been several months since I did any of it and I probably tossed them accidently. I remember that there were a lot of variables to deal with.

You should try designing and coating some actual color negative film with its over 9000 variables.

PE

 

[Daire Quinlan]

I'm playing around with this at the moment, but exposing the paper in-camera and then reversal processing to get 8x10 positives.

I'm using Ilford DD-X as a first developer, not ideal I know having read the rest of the thread, but I'll experiment with that when I get my first couple of batches working.

My question is this. I shot a couple of sheets of supra endura metered at asa 6 and 3. I developed them in the DD-X for 3 minutes then turned on the lights. The one I shot at 6 has a faint but discernable image. The one I shot at 3 is much stronger, but there are definately no blacks, just mid greys. Out of curiosity I got a sheet of supra endura and stuck it out in daylight for a few hours. Dumping a test strip of this into the DDX gave me a slightly darker grey than the shot.

I'm used to B&W where overexposure will give you a solid black. On the colour papers I guess there's not so much silver or something ? What are other peoples experiences of what a completely exposed bit of colour paper developed in a B&W developer looks like ?

Taking the same paper and putting a different test strip into my RA-4 developer gives me the blacks I'm expecting, which comes as no surprise of course given that it's activating all the dye layers.

This evening hopefully I'll get a chance to throw the two sheets through the full RA-4 process and see what comes out the far end

 

[Photo Engineer]

The negative silver image on Endura paper is very low in contrast and has no real blacks. Don't try to evaluate this image at all as it is unreliable and misleading.

PE

 

[Daire Quinlan]

Hmmm.

So got around to putting the B&W developed sheet through the rest of the process. The results are a little ... underwhelming ...



That's shot at asa3 and developed in DDX 1:10 as above before re-exposure (to sunlight, very much to completion). So either I need more exposure on the shooting side (which doesn't really gel with other peoples experiences) or my DDX isn't sufficiently active a first developer. I figured I'd get colour casts, I didn't think the exposure would appear this far off though.

As it turns out I even had to snatch this from the RA4 developer after about 30 seconds or so because it was just getting darker and darker, so it didn't even get a proper dev cycle in the RA4 chems.

I have another sheet shot at asa3 sitting in its dark slide ATM, and some Diafine, Rodinal, and that DDX in the house to try. Anyone got any ideas ? I could mix up a more concentrated DDX solution I guess.

 

[David Grenet]

You may find this thread helpful (photo.net). I think you should try and get your hands on some Dektol (we know that works) or perhaps use a more concentrated DDX or maybe even Rodinal 1:10.

Also, if you leave the paper out in the sun it will begin to print out (not good) and a few hours between the BW dev and the colour process is probably not advisable either.

 

[Daire Quinlan]

You may find this thread helpful (photo.net). I think you should try and get your hands on some Dektol (we know that works) or perhaps use a more concentrated DDX or maybe even Rodinal 1:10.

Also, if you leave the paper out in the sun it will begin to print out (not good) and a few hours between the BW dev and the colour process is probably not advisable either.

I've read that thread before, there's some good stuff in there all right. I tried again last night, using another sheet shot at asa3, developed in Ilford Multigrade Paper developer 1+3 for 3 minutes, then washed, exposed to room light for about 5 minutes, and then put through the RA4 process. More or less the same results, heavily underexposed looking print, maybe a little less so than the last time but not significantly so. So obviously I'm doing SOMETHING wrong here Maybe the ilford dev just isn't active enough or something.

Interestingly enough the B&W negative image looked pretty dense, there were grey tones in the highlights (well, dark areas on the negative, you get the idea ) that matched what I was seeing with test strips that were exposed to sunlight and then put through the same developer so it would appear as though the B&W developer did its job correctly, though bearing in mind what PE says above that might or might not be significant.

I've had success with the same shooting process and just straight RA4 development to get a paper negative, everything was (more or less) exposed correctly, so I don't -think- that's the problem.

I guess it's time to run a bunch of test sheets at different ISOs or something and try and find out what the ideal one is. It's looking as though it'll be about 1 or under though which is kinda odd given other peoples experiences with paper...

 

[Photo Engineer]

You are underexposing by several stops it looks like to me!

PE

 

[David Grenet]

As PE said earlier, the BW negatives are difficult to use to judge exposure (and impossible to judge colour!). Perhaps you should try printing some transparencies under the enlarger to get a feel for the process first.