SCANNING.MaybeDeveloper Maybe Ahhh who knows...

KidA · Aug 5, 2015

Before I get blasted to the DPUG, I have a question regarding scanning and developing. Maybe one, maybe both. Here's the issue:

As of recent, I have been developing and scanning my colour films. Up until now, I have used Tetenal's Press Kit with great results. Then I thought I'd give a dIfferent developing kit a try: it's the Argentix c-41 Kit (from a store under the same name in Montreal, Canada). I thought I'd try the more economical route given that I live in Canada, and don't have to pay import charges. Anyways, I started to scan (using the Imacon/Flextight [fantastic scanner]) my most recent negs only to find that they are a little soft…but a somewhat strange kind of soft/fuzzy; perhaps a different grain… I really don't know if it's my scanning technique or the negatives that are screwed up. I've used the same gear and film… All previous scans are excellent; all recent ones under this new developer are 'fuzzy'.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. Both on Kodak Ektar 100.

KidA · Aug 5, 2015

Sorry, I accidentally hit 'submit' and for some reason it won't let me upload any other image...

Hopefully this is enough to show you what's wrong, even without direct comparison. If any of you are familiar with Ektar at all, it doesn't usually look like the example I just posted.

Also, I don't have access to the scanner for a while anymore, so I can't scan both older and newer negs to do a direct comparison.

I really hope the scanning settings are off and my negs are ok!!

pentaxuser · Aug 5, 2015

I cannot open your example

pentaxuser

RPC · Aug 5, 2015

Same here.

KidA · Aug 5, 2015

Ahhh shoot...

What's the maximum file size you can upload on here?

pdeeh · Aug 5, 2015

It tells you exactly in the file upload dialogue doesn't it?

BradS · Aug 5, 2015

Since, ostensibly, the only thing that changed was the C-41 chemistry, let's pretend that your question is something like,
"Is it possible that changing C-41 chemistry from Tetenal to some other brand (Argentix?) would result in soft/fuzzy negatives?".

If so, why? and what can I do about it? etc...

If you still want to talk about scannign technique, you'll have to go to DPUG...it is off topic here.

MattKing · Aug 5, 2015

The kits might differ in the contrast they produce.

So when you factor in the scanning software and sharpening algorithms that seem impossible to avoid with even the best scanners, the results may appear different.

bvy · Aug 5, 2015

Do a side-by-side scan and compare (negatives side by side scanned in one pass). That eliminates the scanning variable, right?

pbromaghin · Aug 5, 2015

Do you have a light box? Try looking at them side-by-side through a loupe and see if the difference is still there. If you don't have a light box, tape them to a window.

Rudeofus · Aug 5, 2015

Can you visually compare the orange film base of old and new negatives? Do you also get mute colors in your newly processed negs?

Sirius Glass · Aug 5, 2015

You have a Imacon/Flextight [fantastic scanner] which is a wonderful scanner so take any more discussion of that to DPUG.

I do not see how any C-41 would result in soft images [soft focus?]. Never heard of that before. I use the Unicolor kit from FreeStyle and have never seen any signs of image softness. I wonder it the camera, lenses or focusing techniques could be a source of your problem.

KidA · Aug 5, 2015

The colours seem ok. Contrast also seems to be in check. This is what brings me to believe it might just be the scanner. Under a 7x loupe and lightbox, I see no distinguishable difference.

I think I got the examples uploaded. Here's a shot...

Im sure you can tell which one is suffering.

Rudeofus · Aug 5, 2015

In this case I would second bvy's suggestion that you rescan one of your old negs and see whether that comes out blurry, too.

Photo Engineer · Aug 5, 2015

The scenes differ so much in content and exposure range that it is difficult to see a problem on my monitor, but that being said, I can imagine several "faults" that can be either made in the design of the developer, or the bleach or blix, whichever is used. These faults involve many factors but center on the "magic" of the DIR effect in the film, which must be carefully balanced to work. Improper bleaching or use of a blix can also degrade the image.

PE

Sirius Glass · Aug 5, 2015

KidA said:
The colours seem ok. Contrast also seems to be in check. This is what brings me to believe it might just be the scanner. Under a 7x loupe and lightbox, I see no distinguishable difference.

I think I got the examples uploaded. Here's a shot...

Im sure you can tell which one is suffering.

I do not see any "suffering", but I see that the first photograph has a limited depth of field caused by the chosen camera setting.

KidA · Aug 6, 2015

What's the DIR effect?

Rudeofus · Aug 6, 2015

Normal color development goes like this: color developer reduces Ag+ to Ag and becomes oxidized in the process. Oxidized color developer then reacts with dye coupler to form dye. In C-41 films there similar compounds to these color couplers called DIR couplers. DIR means "development inhibitor releasing". If DIR couplers react with oxidized color developer, they release a compound which slows down development. Since more of this development inhibitor will be formed around strongly developed areas, you get lower macro contrast and an edge effect which translates to higher sharpness.

If I interpret PhotoEngineer correctly, C-41 color developers must be formulated such that this effect plays out, or you will get inferior results. The classic C-41 formula provides three liquid concentrates to make the color developer, whereas powder developers must somehow deviate from this formula to make them possible. Depending on which compromises were made to make powder developer for C-41 possible, the resulting negs may or may not turn out as nicely as with the original formula.

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2015

The orange base color will give us some idea of what is going wrong. Can you help us there?

PE

pentaxuser · Aug 6, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
The scenes differ so much in content and exposure range that it is difficult to see a problem on my monitor,
PE

Same here. If the scans are a good reflection of the negs then these two negs look OK to me. The foreground beach and sea looks a little magenta-ish but that may be the way it is anyway

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass · Aug 6, 2015

Rudeofus said:
Normal color development goes like this: color developer reduces Ag+ to Ag and becomes oxidized in the process. Oxidized color developer then reacts with dye coupler to form dye. In C-41 films there similar compounds to these color couplers called DIR couplers. DIR means "development inhibitor releasing". If DIR couplers react with oxidized color developer, they release a compound which slows down development. Since more of this development inhibitor will be formed around strongly developed areas, you get lower macro contrast and an edge effect which translates to higher sharpness.

If I interpret PhotoEngineer correctly, C-41 color developers must be formulated such that this effect plays out, or you will get inferior results. The classic C-41 formula provides three liquid concentrates to make the color developer, whereas powder developers must somehow deviate from this formula to make them possible. Depending on which compromises were made to make powder developer for C-41 possible, the resulting negs may or may not turn out as nicely as with the original formula.

Thank you for explaining DIR clearly.

SCANNING.MaybeDeveloper Maybe Ahhh who knows...

KidA

KidA

pentaxuser

RPC

KidA

pdeeh

BradS

MattKing

Moderator

bvy

pbromaghin

Rudeofus

Sirius Glass

KidA

Attachments

Rudeofus

Photo Engineer

Sirius Glass

KidA

Rudeofus

Photo Engineer

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass

SCANNING .Maybe Developer Maybe Ahhh who knows...

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

SCANNING.MaybeDeveloper Maybe Ahhh who knows...