Should I bother with colour printing?

[tomfrh]

I enjoy developing and printing BW

I occasionally shoot a roll of C41 negative film and have it scanned and printed, however I've never been especially happy with the printed results. They don't look as nice as the optical prints I used to get in the 1980s and 1990s. They just don't look like real photos.

I'm considering printing my own, but am wary of the process. I read one page in particular which listed how to print colour (steps 1-13 ommitted):

...
14. Open drum, remove print, realize it's a bit too magenta, so repeat back from step 1.
15. After doing the previous steps enough times, wonder if there isn't a better way.
16. Get a good negative scanner and digital color printer, and with great relief leave steps 1-15 to history, where they belong.

​

What is your take on it?

Should I bother? Or is digital printing the way to go for colour?

 

[iandvaag]

I just started printing RA-4 this summer, and I find it very rewarding. I will admit that there is some truth in the cynical steps 15 & 16. If you really want high output (for example if you want one print each of your photos), perhaps optical printing is not for you. I find it really calming to work in complete darkness. I'm not stressed about printing a hundred different 4x6s, I can concentrate on getting a really nice 8x10. It's fun to put on a podcast, relax, and turn out some beautiful prints. I really would recommend it, especially if you already know that you like printing b&w, and if have access to a colour enlarger. And the prints are a bajillion times better than Walmart prints.

You should know that you don't have the same degree of control over contrast as you do in black and white printing. The main adjustment is about finding a proper colour balance (and exposure too). Of course many skills such as burning and dodging will carry over from B&W printing. Some would say that you don't have as many creative tools as you do for printing B&W, but I don't necessarily agree.

BTW, unless you plan on making really large prints, processing in trays at room temperature is way easier than drums IMO. Three trays: dev, stop, blix, so it is pretty much the same as B&W, except you must work in total darkness (or a dim colour safelight) until halfway through the blix step. Super easy.

 

[MattKing]

I have multiple 8x10 and 11x14 tubes, which I use mostly for black and white when I don't want to set up the trays.
Having more than one tube makes it so much easier, because you can let them air dry between uses.
For most of my colour printing, I had the benefit of a print processing machine, which tends to spoil you.
But it is so nice to have the ability to make custom colour prints in your own darkroom.

 

[tomfrh]

If you really want high output (for example if you want one print each of your photos), perhaps optical printing is not for you

I'm only interested in low volume, up to 8x10. Not churning out a roll of film. That's how I do BW. One or two negs per session to make nice prints for the wall, or for relatives.


Are you saying I can use trays at room temp as per BW? I thought I needed heaters and processing machines and all sorts of fancy stuff? That would be great to avoid thermometers and all that.


Currently I have 8x10 trays and a colour head diffusion enlarger.

 

[MattKing]

You can use the chemicals at room temperature - either in trays, or in tubes.
You just need a longer developing time.

 

[twelvetone12]

I do low-volume RA4 in trays at room temp (2 minutes each bath). I find it much fun and rewarding, and no more difficult than black and white. It takes some time and practice to get the filtration correctly but again it is no more complex than nailing contrast in a BW print. Optical color prints look gorgeous!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Should I bother? Or is digital printing the way to go for colour?

Small volume, home/hobbyist printing — as you say, up to 8x10, dabble in the darkroom as and when you see fit.\
Auto-prints [machine] churned out in mini-labs with el cheapo scanr, will give no satisfaction or indication of what can be achieved, especially if you don't explicitly give instructions as to how the print is produced. Harking back to memories of the 1980s and 1990s ... well, we had Ilfochrome Classic then, not lab prints. Now we have RA-4 hybridised (wet process/digital exposure) prints that are far and above whatever was thought of as cutting edge 20-30 years ago!

For large exhibition prints destined for sale where quality is the topmost consideration, discuss printing with a pro-level lab and provide them with point to point instructions (this can get very technical and it assumes a good grasp of process, print and outcome). Once the workflow has been set to satisfaction, there is usually nothing more involved. The upside of the hybrid print production route is instant portability [between/across media] repeatability, speed and accuracy, and the ever-growing variety of media for printing.

Point #16 is a grotesquely over-simplified and misleading amateurish statement. Unless you know precisely what you want, and how, and have been professionally trained in the entire print production process from the time the film it out of the camera to the moment the leading edge appears out of the printer, then what are you relying on — Buckley's Chance??

 

[btaylor]

I enjoyed color printing in the '80s, and enjoy it even more now after that long hiatus. It is a lot of fun, and the results have been hugely satisfying. I've never done trays, but a lot of people here do. One reason I like tubes or a roller transport machine at the correct temp is that the process is faster, when I'm dialing in color and density the wait time to evaluate a test print needs to be as short as possible so I can get to the next print. The difference between 6 min a print and 10 min adds up quick.

 

[tomfrh]

It takes some time and practice to get the filtration correctly but again it is no more complex than nailing contrast in a BW print.

Thanks!

Now we have RA-4 hybridised (wet process/digital exposure) prints that are far and above whatever was thought of as cutting edge 20-30 years ago!

Hybrid RA-4 is what I've been trying at various good labs. I don't find it as good as the 25 year old optical prints I'm using as a reference. I was recently looking at some 6x4 from 1994 and they look really nice. I compared these to some RA-4 hybrid prints I've done recently, at various different labs (one offs), and it's no comparison - the old ones look nicer. They have a different character to them.

In your opinion should modern RA-4 hybrid match optical?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I enjoy developing and printing BW

I occasionally shoot a roll of C41 negative film and have it scanned and printed, however I've never been especially happy with the printed results. They don't look as nice as the optical prints I used to get in the 1980s and 1990s. They just don't look like real photos.

I'm considering printing my own, but am wary of the process. I read one page in particular which listed how to print colour (steps 1-13 ommitted):

...
14. Open drum, remove print, realize it's a bit too magenta, so repeat back from step 1.
15. After doing the previous steps enough times, wonder if there isn't a better way.
16. Get a good negative scanner and digital color printer, and with great relief leave steps 1-15 to history, where they belong.

​

What is your take on it?

Should I bother? Or is digital printing the way to go for colour?

That's how I answered this question for me:analog for B&W and digital for color or &W.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

In your opinion should modern RA-4 hybrid match optical?

Well, yes and no. They are two different processes, one with restrictions (all-analogue), the other digital with the opportunity to make corrections (but getting everything right in-camera is and will remain the better way). I have pearl prints produced by traditional RA-4 printing in 1993 and 1994, and they are very dull and lifeless compared to the luminous work produced two decades later to RA-4/H [hybrid]. One of the problems experienced in those days was the lack of control over contrast and the very limited paper finishes. But this contrast thing is not something that is given any tweaking today: managing contrast is done in-camera, at the time of exposure. A fair bit of my contrasty RA-4 colour work in the mid-1980s to early 1990s was quite so-so, and it taught me the value of taking absolute full control over exposure, not leaving it up to the camera — any camera. By the way, those optical RA-4 prints are still in mint condition in an archival envelope.

Chapter and verse could be write about the comparison between Ilfochrome prints and traditional RA-4 vs hybrid RA-4 prints. In fairness, such debate shouod be restricted to the two tyoes of RA-4 print processes. Ilfochromes have a distinctive, deep and lush look to them that will not be equalled by RA-4 prints of either persuasion. But they (RA-4) are all we have now and in many cases the flexibility of the hybrid process allows much better control over results (e.g because Ilfochrome material was in 3 contrast grades) and a huge choice of media rather than plain, everyman ultra-glossy.

All things being equal, an optical should look pretty well a match to a hybrid. But keep in mind that the quality of the RA-4 / RA-4H print produced also owes a lot to the quality of the original image (slide, negative): you cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear!

 

[darkosaric]

I have tried it (because I wanted to see, and my Focomat has a color head). If you are in to color photography - I would definitely suggest that you at least give it a try. For me the results were better than an (average) lab results, and you will never get 100% negative from a lab, the mask will use around 90-93% of the negative. If you want 100% negative (eventually with the black border) - then the optical printing the way to go.

Here are couple of examples from my test:

 

[Mr Bill]

What is your take on it?

Should I bother? Or is digital printing the way to go for colour?

I think you have to think about what is your reason for wanting to try RA-4. If it's for the learning experience, or for fun, or just to be able to say you did it, I'd say to go for it.

I've spent a lot of years working with color neg printing on a very large scale, and am intimately familiar with much of the technology, process control, etc. I would say that much of your success, assuming that you are very finicky, depends on how good a job you do getting the original scene just right - good lighting, the right amount of scene contrast, etc. If something is not right, it's very difficult to correct in straight optical printing.

If you don't have any special reason for doing optical printing, much as I hate to say it, I'd suggest going to digital. It probably has a bigger learning curve - you need to learn how to get good scans, learn how to use ICC color profiles, including making one for your monitor, etc., then learn how to operate some sort of image processing program, etc. But once you've been through all of this, you can do things like change the color saturation in your scanned image, change contrast in different areas, and use sharpening. And if you ever want to make duplicate prints at a later date, you just spit them out to your printer again.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you area someone who wants to do 2-3 prints in an evening, desires the advantages of optical prints and the set-up cost for chemicals etc is not important then home RA4 is fro you. In other words you meet the "profile" exactly. Go for it

pentaxuser

 

[railwayman3]

If you area someone who wants to do 2-3 prints in an evening, desires the advantages of optical prints and the set-up cost for chemicals etc is not important then home RA4 is fro you. In other words you meet the "profile" exactly. Go for it

pentaxuser

I'd agree.....I've done both, and IMHO optical prints are like doing a painting or similar, you spend the time producing a result of high quality and personal satisfaction, and get the enjoyment accordingly.
If you just require 36 6x4 prints of family or record shots, it's not worth the time and effort.
For optical you also really need a dedicated darkroom area, to avoid the time of setting-up for every session and perhaps the handling of chemicals in a home environment. And of course a good unbroken evening or 3-4 hours is needed to make a session worth-while, unlike digital where you can just break-off a printing session and resume later with no wasted time.

 

[tomfrh]

If you area someone who wants to do 2-3 prints in an evening, desires the advantages of optical prints and the set-up cost for chemicals etc is not important then home RA4 is fro you. In other words you meet the "profile" exactly

This is me exactly. I like optical prints and generally get a couple of prints in an evening session. Cost doesn't matter at the quantities I do.

Thanks for the feedback

 

[rpavich]

I print color because I wanted to see what the experience was like. I found that it does have it's learning curve but it's very satisfying. I think that having a good exposure is pretty important to start with if you want to get good results. I'd suggest getting a crutch like a color analyser or at least a ring-a-round or set of viewing filters to help you recognize when you've got a filtering problem.
the first thing I do is make a contact sheet and that helps not only to see the images as a whole roll but it helps to decide on filtering too.

I use the Jobo drums at room temp; it's easy and fast. I use a unicolor roller base for agitation.
1m water pre-soak
2:45 dev
30s stop bath
30s water rinse
2:45 blix.

Here is a link to my flickr account, most of the last several months have been devoted to color.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rpavich/

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I do remember making beautiful enlargements via RA4 in college. I loved the Kodak Endura papers when they came out, but of course they're now gone. At that time (2004/5) digital printing was only starting to be ok. Now I have to say it's pretty incredible. My Epson R3000 makes incredible prints on an enormous variety of papers, and they tell us they're longer lasting than the chemical prints. I have some of the best scanners you can get short of a drum scanner and they pull a lot of detail and color information out of the film. Film still prints better in the darkroom than it scans in some ways, at least with moderate sized prints. No way I'd make 20x30s in the darkroom again. If I could get a little table top processor that can do 11x14 I'd absolutely make some chemical prints from my 35mm and 120 negs. But not having that available at the moment I'm pretty satisfied with my regular Fuji SP-3000 to Epson R3000 workflow.

 

[btaylor]

To make hybrid color prints I would have to sit in front of a computer to make my prints. No!
I spend too much of my day looking at computer screens at work. Pure analog is my escape from that.
One other note: color negative/RA4 process looks loads better than it did decades ago simply with the improved materials, so comparing old prints to recent ones isn't really accurate.

 

[Wayne]

Yes.

 

[RPC]

OP, like you, I prefer optical prints over hybrid prints.

As others do I use trays with room temperature processing and find it faster and more productive than drums. This is especially helpful when you are learning. You have to learn to color balance the print, but it becomes easier with experience. A knowledge of basic color theory helps too. If you don't have one, get an enlarger with a color head. You may not have as much control as b&w, but I have found it is generally not needed if you are printing good negatives. Burning & dodging can be done as in b&w.

Try it. RA-4 color printing is so easy, it's sad many shy away from it.

 

[tomfrh]

I think that having a good exposure is pretty important to start with if you want to get good results.

I only print well exposed negatives anyway.

ou have to learn to color balance the print, but it becomes easier with experience. A knowledge of basic color theory helps too. If you don't have one, get an enlarger with a color head. You may not have as much control as b&w, but I have found it is generally not needed if you are printing good negatives. Burning & dodging can be done as in b&w

I have a colour enlarger which I use for contrast control of BW. I have some understanding of color theory and know what the CMY filters are doing (e.g. adding more yellow filters out more blue, which reduces the amount of Yellow in the print). I have some colour charts for correcting the hues, however I don't have the viewing filter things. Are they usefull?

 

[Roger2000]

I agree that colour printing is well worth a try, although I'd go for room temp trays over a drum every day of the week. It's the same process as b&w, only for two minutes a tray. Drums are a right old faff.

 

[tomfrh]

For room temp, do you need a room temp. compatible kit? The kits all seem to have 35 degrees on them.

 

[perkeleellinen]

For years I avoided colour printing because the internet told me it was 'too hard'. Now I print colour all the time in a Nova processor and I wish I had tried it years ago, it's great fun.

 

[rpavich]

I only print well exposed negatives anyway.



I have a colour enlarger which I use for contrast control of BW. I have some understanding of color theory and know what the CMY filters are doing (e.g. adding more yellow filters out more blue, which reduces the amount of Yellow in the print). I have some colour charts for correcting the hues, however I don't have the viewing filter things. Are they usefull?

I think that they are. I'm not a pro...I've just started printing a few months ago so having crutches to help is valuable to me. They are inexpensive also.