Starting Color Pack for Crystal Archive C

Bob Carnie · Jun 23, 2007

PE
My experience has always been that once an image is within a couple of points of nuetral grey balance. No matter if the y/m numbers are high or low based on source negative. A minor change in filtration is significant and repeatable.
I never would say to myself , Self the balance is 80y 60m therefore I think I need 2pt magenta correction to nuetralize the grey building, but since I am so high in filtration I will make it 8pts.
This has never happened to me in 30 years of colour dichroic printing.
I have always used normal grade kodak papers and now the normal grade Fuji papers. So in my experience within a certain range of papers 2pts is 2pts.
I have noticed lateley though with in a paticular image that certain colours will respond more or less to local colour changes . I find the reds very responsive to magenta adjustments where I find yellows slow to change.
When I am trying to nuetralize a grey object , very slight adjustments are very easy to see.
Not sure of the reasoning for this other than the Strength of certain colours over others.
Bob

Photo Engineer said:
Bob;

The rate of change of color speed with respect to filtration change is also related to the saturation of the dyes formed and the bandwidth of the spectral sensitizing dyes used in the emulsions.

All of this can be balanced off to give papers that 'move fast' or 'move slowly' with respect to a change in cc filtration.

Endura is balanced in that respect such that a 0.2 density change in magenta filtration gives a 0.2 speed change in the emulsion. However, at a contrast of 2.5 in the grade 2 paper, this is visually mulitiplied by the dye itself at every density which confounds the evaluation of the change.

The result, on average, is that even though a 0.2 density change = 0.2 speed change, the 'apparent' color change can be higher than 0.4 density units depending on color and density.

This is also affected by the film being printed. A high saturation negative film will tend to magnify this change.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jun 23, 2007

Bob;

I don't disagree. I would add though that if you had printed with Radiance paper or Cibachrome, with a contrast of 1.0, you would change your opinion.

The difference in gradiant between 2.5 and 1.0 in the paper contrast changes visual response by about 2x and therefore your opinion might differ.

Also, if you used a grade 2 and a grade 3 color paper, you might have had occasion to see the difference between the shift in color by these two contrast grades.

The overlap in spectral senstivities in Endura cause it to move both B and G speeds with a change in G filtration (M). This tends to mute repsonse as I described above.

PE

Bob Carnie · Jun 23, 2007

PE
Never thought about the ciba balance change , but I can see that you would be right.
I vary rarely change my balance for cibachrome therefore I do not notice the difference.
In ciba printing unlike neg printing the photographer generally supplies a colour corrected transparancey which is usually same film stock as the other images being printed in any given day. Once a primary balance has been established the printer only needs to do minor corrections to colour/density if any.
In negative printing there are so many film stocks and variences in negative preparation that a day's printing is all over the place with colour balance settings and density. Unless of course we are printing a full shoot done under controlled conditions.
For ciba now I am working with PS and a calibrated paper,moniter,process to a 21step grey balance. Most of the work once calibrated is in adjusting curves and adjusting local colour to work one main colour off background or secondary/complimentary colours.
I have mainly worked in the past with normal grade papers and now in colour work in PS on our Lambda.

Photo Engineer said:
Bob;

I don't disagree. I would add though that if you had printed with Radiance paper or Cibachrome, with a contrast of 1.0, you would change your opinion.

The difference in gradiant between 2.5 and 1.0 in the paper contrast changes visual response by about 2x and therefore your opinion might differ.

Also, if you used a grade 2 and a grade 3 color paper, you might have had occasion to see the difference between the shift in color by these two contrast grades.

The overlap in spectral senstivities in Endura cause it to move both B and G speeds with a change in G filtration (M). This tends to mute repsonse as I described above.

PE

max_ebb · Jun 23, 2007

Bob Carnie said:
Not so
2 magenta change has the same effect in colour at 50 80 or 20. It is not based as a %.

Not so? What's not so? I was referring to my experience with Fuji paper vs Kodak paper back in the 90's. The Fuji paper required less filtration, and smaller changes in the filtration made a bigger difference compared to the Kodak paper. The filtration changes in terms of a percentage of the total filtration were about equal. This is not an opinion that can be deemed right or wrong by some know it all, it is IN FACT my experience. For you to say "not so" is like you saying that you wore Levis in the 90's and me saying "no you didn't, that's not true"

How much comparative printing did you do with Fuji and Kodak paper from 93 to 98? I did 1000's of prints with both. I would hope that if your going tell me I'm full of shit, that you would at least have a significant amount of experience with the materials I'm referring too.

Bob Carnie said:
A good colour corrector can make 1/2pt colour corrections.

With my current Beseler dichro color head, printing on Kodak Ultra paper, I would defy you or anybody else to detect a difference with a 1/2pt filtration change, even with magenta (to say you could detect a 1/2pt change in yellow would just be ridiculous). With just 2 prints you'd have a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly, so let's say I printed five prints at one filtration, and then printed five more with a 1/2pt change in magenta (+ or -). There's no way that you or anyone else could detect which five are the 1/2pt higher or lower magenta value.

Bob Carnie said:
Magenta is the most noticable colour on a nuetral grey therefore small changes are quite extreme.

Really, no kidding? Of course changes in magenta are extreme compared to changes in yellow. Tell me something else I already know. Your attitude seems to be a bit condescending. I didn't just start color printing last week.

Bob Carnie · Jun 23, 2007

Take a chill pill
I would be willing to bet you that I have printed 10x the amount of colour prints than you. In fact making 7 30x40 colour murals on FCA today as we speak. What are you doing?
As well if you can't see 1/2 pt colour change you wouldn't cut in my shop.
Back in the time you are referring to 1000 prints were a months work , grow up .
I didn't say you were full of shit. but if the shoe fits.

max_ebb said:
Not so? What's not so? I was referring to my experience with Fuji paper vs Kodak paper back in the 90's. The Fuji paper required less filtration, and smaller changes in the filtration made a bigger difference compared to the Kodak paper. The filtration changes in terms of a percentage of the total filtration were about equal. This is not an opinion that can be deemed right or wrong by some know it all, it is IN FACT my experience. For you to say "not so" is like you saying that you wore Levis in the 90's and me saying "no you didn't, that's not true"

How much comparative printing did you do with Fuji and Kodak paper from 93 to 98? I did 1000's of prints with both. I would hope that if your going tell me I'm full of shit, that you would at least have a significant amount of experience with the materials I'm referring too.

With my current Beseler dichro color head, printing on Kodak Ultra paper, I would defy you or anybody else to detect a difference with a 1/2pt filtration change, even with magenta (to say you could detect a 1/2pt change in yellow would just be ridiculous). With just 2 prints you'd have a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly, so let's say I printed five prints at one filtration, and then printed five more with a 1/2pt change in magenta (+ or -). There's no way that you or anyone else could detect which five are the 1/2pt higher or lower magenta value.

Really, no kidding? Of course changes in magenta are extreme compared to changes in yellow. Tell me something else I already know. Your attitude seems to be a bit condescending. I didn't just start color printing last week.

Photo Engineer · Jun 23, 2007

Gentlemen, please, you might both be right (about printing, not each other).

It depends on film and paper, as I've said. In fact, using R/G/B filtration will dampen this out by reducing all exposures to a common denominator by effectively 'truncating' or 'trimming' the film dyes and the spectral sensitivities of the papers concerned.

So, we may be comparing apples to oranges in a sense.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jun 23, 2007

BTW, I thought as an appendix to this I might add that I have probably done as much printing as you both but mine has mostly been a 'comparative anatomy' of papers, sensitizations films and etc.. under carefully controlled lab conditions. I've made the variations in the products I've described to examine their effects.

I've had thousands of negatives and slides (matched) on different products shot in KRL just for this type of comparison as well. Then I have 'verified' it in my home lab with my own negatives for comparision.

I've also made direct comparisons with Cibachrome, Agfacolor, Ektacolor paper, Ektachrome paper and Ektaflex. This was before CA even existed. However the films included Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Kodacolor family, Ektacolor family, Agfachrome and Agfacolor as well as Fujichrome (the original).

So, while I cannot speak as to what you see or observe directly, I can try to explain the reasons you see what you do and maybe even show why your comments differ.

PE

max_ebb · Jun 23, 2007

Bob Carnie said:
Take a chill pill
I would be willing to bet you that I have printed 10x the amount of colour prints than you.

Just exactly what do you base that on. You don't know me and you have no idea how much color printing I've done. That's a very childish thing to say. And you tell me to 'grow up'? Or maybe it's just pompous to the point of coming off as childish.

Bob Carnie said:
In fact making 7 30x40 colour murals on FCA today as we speak. What are you doing?

After your finished bragging and thumping your chest, maybe you could possibly answer the question I asked about how much comparative printing you did in the 90's with Fuji and Kodak paper?

Bob Carnie said:
As well if you can't see 1/2 pt colour change you wouldn't cut in my shop.

A 1/2pt change with MY color head printing on Ultra Endura would NOT produce a visible difference (a 1/2pt change would be half way between 2 lines). It might produce a visible difference on your equipment, but it doesn't on mine. I could care less about your pompous assertion that I "wouldn't cut it" in your shop.

Bob Carnie said:
Back in the time you are referring to 1000 prints were a months work , grow up .

I said 1000's (plural), not 1000. 1000's of prints with Fuji paper, and 1000's of prints with Kodak paper. As in 10's of 1000's. Grow up? Apparently you are unable to communicate your opinions without resorting to childish insults and baseless assumptions.

Bob Carnie said:
I didn't say you were full of shit. but if the shoe fits.

I was relating the facts of my own personal experience with Fuji and Kodak paper at the time; FACTUAL information, not opinion. You said "not so". That is pretty much implying that I am full of shit. Facts are facts, they can't be disputed. If something can be disputed, then it's not a fact. If you had different results with different equipment, it doesn't make my personal experience any less factual. Maybe you should try on that shoe for fit.

Be careful you don't fall off of that high horse.

max_ebb · Jun 23, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Gentlemen, please, you might both be right (about printing, not each other).

It depends on film and paper, as I've said. In fact, using R/G/B filtration will dampen this out by reducing all exposures to a common denominator by effectively 'truncating' or 'trimming' the film dyes and the spectral sensitivities of the papers concerned.

So, we may be comparing apples to oranges in a sense.

PE

Comparing apples to oranges; EXACTLY.

I was referring specifically to the differences I experienced between Fuji and Kodak paper in the 90's with MY equipment at the time, and with the types of film I was printing from (I was basically saying that my experience then was similar to what someone else had already posted). I'm sure there are differences from one dichroic color head to another.

I don't appreciate some pompous know it all telling me 'not so' when I was simply relating results that I have seen in my personal experience (factual information), especially if said pompous know it all didn't even print on Fuji paper at that time.

Bob Carnie · Jun 24, 2007

Oh that hurt

max_ebb said:
Just exactly what do you base that on. You don't know me and you have no idea how much color printing I've done. That's a very childish thing to say. And you tell me to 'grow up'? Or maybe it's just pompous to the point of coming off as childish.

After your finished bragging and thumping your chest, maybe you could possibly answer the question I asked about how much comparative printing you did in the 90's with Fuji and Kodak paper?

A 1/2pt change with MY color head printing on Ultra Endura would NOT produce a visible difference (a 1/2pt change would be half way between 2 lines). It might produce a visible difference on your equipment, but it doesn't on mine. I could care less about your pompous assertion that I "wouldn't cut it" in your shop.

I said 1000's (plural), not 1000. 1000's of prints with Fuji paper, and 1000's of prints with Kodak paper. As in 10's of 1000's. Grow up? Apparently you are unable to communicate your opinions without resorting to childish insults and baseless assumptions.

I was relating the facts of my own personal experience with Fuji and Kodak paper at the time; FACTUAL information, not opinion. You said "not so". That is pretty much implying that I am full of shit. Facts are facts, they can't be disputed. If something can be disputed, then it's not a fact. If you had different results with different equipment, it doesn't make my personal experience any less factual. Maybe you should try on that shoe for fit.

Be careful you don't fall off of that high horse.

Bob Carnie · Jun 24, 2007

When we switched our processor/chemicals and paper from Kodak to Fuji Crystal Archive, we noticed no problems with the control strips and in fact the switch was recommended by Fuji tech to start the adjustment in the replenishment tanks with no need to do a complete dump of the developer or bleach fix.
As stated both papers are very similar and I have yet to see a reason to use one over the other based on quality of printed image.
We still use Kodak Metallic in our process and it achieves its balance as fast as any Fuji control . Ciba balancing is probably one step or two more problematic and I would think its a factor of the lasers adjusting to the reversal commands.
On the new paper when using a dichroic enlarger I find the y m filtration points low as you point out. I have not had to dip into the cyan except for cibachrome and cross process colour neg.

Photo Engineer said:
Dan;

I have not printed using CA paper. I can merely state two things.

1. People complain of difficulties printing Kodak films with Fuji paper.

2. Kodak has worked to make sure all negative films work with Kodak Endura paper.

This was achieved in the Kodak paper by their unique spectral sensitization that covers a large gamut of film dyes.

As John Callow says, the papers are otherwise rather more similar than people state. There are no extremes.

The new Fuji CA paper introduced last year has had several comments here on APUG in which people complain of having to use cyan filtration or filter packs near zero. You may want to look up those posts.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jun 24, 2007

Bob;

Basically, Cibachrome is daylight or neutral in balance and all negative papers are tungsten in balance, therefore the color balance change in filters. Cibachrome will always need to dip into the cyan, while color negative papers will hover around 50R on average.

Fuji has been apparently wandering around in balance a bit more than usual the last year or so as they find their 'sweet spot' with the new emulsions.

That is about all I can say.

PE

max_ebb · Jun 24, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Bob;

Basically, Cibachrome is daylight or neutral in balance and all negative papers are tungsten in balance, therefore the color balance change in filters. Cibachrome will always need to dip into the cyan, while color negative papers will hover around 50R on average.

Hmm, I always had to use cyan when I printed reversal prints, but when I printed Cibachromes in the 80's and Ilfochromes in the 90's, I had to use magenta and yellow (dichroic color head with halogen lamp). The suggested filter values on the box were always magenta and yellow as well.

Photo Engineer · Jun 24, 2007

Well, all I can say is that I printed with cyan filtration when I did it, but have not done it for years.

The textbook "Cibachrome Printing" by Krause and Shull give average starting packs of 10C and 60 Y which agrees with my experience on a number of enlargers.

PE

max_ebb · Jun 24, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Well, all I can say is that I printed with cyan filtration when I did it, but have not done it for years.

The textbook "Cibachrome Printing" by Krause and Shull give average starting packs of 10C and 60 Y which agrees with my experience on a number of enlargers.

PE

When you printed Cibachromes, was it before the late 80's (like maybe early 80's)? The book you are referring to was published in 1980. I'm wondering if Ilford changed the Cibachrome paper in the mid or late 80's (I didn't print Cibachromes/Ilfochromes until the late 80's and early 90's). I might be remembering wrong as far as the Cibachrome paper in the late 80's, but in the 90's, I definitely used magenta and yellow for the ilfochrome materials (both the RC pearl and the polyester base glossy), and the suggested filter values stated on the boxes of Ilfochrome materials were definitely magenta and yellow. I suspect there was a change somewhere along the line.

Bob Carnie · Jun 24, 2007

In the 80's and 90's I used yellow and magenta as well. Around 2001 I started getting into the cyans.
Around this time the emulsion's must have been changed slightly to be able to be used in Lambda printers , this may be the explaination or result of an change in emulsion sensitivitey.
The new crystal archive which has been noted in this thread seems to print at a lower general balance pack which I am wondering may be due to maximizing for laser exposure.
I will use the laser paper in the enlarger for clients who want to print from the original negative and the last printing balance was 18yellow 23 magenta which is in my mind quite low.
I am going to print the same neg on Endura next week and see where the pack lands, but I imagine it will be quite higher.

max_ebb said:
When you printed Cibachromes, was it before the late 80's (like maybe early 80's)? The book you are referring to was published in 1980. I'm wondering if Ilford changed the Cibachrome paper in the mid or late 80's (I didn't print Cibachromes/Ilfochromes until the late 80's and early 90's). I might be remembering wrong as far as the Cibachrome paper in the late 80's, but in the 90's, I definitely used magenta and yellow for the ilfochrome materials (both the RC pearl and the polyester base glossy), and the suggested filter values stated on the boxes of Ilfochrome materials were definitely magenta and yellow. I suspect there was a change somewhere along the line.

Photo Engineer · Jun 24, 2007

It was in the 80s, but the Cibachrome and Ilfochrome materials were made by the same people in the same labs AFAIK.

What it does highlight is that we can all be right because of all of the things discussed and that was the point of my comment earlier.

AAMOF, daylight on my current enlarger is about 100C + 30M as measured by making direct exposures onto film and duplicating a daylight exposure. This would be grossly out of line with the claim to a 'more daylight balance' of Cibachrome materials.

However, it is necessary to print on the +C side with reversal print materials and the -C side with negative print materials due to their design and the orange mask of negatives. The negative print materials have high blue speed and a reverse layer order from the reversal print materials. This brings on the design constraints centered around the basic filter pack.

And, BTW, I learned a lot about this during a lengthy discussion with the head of Ciba/Ilford research from Switzerland back then, and also I learned a lot about it, as I've said before, by actually coating a Cibachrome equivalent at Kodak, in Research.

We were working on a thermally processed reversal print material. This work is published in a Research Disclosure by Haist, King and Mowrey if you wish to see one of the formulas.

PE

max_ebb · Jun 24, 2007

Bob Carnie said:
In the 80's and 90's I used yellow and magenta as well. Around 2001 I started getting into the cyans.
Around this time the emulsion's must have been changed slightly to be able to be used in Lambda printers , this may be the explaination or result of an change in emulsion sensitivitey.

Thanks, I was beginning to wonder if I was getting alzheimer's. I'm wondering though, if a book published in 1980 recommended a filtration of cyan and yellow, maybe there was an emulsion change in the early or mid 80's. In the late 80's and early 90's, the suggested filter values stated on the box were magenta and yellow, and I would think that Ilford knows their own materials.

Also, I would like to apologize for the argumentative and uncivil posts I made yesterday.

jd callow · Jun 24, 2007

max_ebb said:
Also, I would like to apologize for the argumentative and uncivil posts I made yesterday.

I can fix that...

Bob Carnie · Jun 24, 2007

No harm done here and look forward to lots of exchanges in the future.
I can be a bit of a d**k , in fact my clients and few friends will attest to that.

max_ebb said:
Thanks, I was beginning to wonder if I was getting alzheimer's. I'm wondering though, if a book published in 1980 recommended a filtration of cyan and yellow, maybe there was an emulsion change in the early or mid 80's. In the late 80's and early 90's, the suggested filter values stated on the box were magenta and yellow, and I would think that Ilford knows their own materials.

Also, I would like to apologize for the argumentative and uncivil posts I made yesterday.

Richard Harris · Jun 24, 2007

PE I am not alone in finding your consistent filtration baffling and remain jealous of your success with this method.
I find that my filtration varies by quite a wide margin even on the same film and of course each mix of chemicals, each new enlarger bulb and each set of lighting conditions when shooting gives completely different filtration needs.
In reply to the original post, I find the type of film makes a huge difference to the filtration but Fuji consumer films print with the most balanced filtration on fuji paper. Fuji pro films seem to need a much greater difference between the yellow and majenta channels.
Here is what I suggest. Use the advice of the poster who recommended printing neutral and off point prints at known filtration settings. I use projected plain light from the enlarger ( you may need a neutral density filter; I use some developed image-less black and white film ) and obtain a neutral grey. Then print with + 10 Majenta, + 10 Yellow +10Y-10M etc etc. all on as few a sheets as possible. I find that if I keep these available they are far more indicative of which way you need to adjust than viewing filters. View the print on a flip angle against all these off point test prints. I tore my hair out until I adopted this system; you will have to develop your own system of course. BTW in tightly stoppered bottles the mixed solutions will last an extraordinary amount of time. But mix with absolute accuracy or any filtration values you establish will be totally worthless. Wow, that seem like a lot of advice from somebody who still gets exasperated often.
Good luck, Richard.

Richard Harris · Jun 24, 2007

Sorry everybody, This site is so hard to use compared to the other big one. I hadn't noticed that I posted this reply from page one of a five page thread. The conversation had obviously moved on and gone up and down a bit. So my reply was concerned with the original post.
PS how do you post an original question here?
Regards to all, Richard Harris.

Photo Engineer · Jun 24, 2007

Richard;

You start a new thread with a new question by going to the applicable forum and clicking on the appropriate button, or just ask the question here if it seems to follow the sense of this thread. Why not? We do it too.

As for the color consistancy, having worked designing the films, I know that the speeds are kept constant over the years and the paper has been held constant from about 1970 - 1990. At that time, the speed increased, but the balance did not change, and then recently with the shift to Endura there was a two step filter pack change. This is strictly Kodak.

At the same time, Fuji color balance became erratic from some reports and shifted back and forth.

So, I can take a negative shot in about 1950 and another shot this year and print them on the same sheet of Endura paper and with the same filter pack and get just about the same color balance to within about 10R provided that the lighting was similar. In this case, it would be either 2 daylight or 2 tungsten negatives on one sheet.

Yes, it works.

PE

Lopaka · Jun 24, 2007

I can't speak to Cibachrome from 20+ years ago, but I can to current stuff. Most of my current stock of Ilfochrome gives a starting point of 20Y + 10M and I find that on my enlarger that equals 20Y + 5M for a starting point. When I run out of M on color adjustments I sometimes need C.

Bob

Richard Harris · Jun 25, 2007

P E. The question is which is the appropriate button?

Your filtration thing still gets me; why can't I get consistent filtration even on the same roll of film, even sometimes in the same situation. I often think that I can print a neg with the same filtration as the print before. Same film, same paper, same temp on my printo machine. Then comes the print with a majenta hue that just jumps out. I still find the easiest, and it aint that easy, method is to analyse the negative with my jobo colorstar and then print a test strip. I compare this to my off colour panels as detailed in my earlier response, then with a bit of luck, hit the filtration bang on: But of course after print 4 or 5 my eyes are getting weary.and I still get it wrong.
Never mind it keeps my marriage young. I reckon I've only been with my wife of ten years for 3 months.
Richard.

Starting Color Pack for Crystal Archive C

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency