Starting Color Pack for Crystal Archive C

[Photo Engineer]

Richard;

Go to a forum and click "new thread".

Then, type in your question.

As to printing, you may have a voltage fluctuation or a process variation that you are not aware of. Temperature and time variations can result in as much as 20R if you are not careful.

PE

 

[Richard Harris]

P E.
Have wondered in the past if I had a voltage fluctuation but the same negative reprints the same. I did hook up an oscilloscope to the enlarger lamp once and put it on a very slow time base. However all it did was melt the probe end; great!
I think I've got my process nailed, but who knows.
BTW sorted my base white problem out, Old paper! just couldn't believe it Fuji tech did it for me. I mailed them a sample. Your input led me to including a stop section in my RA4 processing and upping the bleach temp a degree or so. Thankyou Ron.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Richard, I just made over 1000 proof sheets of all family negatives from about 1950 to the present day. I used individual 100 sheet boxes of Endura purchased at 3 places and used the same exposure and filter pack for the sheets.

The variation in balance was about 10R overall except for the CU Kodacolor film from the mid 60s. It was a mixed daylight and tungsten balance film.

I can't speak to others results, just mine. And, I had the same experience at EK when working with the paper and film in the design stages.

You are welcome to any help I can give.

PE

 

[max_ebb]

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 my experience, filtration changes are to be expected with a different set of lighting conditions or when changing to a new enlarger lamp (I have seen drastic differences with a new lamp), but if you have to change filtration with the same negative just because you mixed a new batch of chemicals, it seems that you are either depleting your chemicals to the point of causing a color shift, or you aren't consistent enough with your mixing procedure. Do you use a graduated cylinder that is accurate to within .5 ml? What quantities do you mix your chemistry? If you mix fairly small quantities from the 10L kit, the amount of part B that you use is so small that I believe it needs to be measured to within .5 ml accuracy.

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.

Are the negative densities the same? I have found with with some films, if one frame is slightly over exposed and one frame is slightly under exposed, it can cause a significant color shift between the two. With the old Kodak color paper back in the 80's, I would get somewhat of a color shift printing the same negative at 15 seconds, and then stopping down one stop and printing at 30 seconds. I haven't noticed the problem with the new Endura paper though, so I don't think it's an issue anymore. I'd be interested in hearing what other's thoughts are on that.

If your enlarger doesn't have a voltage regulator, then fluctuations in voltage could be part of the problem.

 

[pentaxuser]

This thread had got me interested enough to check my prints today. In most cases, especially in the early days I used to faithfully record the filtrations for each print. More recently I haven't bothered but I did do so for my prints from my replacement Fuji paper( see an earlier post in this thread).

From my review I can now say the following:

I discovered that most of my prints were in fact done on Kodak paper NOT 50:50 as I had thought.

Kodak Supra Endura generally fell within the range that PE speaks of. In some films(always Fuji) taken in the same conditions the filtration varied by as little as 2-3Y&M. I suspect that had I taken the first filtration and applied to to all the prints, all would have been acceptable. Kodak paper seemed to be less sensitive to small changes in the filtration recommended by the analyser. Unlike Fuji where as little as 2M in the analyser's results made a noticeable difference.

Kodak paper required about half the filtration now required of Fuji CA which seems to now need about twice the fitration of Kodak( mid 40s Y&M to upper 80s Y&M). So the replacement Fuji CA seems to have gone from requiring a little less filtration than Kodak to much more.

For whatever reason and it could be connected with having greater experience of Kodak paper and thus greater familiarisation, my Kodak prints in general look better.

I still have a couple of boxes of Fuji paper. I have to say that Fuji in replacing my previous paper which exhibited the problem of needing almost C fitration for balance was generous.

So with this paper and fresh chems, I'll give it another try and see where my analyser takes me. I'll let you know what happens

pentaxuser

 

[Chan Tran]

What do you guys mean by 1/2pt? Is that 0.005 density?

 

[max_ebb]

What do you guys mean by 1/2pt? Is that 0.005 density?

I wasn't absolutely sure about that myself. I use a dichroic color head, and I assumed he meant going from 31M to 31.5M (half way between 31 and 32) or 30.5M (half way between 30 and 31). If that is the case, it definitely wouldn't make a visible difference with my enlarger (I can just barely see a difference with a 1pt change in magenta). With yellow, I believe it would take at least a 2pt change to see a difference (with my enlarger).

 

[Photo Engineer]

A 30 magenta is 0.3 density units of magenta dye in the filter which should change a print by 0.3 log E in exposure. A 10 magenta is 0.10 or .1 Log E. And a 5 magenta is 0.05 Log E or density units.

To me, a 2 point change would be 20 to 22 or .02 log E.

Papers move visually though based on spectral sensitivity and contrast both so this is only a very rough approximation. However, 0.3 log E is 1 stop by any measure.

PE

 

[max_ebb]

However, 0.3 log E is 1 stop by any measure.

That seems about right for magenta (with my color head), but what about yellow? It doesn't seem to me that 30Y equals a full stop (with my color head). I have added 10-15 yellow, and only had to increase exposure by a second or two.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Every 0.3 increment is 1 stop, regardless, however this depends on the spectral sensitivity of the paper itself as I explained above. It also depends on 'punch through' an effect where a blue exposure (controlled by yellow filtration) affects the magenta, the cyan, or both. This causes problems with making absolute statements and varies with product.

I could give a whole week long course on just this subject alone. Oh, wait, I used to do just that at the Kodak camera club.

PE

 

[Chan Tran]

a 2cc or 2 points or 0.02 density change is visible. a 1/2pt change is not visible to me. a .02 change in magenta filtration would result in about 0.04 change in the RA-4 paper.

 

[dslater]

First results

Hi All,
Thanks for all the useful information. I was up until 1AM last night printing my first ever RA-4 print. I started at 50M + 50Y + UV, but that was way too much filtration. I finally ended up with 10M + UV for a final print that looks pretty good, although when I put it in a gray card, I can see that it is still too cool. I think I'm going to end up adding a little cyan. BTW, the negative is Kodak Portra 400VC.
One thing I noticed is that the color paper seems to be MUCH more sensitive to light. I ended up having to turn my rheostat all the way down and set my f/stop to f/22 to get a print time of 15 sec - this is for a 4x5 print from a 35mm neg.

Thanks,

Dan

 

[Richard Harris]

DSlater, You should not need to use cyan if all your processes are in control. However you can add cyan with equal amounts of yellow and majenta to act as a neutral density filter. This will enable you to open up your enlarger lens somewhat f22 is not an ideal aperture for best sharpness although it can be useful with a curly negative in a glassless holder.
Keep on trying it gets easier and easier.
Richard.

 

[jd callow]

Hi All,
Thanks for all the useful information. I was up until 1AM last night printing my first ever RA-4 print. I started at 50M + 50Y + UV, but that was way too much filtration. I finally ended up with 10M + UV for a final print that looks pretty good...

What is '+UV'?

Richard is correct that equal amounts of CYM will produce a ND filter that will allow you to increase the length of the exposure or open the lens up. With a filter pack of 10 0 0 it is not surprising that you have a short exposure. 35mm to 4x5 is also not a big enlargement and wouldn't be a long exposure at a 50 50 0.

I have an 8x10 infront of me that has the following notes: 10sec @ f/8 30m 42y 0. If my math is correct that same neg would be 2.5 sec for a 4x5, and around a second if I dropped the filter pack to 10m 0y 0c. Generally I don't care what the length of the exposure is unless there is a need for dodging and or burning. It is beneficial to have the lens at an optimal aperture, although at 4x5 there may be less benefit.

 

[Richard Harris]

Max_ebb, thanks for your reply. I use pipettes for my C41 chemicals but for RA4 i usually just use a grad. Mixing 2.5ltrs of Fuji CPRA I need 100ml of parts a, b and c. and 66ml of starter. I am pretty sure that I get the Quantities accurate but can't be sure.
However I find that the same negative in the same session needs the same filtration but the next negative which may have been taken in the same light and same situation may vary quite a bit. And the same negative may vary from session to session. I do use a voltage regulator and a Jobo colorstar analyser. I think I would pull my hair out without it. I still need to run a test strip to make final adjustments though. I think control strips are what I should invest in. They would at least tell me if I have a chemical problem.
PE I have read this before from you and please don't think that I doubt your verity. I just can't repeat your experience. I wish I could come to Rochester and see your technique. It would be an honour to have a lesson from and ex EK guy. However my wife would have Kittens (and my head) if I told her I was off to the States to spend time in a darkroom.

 

[Photo Engineer]

If this is CA paper, the filter pack is what I have seen sometimes reported recently for the new CAII paper.

From the exposure though it sounds as if his enlarger lamp is too 'hot' which means that it will be needing more cyan filtration. Could it be that there is no heat absorber glass in the enlarger?

A HA glass is required to filter out excess IR and red light.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Both Kodak and Fuji recommend a HA (2043 or equivalent IIRC) and a WR 2B UV absorber in the beam of all color enlargers.

All color enlargers will have this built in, but most B&W enlargers will not.

PE

 

[dslater]

DSlater, You should not need to use cyan if all your processes are in control. However you can add cyan with equal amounts of yellow and majenta to act as a neutral density filter. This will enable you to open up your enlarger lens somewhat f22 is not an ideal aperture for best sharpness although it can be useful with a curly negative in a glassless holder.
Keep on trying it gets easier and easier.
Richard.

Hi Richard,
I'm pretty sure my processes are in control. While this is my first attempt at RA-4 processing, I have been doing E-6 and C-41 for a while now. I have a Jobo CPE-2 which seems to keep my temps consistent, and I try to be very consistent with my processing times. I also mix all my chemistry with distilled water. When I mixed the RA-4 developer, I mixed up the whole gallon at once.
I do think the negative I'm using has a bit of cyan cast to it. The final print I got didn't look that bad, but when I put it on top of a neutral B&W print, the cyan color was obvious.
Have you printed on this paper yourself? I don't remember if you said before. If so I'd be very interested if you tried Portra 400VC on this paper and what results you got.

Edit: See my reply to PE below - looks like I need to find an HA

Thanks for all the advice,

Dan

 

[dslater]

If this is CA paper, the filter pack is what I have seen sometimes reported recently for the new CAII paper.

From the exposure though it sounds as if his enlarger lamp is too 'hot' which means that it will be needing more cyan filtration. Could it be that there is no heat absorber glass in the enlarger?

A HA glass is required to filter out excess IR and red light.

PE

Hmmm - you know, I have a piece of glass in there I use for 6x6 VC printing filters. I have no ides if it is heat absorbing. Probably not as that would explain my filter pack and exposure times.

Thanks,

Dan

 

[dslater]

Success !!

Hi all,
I've finally have a good print with a reasonable color pack - 30Y + 40M. I got a Beseler Dichro DG color head and just finished an evening of printing with it.

Thanks for all your help,

Dan