Why is home processing for color not nearly as wide spread?

4season · Sep 20, 2021

Cinestill's customized sous vide temperature control gadget looks like a fine way for the home hobbyist to achieve a degree of precision temperature control, and IMO the handiest sort of color for the home hobbyist is E6 color slides: Easy to enjoy as-is or scan. But not a favorite of mine in 2021 though because I think of color slides as the JPEG of the film era, with limited dynamic range.

Bikerider · Sep 20, 2021

vedostuu said:
Aging chemicals + messy chemicals + temperature control.

I would suggest that terms like this are just the wrong statement to encourage people to try printing colour. Those statements are simply not true in todays age and collectively may have contributed to the decline in colour printing at home.

I have been colour printing since 1993 and always used the same brand of chemicals, Kodak Ektacolor both developer and bleach fix. The stop bath was always an acetic acid type. Film more less always Fuji but when it was available I used Agfa. The film was developed in Agfa chemicals too but now I use one of the generic brands - there is little to judge between any of them.

C41 developer has an amazingly long life. I opened a 5lt kit of Digibase in April 2021 and mix what I need and seal up the bottle again. I can probably count failures over the years on one hand with fingers left over and then it was probably my fault. The concentrates have not even started to discolour

I use a JOBO processor for the film it is almost too easy to keep the temperature accurate to +/-.5 of a degree which is close enough.

The paper I use is still Kodak. Yes it comes in a roll, but that way it is a whole world cheaper than buying it in boxes - at least 1/2 price over sheets. I made a light tight paper dispenser to take a 94metre roll of 12" wide paper and cut whatever size I want using a 18" wide guillotine. Yes I use a colour safelight - a Duka 50 which allows me quite a lot of latitude when I am cutting paper.

The developer, blix and stop bath are held in a NOVA 12 x 16 deep-tank processor. I can keep the 35c temperature accurate to within 1/2 a degree and because of the make up of the developer and the quality of the paper that is no problem The developer is replenished (100cc per 80sq ins of paper) as I go along and the whole tank is only changed every few months when I have to clean it out. So long as the slots are topped up and covered over after use, the developer does not just 'go off'. I don't have as much success with prints as I do with negatives because of assessing colour balance but enough of a success to make it worthwhile and quite good fun.

Yes setting it all up initially can be expensive, but so is buying tomorrows new digital camera that will do everything for you - where is the skill in that. It is certainly cheaper in the long run than buying printer inks and inkjet paper and when it all comes together, the sense of achievement is tangible.

foc · Sep 20, 2021

I enjoy processing B&W film. It is so simple. Just a few things to get right and it's very forgiving. Easy peasy.
C41 is a little more difficult, but just a little. Just a few things to get right BUT get right every time. Any deviation from the plan can cause bad results.

I think that is where the difference lies. One is not so fussy, one is very fussy.
I still process my own B&W but since I retired (from owing a minilab) I send out the C41 (to what used to be my rival). Less hassle and I know the lab machine will do it better than me.

Auer · Sep 20, 2021

4season said:
Cinestill's customized sous vide temperature control gadget looks like a fine way for the home hobbyist to achieve a degree of precision temperature control, and IMO the handiest sort of color for the home hobbyist is E6 color slides: Easy to enjoy as-is or scan. But not a favorite of mine in 2021 though because I think of color slides as the JPEG of the film era, with limited dynamic range.

I do bleach bypass with Cinestill kits and their heater, Incredibly simple and affordable imo.
Quick and fun.

gone · Sep 20, 2021

Other than the fact that color is more difficult to process, there's the permanency issue, or maybe I should say, the impermanency issue. B&W fb prints are known to be very archival, whereas color is known to be very fugitive. Are there any color films or prints that don't fade?

That's a deal killer for anyone who plans on showing in galleries, or even wants to leave nice prints to their children. It's also a deal killer if you plan on selling your work. There was a painter in Abq, NM who had a studio down the hall from mine, and she was sued by buyers when one of her paintings fell apart. The ruling was that if it's sold as art, it needs to last like art unless it's clearly stipulated that the piece is non archival. That painter had to refund the full price of the painting, taxes, court costs, the art gallery who sold the painting was caught up in the proceedings....it was a mess.

Agulliver · Sep 21, 2021

It's all very well to say we have (modified) sous-vide devices now, motorised and semi-automated processors....but why did colour home processing not catch on in the first place? Because in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s we didn't have those sous-vide heaters and the motorised processors were (and remain) very expensive. As various people have said, B&W is very forgiving of mistakes whereas colour is not. Also back in the day there were no home scanners, indeed it wasn't really until the 21st century that home scanning was in any viable. So one made slides or prints. Again B&W was easier, required less equipment, less outlay and less time. It was and remains cheaper to do at home than to get a lab to do it.

With colour processing, as long as the lab operator isn't a fool the results are excellent and consistent. That's tricky to do at home with colour film. It's actually a bit easier now with temperature control specifically being less of a hassle. But it didn't catch on in the past because it was both more difficult and more costly than popping down the road with your films and having any one of 10 local labs that you had back then process your film.

removed account4 · Sep 21, 2021

momus said:
Are there any color films or prints that don't fade

dye transfer prints don't fade, but according to my uncle who used to make them, there is that pesky 6 hours of set up with the matrices before you are ready to make a print. not sure if the home practicer can get fuji crystal archive, but I have been told it has a lifespan that is hundreds of years ( if processed correctly )

momus said:
That's a deal killer for anyone who plans on showing in galleries

not sure about that, ( museums too ) because there are lots of color images that have been bought, sold, distributed to museums and through the worldwide gallery system. one could venture to say the same thing is true about modern day color image making ( whose practitioners were typically flogged as part of the regular diet / ritual years ago in the cruel dark ages when it was APUG and all the filmies and haters were chest thumping &c ... but from what I understand pigment prints will last a very very long time and while photographers who typically inspect prints with a loupe and their nose to the print under glass it is rather difficult to tell rc from fiber from pigment from ... even though they would claim otherwise ). There are lots and lots and lots of color images being bought and sold worldwide, actually many of the most expensive images ever sold are color Gursky's Rhien II, Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Stills# 96 and # 153, Jeff Wall's Dead Troops Talk, Gursky's Dime Store Dipticon, Medvedev's Kremlin, Prince's Cowboy, Peter Lik's One. and I haven't even mentioned William Eggleston ( I wish I could remember the name of woman who showed her color work before him at MOMA, he wasn't the first color photographer to show there ) .... besides not sure how many people ( hobbyists ) printing color in their basement or kitchen or through a lab are looking to sell their color prints through galleries &c, most people are more interested in exposure through online means .. im guessing if their work was "good enough" or "sellable as a commodity" they wouldn't have any trouble selling their work to galleries or museums or gift shops or whatever. ...

I can say why I don't do color darkroom work is not because it is more difficult or takes more effort &c, its mainly because I don't want to deal with the leftovers ... that is hauling 5 gallon homer buckets to toxic waste disposal day at my local public transfer station, it's a drag, besides "modern" "simple" color print manufacturing at home and keeping the lady down the street alive who has the last mini lab in the region seems to be working OK so far. .. or if I want something color that I make by hand, I will do a gum over something black and white like O'Neil and Steichen...

Tom Kershaw · Sep 21, 2021

Agulliver said:
Enthusiasts would do colour. Today I have one friend who has a colour dark room set up. But it is tricky to get consistent results. That's a hobby of course, some people want to spend hours in the dark room fiddling with filters and getting it "just right". And that's great. But it's not for everyone. If it were, scanning would never have become "a thing".

In some ways I have found RA-4 optical printing more straightforward than fiddling around with scanners, and I use a reasonable model - the Nikon Coolscan 9000. C-41 to RA-4 print with an enlarger is a clear workflow if one is comfortable with filtration and has a good darkroom set-up.

Bikerider · Sep 21, 2021

momus said:
Other than the fact that color is more difficult to process, there's the permanency issue, or maybe I should say, the impermanency issue. B&W fb prints are known to be very archival, whereas color is known to be very fugitive. Are there any color films or prints that don't fade?

That's a deal killer for anyone who plans on showing in galleries, or even wants to leave nice prints to their children. It's also a deal killer if you plan on selling your work. There was a painter in Abq, NM who had a studio down the hall from mine, and she was sued by buyers when one of her paintings fell apart. The ruling was that if it's sold as art, it needs to last like art unless it's clearly stipulated that the piece is non archival. That painter had to refund the full price of the painting, taxes, court costs, the art gallery who sold the painting was caught up in the proceedings....it was a mess.

Colour prints fading is something of an urban myth. I have a treasured print of my daughter taken when she was 21 on the day she graduated from Leicester University in UK. It was self processed all the way though. She is now 47 yrs old. It has been framed for a good part of it's life, but even so there is very little if any change from the day I printed it. The days of fading are largely a thing of the past with the processing that preceded C41/RA4. I have numerous other prints made in the intervening years and all bar one is as good as the day it was printed.

I cannot say about colour films but I have some 35mm format which are 20+ years old they would still print quite well. The long gone Ilford Cibachrome prints were renown for having archival permanence but I never tried those - the chemicals were to risky.

Bikerider · Sep 21, 2021

Tom Kershaw said:
In some ways I have found RA-4 optical printing more straightforward than fiddling around with scanners, and I use a reasonable model - the Nikon Coolscan 9000. C-41 to RA-4 print with an enlarger is a clear workflow if one is comfortable with filtration and has a good darkroom set-up.

A lot of the 'fiddling around' as you say can be avoided if the materials you use are standardised. By that I mean use only 1 type of film, process in the same make of developer and print on the same paper. Be exceptionally careful about time and temperature. If I have to adjust the colour balance during a printing session then that is very unusual, even so it will take a miniscule number of units to bring things back into line. The only real variation of this is if I print a negative that has been exposed in artificial light.

warden · Sep 21, 2021

vedostuu said:
Aging chemicals + messy chemicals + temperature control.
.

Ditto. C41 and E6 are work. Black and white is play.

Mainecoonmaniac · Sep 21, 2021

I think one reason is ink jet color printers. I used to process RA4 at home, but it fell by the wayside. Printing color negatives takes a lot of practice and correcting color in a print is counter-intuitive. But I'd like to go back into my darkroom to revive my skills. Optical printing is becoming a lost art.

Helge · Sep 21, 2021

RA4 is fucking incomparably wonderful. Completely unequaled by any other existing colour print process. Anyone who says otherwise is playing sour grapes.
I’d love to try it myself. Anyone has a good cheat sheet/get started quick guide?
I have the enlarger, with filter tray and filters, and one with dicro head.

4season · Sep 21, 2021

momus said:
Are there any color films or prints that don't fade?

As of 2021, we've still got pigment-based inkjet inks, and Canon Selphy dye-sublimation isn't too bad.

Wayne · Sep 21, 2021

Helge said:
RA4 is fucking incomparably wonderful. Completely unequaled by any other existing colour print process. Anyone who says otherwise is playing sour grapes.
I’d love to try it myself. Anyone has a good cheat sheet/get started quick guide?
I have the enlarger, with filter tray and filters, and one with dicro head.

Expose in dark, starting somewhere around 45m/50Y or thereabouts (I forget). Develop in drums or trays at room temp in dark or w/faint essentially useless color safelight. Check color with Kodak Color Print Viewing Filters. Adjust filtration and repeat as necessary.

RPC · Sep 21, 2021

For years, the only practical way to print color was to use drums or processors, and the available chemistry at high temperatures, not as easy as b&w prints that could be done much easier and more slmply in trays at 68F, so it probably discouraged many would-be color printers. But about the time digital cameras and negative scanning came into use, color printing at 68F in trays became easily doable, and this probably went unnoticed, and may still not be known, by those who had made the switch, or given up. When tray use became doable I gave up drum use, said "good riddance", and never looked back, although many long-time printers still prefer drums.

Good color printing does require color correcting skills, but that is not a problem for me. I sometimes have more trouble getting the exposure and contrast just right when I do b&w printing, to get that perfect print!

DREW WILEY · Sep 21, 2021

Lots of semi-myths so far. I don't want to get too far into the subject of color print permanence. Many methods have been invented for making them, and there are many variables involved in how they get stored or displayed. One can't just make blanket assumptions. It all depends. But if we want to narrow this down to just RA4 chromogenic prints, the easiest kind technically, these have dramatically improved over the past couple decades or so in terms of display permanence, especially the Fuji Crystal Archive lineup. If you want colorants truly UV-resistant and display permanent, look at the surface of Mars instead; not much choice there.

A major factor in learning how to do any kind of color printing well involves refining your own color vision skills. Here the psychology of color is just as important as the physiology, and it takes time and experience to know exactly what to look for, and why. If you just want honey and jam slathered all over sugar cubes, then inkjet via Fauxtoshop would probably be the smarter way to go. But frankly, the best inkjet printers I know were excellent color darkroom printers first, and even now might spend up to a week fine-tuning any given image. ... Not faster, not cheaper; but they too realize that you get out what you put in, and quality doesn't come easy. Nor does sheer decibels of color loudness - noise - equate to harmony.

My main objection to doing RA4 in trays - ain't too healthy. It's not like ordinary black and white printing. One can develop serious allergic sensitivity to RA4 chem over time. I load my exposed prints in the drum in the darkroom, but actually do the actual RA4 processing outdoors under a shade. The processor, which can easily handle up to 30X40 inch print drums, is actually mounted on a portable cart. And doing prints that big would obviously be quite unrealistic in trays. Drums also do a better job of conserving chemistry; you don't need as much.

RPC · Sep 21, 2021

Drums I have used needed 70 ml to make an 8x10 print, one-shot. That is about 14-15 prints per liter. The Kodak RA-4 developer can make about 16 8x10 prints per liter in a tray according to Kodak. I have gotten many more with no loss in quality.

Many have done RA-4 in trays without harm and Kodak wouldn't recommend it if it wasn't safe. If it bothers someone, they can just use a drum.

Sirius Glass · Sep 21, 2021

I have the C-41 processing kits and color print processing kits as well as a Jobo processor, but it is cheaper to send it out for processing and I do not have to make enlargements of each negative.

btaylor · Sep 22, 2021

I find color printing a creative process. Burning, dodging, density and color adjustments- I can not look at 3 different versions from a commercial lab and decide which direction I want to go for the final print. That’s why I enjoy RA4 printing. On the film side, I don’t find it more difficult than B&W and it is more convenient for me to keep everything in house. 1/2 hour to develop film is not a terrible inconvenience.
General interest in home color processing is very low. I am pleased we can still get the materials. Type R and Cibachrome are long gone. Long live C41 and RA4.

DREW WILEY · Sep 22, 2021

RPC - the whole point is that you don't actually know if you're being affected until it's too late. Sensitization builds up to a threshold point, and then becomes symptomatic, sometimes seriously. And even "odorless" substitute formulas doesn't mean they're fully safe. I've heard this same kind of excuse talk over and over again regarding all kind of chemicals known to affect health. One ill macho artist after another, and a few prematurely dead ones. I even knew a couple of commercial lab owners who couldn't even enter their own buildings where color print processing was going on after a certain point in time, due to permanent sensitization.

I've known a number of research chemists too who got terribly ill early on, yet poo-pooed all the concerns prior to that. And manufacturer claims of safety? - where have you been all this time, as one "safe" consumer product after another has fallen into disrepute. Look at Roundup, for example; it's always been nasty.

I'm certainly not trying to discourage anyone from RA4 color printing. It's can be a very rewarding experience. But common sense and safe handling practices should always prevail. Nitrile gloves, effective ventilation, minimal exposure to fumes. Better safe than sorry.

So if trays are in use, it's important to have effective air exchange pulling the fumes away from the person to the rear of the sink, and exhausted out from there. But that makes holding precise temp control less predictable, mandating an especially effective surrounding water jacket.

DREW WILEY · Sep 22, 2021

4season - Inkjet prints are NOT pigment prints. That's a ruse often abused by labs and galleries in a deliberately misleading manner. The inks are complex blends of dyes (much like the dyes in other kinds of color prints), lakes (dyed inert particles, like flavoring eggplant), and micro-ground actual pigments. They can't use just anything based on optimal permanence itself. The priority lies on all the inks being able to squeeze through those tiny inkjet nozzles. Therefore, there is a complex mixture of colorants involved in every inkjet print, making it difficult to predict the display lifespan of any given example (as if lifespans could be accurately extrapolated from a brief torture test!). Time will tell; there is no substitute for that. And Inkjet is a relatively new medium.

True color pigment prints are made by labor-intensive hand-layering techniques such as carbon, carbro, casein, gum arabic, Fresson, former Evercolor, etc. which use select sets of CMYK "process colors". But as every serious painter knows, even real pigments differ significantly from one another in terms of permanence. And UV light - direct sunlight and many kinds of artificial light - is bad for almost any colored medium. If you want truly permanent UV-resistant colorants, look at the surface of Mars, and work with iron oxides, specializing in photographs of bricks.

Agulliver · Sep 23, 2021

thinking of longevity of prints....for some 45 years my parents have had a print of me as a toddler hanging up in the hallway. It gets direct sun about half the day. It's faded a little but it's still a decent colour photograph. Furthermore the negative is properly stored in a cupboard and a new print could be made at any time. I happened to scan the entire roll that photo comes from in 2018.

abruzzi · Sep 23, 2021

The issue for me with color negative film is turning that into a positive--whether through scanning or printing--gets into something I am not capable of. When I shoot color, I feel like a tourist. Not that I am a tourist shooting tourist things, but a tourist in the land of color. I don't know it, and I don't understand it, so I take picture of what looks nice, but I can't really "see" color. This was diven home to me after I scanned a rolld of C41 film that I had home developed. I was using Lightroom to invert the colors, then I spent hours trying to remove the blue caused by inverting the orange. Finally, I got something that looked good to me. I showed it to someone else who asked me why everything was purple. I couldn't see that no matter how much I looked. Since then, the color color I home develop is E6 because either it look right or it doesn't. I'm sure I'd have the exact same issues printing RA4 (but instead of spending hours, I'd be spending hundreds of $$$ on a single print). These days the only serious photography I do is B&W.

Patrick Robert James · Sep 23, 2021

I started developing my own C-41 a few years ago. I don't shoot it that much so I just wait and then do a bunch of rolls at a time with Kodak chemistry. The only downsides are the temperature control and the time involved. It is pretty easy though. I prefer juicy negs too so I can do that if I want myself. There are other benefits to doing it yourself too, like bleach bypass and pushing, if you are into that sort of thing. I'd love to do RA-4 as well but the chems are the issue for me. Just don't want to deal. Drew's tubes outside is an option.

Why is home processing for color not nearly as wide spread?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency