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

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I usually muster the courage to print RA-4 at home about once or twice every year. It's not a question of cost (colour paper is actually cheaper than B&W), but one of convenience. I have to buy 10L kits of both developer and blix, so it's only worth doing a decent-sized batch. Developer you have to mix all at once if you want accurate results and your chemicals to stay stable. Blix can be mixed only for each session, but it's not eternal either. The fixer part tends to crystallize pretty quickly (a matter of weeks).

I process in drums, so I maintain temperature with bottles in a water bath. Not perfect, but suitable for a 3-4 hour session. Still, the output of a printing session this way is much smaller than from a B&W session. You have to be very careful and watch out for small mistakes: once, I found out after a few crappy prints that the lume on my watch was sufficient to fog colour paper when close to it!

I always end up wasting some RA-4 developer and blix, because I usually exhaust my supply of negatives to print (or my patience) before I run out of chemicals. Paper can always keep in the freezer for the next batch, but you need the space.

That being said, I do think someone who is dedicated to analogue colour could be more efficient: having some cold storage for paper and chemicals, a JOBO kit, or at least an array of drums and rollers to facilitate batch processing, and also processing one's own C-41 could make the whole process something more enjoyable and productive than my limited setup. For that person, what is a matter of inconvenience or difficulty would only be par for the course.

If you really love the look of analogue RA-4 prints, there's no reason not to invest yourself as much as people who do B&W.

 

[Wayne]

That's why I use trays not drums. I have similar output to B&W with trays.

 

[koraks]

That's why I use trays not drums. I have similar output to B&W with trays.

Yeah, same here. Trays are economical chemistry-wise, and print quality is good. The only drawback is the necessity to develop in the dark, but that's a minor inconvenience IMO.

 

[btaylor]

Yeah, same here. Trays are economical chemistry-wise, and print quality is good. The only drawback is the necessity to develop in the dark, but that's a minor inconvenience IMO.

Ack. Good for you guys. I cannot tolerate the developer odor. Even a whiff to load the Durst Printo is irritating.

 

[Wayne]

Ack. Good for you guys. I cannot tolerate the developer odor. Even a whiff to load the Durst Printo is irritating.

Well, you're probably not going to like possum piss either then.

 

[sillo]

Probably because the entire process was designed to be done in a lab with a replenishment set up. It's not like b&w, there's very little creative control and there is a standard that is supposed to be maintained.

 

[AgX]

Both Agfa and Kodak offered in the 80's the amateurs printmaking sets based on their dye-diffusion processes.
These sets facilitated the chemical part of printmaking.

 

[sperera]

Hello everyone,

Why is home processing of color film not nearly as accessible? I can't help to think that with the myriad of BW chemicals and materials for sale, it seems like it was more designed for home processing while color, neither Kodak or Fuji, the big brands, make C41 kits available to the consumer and the RA4 process seems to be marketed only to labs, as most of the papers come on rolls rather then being precut. Why is this? Even the Flexicolor line of chemicals that Kodak produces are really designed for the lab, not home use. Why did color never really catch on as a DIY process? It's certainly possible to be done, but it's not the most readily accessible thing to do.

Am I missing something? Processing colour negatives - in my experience, C-41 process is easier than BW development any day of the week. Tetanal etc kits easily available (well, there was the ownership of Tetanal to contend with at one point that stocks were down). I find C41 forgiving and get great results every time. Go C-41 with no fear. 3 mins 15 secs developer - 4 mins Blix - wash and then 1 min stabiliser....all done fast and easy

 

[Sirius Glass]

Am I missing something? Processing colour negatives - in my experience, C-41 process is easier than BW development any day of the week. Tetanal etc kits easily available (well, there was the ownership of Tetanal to contend with at one point that stocks were down). I find C41 forgiving and get great results every time. Go C-41 with no fear. 3 mins 15 secs developer - 4 mins Blix - wash and then 1 min stabiliser....all done fast and easy

It is the color print processing that makes me drag my feet even though I have the Jobo processor.

 

[laingsoft]

The best way I can consider answering this is this way: I legitimately have no idea where I can get RA4 chemicals or paper.

 

[MattKing]

The best way I can consider answering this is this way: I legitimately have no idea where I can get RA4 chemicals or paper.

Beau Photo in Vancouver.
But the chemicals are only the kit versions.

 

[warden]

Am I missing something? Processing colour negatives - in my experience, C-41 process is easier than BW development any day of the week.

You may be missing something.

But no matter, if you prefer color then go for it.

 

[wiltw]

The issues, historically, for color

1. Temperature control precision needed for consistency is much tighter for color than B&W
2. The need to process paper in the dark -- or a very dim safelight for short periods -- unless one uses a more expensive (than trays) processor and drums

Doing my first E-4 processing was incredibly easy and simple. First color print was not so easy due to color filtration determination, and home kits did not become available until 1963, and home processing of color neg really did not become well established until 1977! And C-41 had to be done at 100F

 

[mehguy]

The best way I can consider answering this is this way: I legitimately have no idea where I can get RA4 chemicals or paper.

Argentix.ca has some too.

 

[Snowfire]

I used to dabble in C-22, C-41, and E-6 decades ago, when home kits were easier to come by. But unless you are doing a lot of it, the majority of the materials end up going to waste. With color chemistry, that costs serious money, and it ends up being cheaper to have a photofinisher (who has economies of scale) do it. The exception was if I wanted to cross-process or something unconventional such as that.

 

[Bikerider]

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? .

I take issue with the impression and quote you give above. It is no more difficult than B&W once the parameters have been set. Keep with the same materials, chemicals and you are over half the way there. It is a skill to be learned and built upon and yes it takes effort. What is worthwhile doing always take effort. What or where is the skill and where is the satisfaction of spending X times thousands of £'s or $'s on an all electrical digital camera plus printer that will be out of date(sic) by the time the next full moon comes around.

Yes I am from the 'old school' of thought but where is the harm in that. The world was a far better place before we started bowing and scraping to the 'well paid for little work' large companies who make these items with built in obsolescence in order to generate more income for their companies.

But there again if the likes of Fuji and Kodak don't get there act together and start making a decent quantity of colour film the colour printing side of what we will do will be killed off anyway. There is not one company in UK that has a reliable supply of C41 film and they have even been approached from buyers abroad saying they will take off them as much as they can supply. It is a world wide shortage with no explanation.

One dealer even went as far as to say FUJI and Kodak are in competition with each other to see who can make the biggest mess. Rant over.

 

[koraks]

But unless you are doing a lot of it, the majority of the materials end up going to waste. With color chemistry, that costs serious money, and it ends up being cheaper to have a photofinisher (who has economies of scale) do it.

Not really in my experience, at least not for RA4 and C41. In my replenished, tray development system for RA4, chemical usage is ridiculously low, unused chemistry (concentrates) last a loooooong time when packaged appropriately (i.e. several years!) so very, very little ever goes to waste. Since it's all minilab chemistry, the per-liter cost is very low as well. Which is also why I don't bother replenishing C41 developer and just use it one shot instead, same for the fixer. Bleach is reused/replenished - why not, after all. All considered it's way cheaper than taking my stuff to a lab and get it printed.

Not to mention that having a lab print my color work would deprive me from the satisfaction of making RA4 prints in my own darkroom, which is the reason I do this anyway. So the whole cost/economies of scale discussion is moot for the amateur to begin with, I'd contend. The cheapest solution would be to get some nice photos from whatever online marketplace and have those delivered to your home, framed and ready to go. I think we all agree that flies in the face of photography as a hobby. For me, the same is true for taking printing work to an external party. I'm sure many feel the same way about it.

To each their own, of course, and it's perfectly fine to have someone else print your work. It really depends on what you're in the game for. Some of us are shooters, some of us are printers - and perhaps some of us are conceptualists, although those seem extremely rare and/or underrepresented on forums like this one. Which makes sense, as the discussion on here always revolves around how to get the job done, and virtually never about the meaning of the job in the first place. But that's another issue altogether.

 

[mtjade2007]

I still remember how I failed in continuing my traditional wet printing long time ago. I simply could not afford the time in it while living and working in the Bay Area in California.. The film processing on the other hand is standardized and is much easier to do at home. So I am hanging on to this hobby of shooting film. But I have not been able to get anyone near me to inspire this hobby yet. One day I was stunned to discover that my only child had secretly bought a Canon and a Sony full frame along with a few expensive lenses. Maybe the young generation would turn their heads and notice when they reach our age how much fun there is in the home processing of films and prints. By then we will be long gone. I wonder if films will still be made by then though.

 

[Bikerider]

Maybe the young generation would turn their heads and notice when they reach our age how much fun there is in the home processing of films and prints. By then we will be long gone. I wonder if films will still be made by then though.

A lot of them will not view it as 'fun', but more of a drudge when they cannot have what they want instantly. It is only a tiny minority who will take it up and as there are no reasonably priced cameras being produced there will be a dwindling supply of tools where they can use film. Sad I know but it is reality.

 

[mehguy]

A lot of them will not view it as 'fun', but more of a drudge when they cannot have what they want instantly. It is only a tiny minority who will take it up and as there are no reasonably priced cameras being produced there will be a dwindling supply of tools where they can use film. Sad I know but it is reality.

Film was the only means of producing images for over a century. The amount of film cameras produced matched that demand. Now that the demand is much smaller, i dont think the scarcity of working film cameras is an issue.

 

[Snowfire]

i dont think the scarcity of working film cameras is an issue.

Not right now. But as the supply ages and gradually succumbs to attrition, and the persons who knew how to service them age and retire with no one to replace them, it will definitely become an issue.

 

[mehguy]

Not right now. But as the supply ages and gradually succumbs to attrition, and the persons who knew how to service them age and retire with no one to replace them, it will definitely become an issue.

I think training people in camera repair would be a more important skill than trying to make film cameras again. The existing supply can effectively last forever as long as the knowledge and replacement parts are there, which is a much easier effort than trying to manufacture film cameras from scratch. I think electronic cameras will have a leg up in this regard, as small scale manufacturing for parts for mechanical cameras is expensive, whereas with electronics, off the shelf components can be replaced with ease, and custom made IC's, once the leg work of reverse engineering them is complete, the cost to distribute an applicable solution plumets extremely quickly.

 

[Snowfire]

I think electronic cameras will have a leg up in this regard

I disagree. In terms of electronic components, what is off-the-shelf now is vastly different from what was off-the-shelf 20 or even 10 years ago, and they are not casually interchangeable. I have a Sony DSLR with a failing wheel-switch that was made about 13 years ago--and I cannot get it fixed because the parts are discontinued. Meanwhile, I have a pair of pre-1960 Minolta Autocords that can still be easily serviced, as long as the skilled persons who know how are still in business. Technicians with access to CnC mills, 3-D printers and the like can even manufacture replacement parts for mechanical cameras in ways that were not possible a few years ago. But it is possible that in the longer future (15-30 years down the road) the neighborhood repair businesses will all be gone and only a few museum conservators will still have the skills to fix these cameras.

 

[unityofsaints]

Things that come to mind immediately for colour film compared to B&W are the lack of room-temperature options and expense / chemicals going stale quickly. For paper it's the smell and lack of contrast control.

 

[Bikerider]

I usually muster the courage to print RA-4 at home about once or twice every year. It's not a question of cost (colour paper is actually cheaper than B&W), but one of convenience. I have to buy 10L kits of both developer and blix, so it's only worth doing a decent-sized batch. Developer you have to mix all at once if you want accurate results and your chemicals to stay stable. Blix can be mixed only for each session, but it's not eternal either. The fixer part tends to crystallize pretty quickly (a matter of weeks).

I process in drums, so I maintain temperature with bottles in a water bath. Not perfect, but suitable for a 3-4 hour session. Still, the output of a printing session this way is much smaller than from a B&W session. You have to be very careful and watch out for small mistakes: once, I found out after a few crappy prints that the lume on my watch was sufficient to fog colour paper when close to it!

I always end up wasting some RA-4 developer and blix, because I usually exhaust my supply of negatives to print (or my patience) before I run out of chemicals. Paper can always keep in the freezer for the next batch, but you need the space.

That being said, I do think someone who is dedicated to analogue colour could be more efficient: having some cold storage for paper and chemicals, a JOBO kit, or at least an array of drums and rollers to facilitate batch processing, and also processing one's own C-41 could make the whole process something more enjoyable and productive than my limited setup. For that person, what is a matter of inconvenience or difficulty would only be par for the course.

If you really love the look of analogue RA-4 prints, there's no reason not to invest yourself as much as people who do B&W.