Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site tymix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner From: kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: Re: Darkroom neophyte knows nothing Message-ID: <391@tymix.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 22:24:05 EST Article-I.D.: tymix.391 Posted: Thu Apr 11 22:24:05 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 02:23:15 EST References: <2720013@acf4.UUCP> <9667@brl-tgr.ARPA> <791@peora.UUCP> Reply-To: kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) Organization: Tymnet Inc., Cupertino CA Lines: 86 In article <791@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >> I would recommend doing type R work. This is print from slide work without >> an intervening negative. > >I disagree. Prints-from-slides cost about twice as much as prints-from- >negatives (i.e., the paper costs twice as much; typically $.60/8x10 >compared to $.30/8x10; likewise the developer is a good bit more, and >requires an extra processing step), and it's a lot harder, especially if >you are just starting out, to develop the film itself (film as opposed to >prints) since if you make a mistake you don't get a second chance. With >negatives you can recover from minor processing errors when you do the >printing. Thus many people send the slides to a lab to be developed; >depriving themselves of the enjoyment of developing the film. > >The only really hard thing about color prints from negatives is getting the >color correction right, since you can't see the image in the final colors >(or, I should say, an approximation to the final colors) before printing it. >Thus you need to use a color analyzer (or a filter mosaic) to get the colors >right, unless you develop a really intuitive feel for the effects of changes >in color correction filters. As one who made about 100 8 x 10 prints from color negatives before getting disgusted with the relatively low resolution of Kodacolor and switched back to using Kodachrome and printing the occasional good slide, I feel qualified to issue a partial rebuttal. First, a caveat. Color work, especially the temperature control, is sufficiently traumatic for a novice that I most strongly recommend doing black and white work until the handling of the equipment and materials becomes second nature and consistently good results are achieved. If one does that first, it will be discovered that color work is not quite as hard as it is cracked up to be. Now, developing the slides or color negatives oneself is not really an issue. Kodachrome, which in many ways is the most desirable slide film, cannot be processed by the user--no way! The catch-22 with home processing of Kodacolor or Ektachrome is that the solutions will go sour long before the average user can run through enough film to use up the processing kit. So, unless you split a kit with a friend, it is hard to justify home processing and the labs do a good job. Black and white is a different story entirely--you have more degrees of freedom as to how you process a roll, and those degrees of freedom are exercised only if you do it yourself. Next, printing. It is true that reversal printing has one more step than printing from a negative. But, consider the following. A color negative is a low contrast object, both in density and in color contrast. The paper on which it is printed has a compensating high contrast--about like that of a medium black and white paper. Therefore, exposure has to be quite accurate, i.e. 10% to 20% exposure changes in printing are noticed. And, small changes in filtration produce so much effect that a color head is virtually a necessity. The minimum density filter in most kits is a #5, and adding or taking away one of those usually makes more change in color balance than you bargained for. Reversal paper, on the other hand, has quite a low contrast to make up for the high contrast and color saturation of slides. If a print is too light or too dark, you have to change the printing exposure by approximately a factor of two to get a noticeable effect. Filter changes, to be noticed, must be at least a #10, which means that a color head is a convenience, not a necessity. For about two years, I was happily printing slides on Ektachrome 14 paper, made by Kodak/Pathe-France, and processing it in a Besseler kit. For temperature control, I used the "drift-through" technique: solutions at 75 F. and preheat the drum with 120 F. water; also a 120 F. rinse between solutions. Once I got the right filtration for one print, unless I was doing a very abnormal slide, I could just bang them out mechanically as long as I was using the same package of paper. Then Ektachrome 14 was discontinued in favor of an "improved" material called Ektachrome 22. Between some uncertainty as to differences in processing procedure, and difficulty in finding the paper in stores, I got disgusted with the whole business and decided to see if I could live with Cibachrome. Well, it is more expensive (I refuse to use their "pearl" paper; use only the glossy). I save a bit by taking advantage of the big price break on buying the chemicals in a 5-liter kit. It seems to be a shade more contrasty and color saturated than the Ektachrome 14 was, meaning that a slightly greater percentage of the slides will be "problem" slides for which printing shouldn't be attempted. On the other hand, Cibachrome calls for a processing temperature of 75 F., which is a totally relaxing temperature to maintain. And, the Cibachrome materials appear to be always available everywhere. Well, that's about all I have to say on the subject, except to repeat: please learn first with black and white! -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc.