Jump to content

Cross-Processing Color-Neg in b&w chemistry


Marc Roessler

Recommended Posts

It is not about technical correctness or economics.

 

 

That is, flat out, wrong.

 

 

Richard just said that the reason that his friend X-processes '83 is because he has whole cans of it left over. So that would be ENTIRELY about economics now, wouldn't it?

 

 

 

It's interesting how you take a stance that "technical correctness" is bad. Are you one of the people that enjoys banging their head against the wall until you get a print density right, or do you learn about densitometers and video analyzers and get it right on the first try?

 

Because the best artists, musicians, photographers, filmmakers, recording artists, throughout history have learned the SCIENCE behind their crafts to master them. Don't be so quick to dismiss the technical side of things. You may take it for granted, but that is what modern cinematography has been founded upon for 3/4 of a century.

 

 

What if every can of film came with a different speed, irregular perf.'s, fogging, technical defects. That was common, back then.

 

 

The science you so glibly dismiss made possible an era of almost-perfect coatings, panchromaticity, true color reproduction, and reliable film speeds. Great art doesn't NEED to be grounded in a solid understanding of science, but it certainly does help to understand why a certain chord sounds pleasant another sounds somber, why certain colors combine in a certain way on a canvas, but in a different way when projected together, how photographic films react when coated a certain way and processed a certain way, why a sound recording differs from what the author is trying to transmit, why varying the photographic exposure by halves corresponds to a stop's change in aperture opening?

 

Would you prefer to reinvent the wheel instead of going upon the scientific advancements made in this field? Don't ignore the mistakes that others have made before you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard just said that the reason that his friend X-processes '83 is because he has whole cans of it left over. So that would be ENTIRELY about economics now, wouldn't it?

 

K is right here. That is about economics.

 

It's interesting how you take a stance that "technical correctness" is bad.

 

Taking a critical position with respect to technical correctness isn't necessarily a bad thing. I can think of plenty of works of art (and now very expensive works of art at that) which were considered technically incorrect when they first appeared. Not that such is necessarily a good reason to be technically incorrect.

 

Are you one of the people that enjoys banging their head against the wall until you get a print density right, or do you learn about densitometers and video analyzers and get it right on the first try?

 

That's a bit unfair. Just because someone questions technical correctness doesn't mean they don't understand technical correctness. I understand Newton's Theory of Gravity but feel quite happy to question it. Einstein questioned it - and in the process came up with Relativity.

 

Itten's Theory of Colour questions Newton's theory of colour and many artists understand and use Itten's theory. Yet many scientist's would not have even heard of Itten for the simple reason that the university courses they did, didn't require knowledge of Itten.

 

And there are great examples of music that exploit very discordant notes to good effect - not because they are ignorant of harmonics - but because they are looking for something else.

 

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For your amusement, some technically incorrect actions:

- push processing, pull processing

- skip bleach

- shooting through the base side of film

- shooting on print stock

- using uncoated (or old.. spell: Cooke Speed Panchro) lenses

- flaring a lens

I can only imagine what kind of heated debate those pioneering these technologies had to endure.

 

You wouldn't believe it: I once even had a lengthy discussion with an elderly owner of a small lab who could not get his head wrapped around the fact that I wanted plus-x neg push processed one stop because I wanted a more grainy, gritty, contrasty look. I think we phoned for about an hour with him continuously trying to pursue me into using his favorite faster, smoother, fine grained stocks because those were technically better. After repeatedly trying to communicate that I was aware of these facts but that it just wasn't the look I wanted I gave up on this insanity and went to another lab.

 

P.S.: I actually do have a scientific/university background

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't believe it: I once even had a lengthy discussion with an elderly owner of a small lab who could not get his head wrapped around the fact that I wanted plus-x neg push processed one stop because I wanted a more grainy, gritty, contrasty look. I think we phoned for about an hour with him continuously trying to pursue me into using his favorite faster, smoother, fine grained stocks because those were technically better. After repeatedly trying to communicate that I was aware of these facts but that it just wasn't the look I wanted I gave up on this insanity and went to another lab.

 

Yes - default processing is useful but only because it provides for what you would do in the absence of any additional information. But if that additional information is there - such as "I would like the process to be pushed one stop" - then you would expect that to be a non-controversial request. Indeed the very specification of "pushing one stop" is already predicated on knowledge of the technical default.

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl, I can't understand why you choose to pick an argument here. Well actually, I suppose I can. I have to admit to getting irritated sometimes when I read on this list of people who want to try "crazy" things for no apparent reason. But then I remember that I probably tried something similar years ago. No profitable venture, no cost-saving, just to see what happened, to see what the effect would be.

 

I had the benefit of working in a lab where I could grab short ends of stock, cajole my optical printer mates into doing the bits I couldn't, and run odd processes in between machine tests.

 

I didn't have the benefit of websites or chatrooms where I could ask 1,000 people for advice, so my inexplicable behaviour was a little more hidden (and fortunately tolerated by the lab management of the time).

 

If I'm able to answer the odd question on this forum - about sensitometry, about colour separations, about cross-porcessing, about negative defects, it's not because I studied the official texts, and stuck to the straight and narrow "correct method". It's because I tried a whole bunch of crazy stuff to see what would happen. You can't prove rules by following them.

 

And by the way, it is totally correct that this industry is based on scientific understanding and scientific methods. Yes, I have a science degree. It is also based on rule-breaking (we call it creativity,or even art).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I had the benefit of working in a lab where I could grab short ends of stock, cajole my optical printer mates into doing the bits I couldn't, and run odd processes in between machine tests.

 

Much of my understanding of the work is also based on "Crazy Tests" back years ago. There were folks like "Lab47" who sold Eastman colour ends as slide film. - Kodak said it could not be done. Folks developing Eastman colour at home - Kodak said it could not be done. Naturally there were Crazy folks like myself who insisted that they would not take Kodak's word.

 

There was one fellow named "nevile" as I recall who published formulas for Colour chemicals as so many teaspoons of this and so many of that. Fuji Negative at the time did not have a rem-jet so it was highly regarded by the crazy folks. I shot a lot of 5247 (ASA 100) in my Pentax - with and without the 85 filter, using the commercial services as well as a jobo processor being fed both C-41 Kits and the teaspoon Formulas. you could even dilute the used negative developer and add benzil alcohol and develop Ektaprint 2 compatible paper. I have a framed picture at the entrance to my house, which shows the Rideau Canal in winter which was shot on Gevacolor MP film and printed on Agfa Photo-paper all using teaspoon Chemicals. The roll of film was too long and the end of it got scratched, BUT that just looked like Blowing Snow so it added to the picture.

 

Would I do it that way again. I doubt it. Did I learn WHY Kodak said it could not be done - Yes. Did I learn the ins and outs of why processing is done. ABSOLUTELY! Does it mean that I have made fewer mistakes when I took a Filmo in hand to shoot on pictures on short ends. You Bet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...