Color Printing Hassles?

Aside from equipment (color head, analyzer, processing kit), what are the
procedural hassles of printing in color? I likely would let the labs
continue to process my film and print me an index sheet (about $4 per 36
roll of print film)

I know total darkens is required and in my case an analyzer is likely needed
to get my filtration correct. But that is about as much as I think I know.

Right now, I use a Kodak Exposure sheet to get exposure from one or two
prints on a roll. Then it is generally only processing time for my test
prints. My darkroom (a converted bathroom) is a comfortable size for B&W up
to 11X14 and I suspect adding color will make it less comfortable.

I have read it can take upwards of an hour to get a color print.

For most color shots, Ritz is good and the price ($8) seems fair. However,
if I have something that the machine can't do automatically, then I go to
the "real" lab in town (Baltimore) and the cost can hit $25. The staff
there are very good at interpreting what I want; but the cost at both places
makes me very judicious (I agree this is a good thing). But, like most who
take photography half way seriously, I am a control freak and have some
(hopefully after getting more info, none) desire to do my own color
enlargements.

Thanks for your thoughts.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAP...ems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution

? ?@???.??? wrote:
Aside from equipment (color head, analyzer, processing kit), what are the
procedural hassles of printing in color? I likely would let the labs
continue to process my film and print me an index sheet (about $4 per 36
roll of print film)

I know total darkens is required and in my case an analyzer is likely needed
to get my filtration correct. But that is about as much as I think I know.

Right now, I use a Kodak Exposure sheet to get exposure from one or two
prints on a roll. Then it is generally only processing time for my test
prints. My darkroom (a converted bathroom) is a comfortable size for B&W up
to 11X14 and I suspect adding color will make it less comfortable.


It takes me less room to do colour then B&W. B&W means trays spread out.
Colour for me means a drum in a water bath. My water bath is a 50 quart
picnic cooler.



I have read it can take upwards of an hour to get a color print.


The only time I had anything like this happen was my first print. Turned
out I had taken the photo under tungsten lighting and trying to get it right
was a pain. The others ones I've done are relatively painless and quick.
Little more then figure out the exposure. Make the first test print. Adjust
if needed. I guess a good analyzer would make it even quicker but mine isn't
working right. My setup time can be longer then B&W since I need to get the
water bath and chemicals up in temp. OTOH my cleanup time is much shorter.

Nick

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:40:10 -0500, "?" ?@???.??? wrote:

Aside from equipment (color head, analyzer, processing kit), what are the
procedural hassles of printing in color? I likely would let the labs
continue to process my film and print me an index sheet (about $4 per 36
roll of print film)

Personally I would just have them develop the film and then
make your own contact sheets. If I'm going to have a lab proof a set
of negatives it's for display to the client.

I know total darkens is required and in my case an analyzer is likely needed
to get my filtration correct. But that is about as much as I think I know.

Analyzers are good for very precise work but are not really
necessary for enlarging. Personally I found color (RA-4) printing to
be very simple and I can produce a finished print in about 20 minutes
dry-to-dry.

Right now, I use a Kodak Exposure sheet to get exposure from one or two
prints on a roll. Then it is generally only processing time for my test
prints. My darkroom (a converted bathroom) is a comfortable size for B&W up
to 11X14 and I suspect adding color will make it less comfortable.

For up to 11X14, consider using the Nova dip-and-dunk
processors. They persist with their numerous flaws but they are about
the best thing going. I've had mine since '93~'94 and have had little
difficulty with it.

I have read it can take upwards of an hour to get a color print.

Sure. It really depends on the negative and the lab processing
the film. And of course on the skill of the printer.

For most color shots, Ritz is good and the price ($8) seems fair.

It depends on how valuable the film is to you. For commercial
work I will only use a pro lab. For personal work I will use anyone
that has a high volume and appears to have a clean operation. C-41 is
essentially standardized though chemicals will vary from lab to lab.

Of course be forewarned that most minilabs use film to clean
their floors.

However if I have something that the machine can't do automatically, then I go to
the "real" lab in town (Baltimore) and the cost can hit $25. The staff
there are very good at interpreting what I want; but the cost at both places
makes me very judicious (I agree this is a good thing). But, like most who
take photography half way seriously, I am a control freak and have some
(hopefully after getting more info, none) desire to do my own color
enlargements.

This is exactly what I do. I send any films of significant
value to CPQ Colorchrome (http://www.cpq.net/) in Cleveland,
Tennessee. IMO they are one great lab and have never let me down.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:56:32 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote:


It takes me less room to do colour then B&W. B&W means trays spread out.
Colour for me means a drum in a water bath. My water bath is a 50 quart
picnic cooler.



I have read it can take upwards of an hour to get a color print.


The only time I had anything like this happen was my first print. Turned
out I had taken the photo under tungsten lighting and trying to get it right
was a pain. The others ones I've done are relatively painless and quick.
Little more then figure out the exposure. Make the first test print. Adjust
if needed. I guess a good analyzer would make it even quicker but mine isn't
working right. My setup time can be longer then B&W since I need to get the
water bath and chemicals up in temp. OTOH my cleanup time is much shorter.

I recently started printing color again after a long layoff - like
since the RC-74 paper days.

I'm using Tetenal room temperature chemistry in trays and Fuji Crystal
Archive paper. It took 5 prints to get the color balance right
initially, and now usually only takes 1 or 2 test prints to get what I
want. I use Kodak viewing filters & have no trouble at all.

I used to use drums, but spent a lot of time cleaning and drying them
between prints. Trays & room temperature are great. My time per
print is about the same as B&W.

One pleasant surprise was that my filter settings are the same for
studio strobe, portable flash on location, and natural light outdoors
using different Portra films. This is with 160 and 400 VC & NC films.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Professional Shop Rat: 14,267 days in a GM plant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

David Starr wrote:


I used to use drums, but spent a lot of time cleaning and drying them
between prints. Trays & room temperature are great. My time per
print is about the same as B&W.


Something I've never understood. If you wash in the drum shouldn't the
drum be clean when the print is?

Nick

I want to thank you all for what you have written; some of it is very
thoughtful.

I think I will head in the direction of limited color printing when I get
some PayPal bucks again. I think I could tolerate spending an hour to get
the filtration in the ballpark as long as it does not have to be done for
every negative. Sounds like an analyzer may be an important timesaver; but,
that if I am mainly making 8 X 10 proofs to see if there is any gold in
the shot that I may want to send to the lab; maybe the analyzer is more
luxury than necessity. At least I would have more control than asking Ritz
for reprints from the index sheet.

I am not sure I even see me getting much more than an "entry" level color
enlarger (other than making sure it has 3 color wheels and is rigid).

My only complaint about getting older is that you start to realize there
simply is not enough time left to become competent in all the things that
grab your interest; and that you really do have to choose where you spend
your time.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAP...ems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution

? ?@???.??? wrote:
I think I will head in the direction of limited color printing when I get
some PayPal bucks again. I think I could tolerate spending an hour to get
the filtration in the ballpark as long as it does not have to be done for
every negative. Sounds like an analyzer may be an important timesaver; but,

Once you get more or less dialed in for a film and paper I'm not sure you'll
need much in the way of changes for filtration. I found working from the
same film that all I had to do was adjust exposure for each negative. Colour
seems a lot simpler then what I had intially thought. At least when trying
to make prints better then the local consumer lab.


I am not sure I even see me getting much more than an "entry" level color
enlarger (other than making sure it has 3 color wheels and is rigid).


With today's market high quality enlargers don't cost must more then the
most basic. You could upgrade your enlarger and sell the one you're using
for B&W.

Nick

The biggest hassle is making your first good print - getting the filtration
and exposure correct for a typical negative. That drives eveyone up the
wall. Once the primary exposure and filtration for you film, paper, and
processing conditions is determined, other negatives will differ only
sightly, if at all.

"?" ?@???.??? wrote in message ...
Aside from equipment (color head, analyzer, processing kit), what are the
procedural hassles of printing in color? I likely would let the labs
continue to process my film and print me an index sheet (about $4 per 36
roll of print film)

I know total darkens is required and in my case an analyzer is likely
needed
to get my filtration correct. But that is about as much as I think I
know.

Right now, I use a Kodak Exposure sheet to get exposure from one or two
prints on a roll. Then it is generally only processing time for my test
prints. My darkroom (a converted bathroom) is a comfortable size for B&W
up
to 11X14 and I suspect adding color will make it less comfortable.

I have read it can take upwards of an hour to get a color print.

For most color shots, Ritz is good and the price ($8) seems fair.
However,
if I have something that the machine can't do automatically, then I go to
the "real" lab in town (Baltimore) and the cost can hit $25. The staff
there are very good at interpreting what I want; but the cost at both
places
makes me very judicious (I agree this is a good thing). But, like most
who
take photography half way seriously, I am a control freak and have some
(hopefully after getting more info, none) desire to do my own color
enlargements.

Thanks for your thoughts.

--
Regards,
Dewey Clark http://www.historictimekeepers.com
Ebay Sales:
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAP...ems&userid=dsc
Restorations, Parts for Hamilton M21s, Products for Craftsmen
Makers of Historic Timekeepers Ultrasonic Clock Cleaning Solution

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:22:43 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote:

David Starr wrote:


I used to use drums, but spent a lot of time cleaning and drying them
between prints. Trays & room temperature are great. My time per
print is about the same as B&W.


Something I've never understood. If you wash in the drum shouldn't the
drum be clean when the print is?

I had a lot of trouble with colored streaks on the prints, possibly
blix contamination. The only way I could avoid it was to clean the
drum thoroughly and dry it completely between prints.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Professional Shop Rat: 14,267 days in a GM plant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:25:26 GMT, "Norman Worth"
wrote:

The biggest hassle is making your first good print - getting the filtration
and exposure correct for a typical negative. That drives eveyone up the
wall. Once the primary exposure and filtration for you film, paper, and
processing conditions is determined, other negatives will differ only
sightly, if at all.

That's the amazing part for me. In my RC-37 & 74 days, color balance
changed depending on lighting source and from roll to roll. In the
past 2 weeks, heres what i printed and the filtration I used.......

Portra 160VC - studio strobe - 35M 75Y
Portra 400NC - portable flash - 35M 75Y
Portra 400 VC - overcast outdoors - 30M 70Y

Today I was amazed when I printed these......

VPS (shot in 1980) - sunny outdoors - 35M 75Y
Kodacolor 100 (shot in 1985) - sunny outdoors - 35M 75Y

The variety of film & light sources using the same filtration really
got my attention.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Professional Shop Rat: 14,267 days in a GM plant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -