Re: RE: E6 with JOBO
- Original Message - From: "Anthony Farr" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: E6 with JOBO No, that's not the method I had in mind. It's also quite impractical when the 'object' in question is an immovable landscape, or an architectural fixture, or perhaps even a dead guy. Herb is speaking to a very specialized niche of the industry, and one which photofinishers rarely have to deal with. William Robb
RE: E6 with JOBO
No, that's not the method I had in mind. It's also quite impractical when the 'object' in question is an immovable landscape, or an architectural fixture, or perhaps even a dead guy. Colour casts are seldom purely of one colour. If they commonly were then we would all be competent colour printers. What you generally encounter is an obvious dominant colour shift plus a slight tendency towards another nearby colour as well, and the skill lies in recognising both and correctly balancing them. That's why the shadows and highlights are used as clues to whether e.g. a dominant yellow cast is subtly biased towards red or green, or a cyan cast has more tendency toward green or towards blue, to use just a couple of the wide possibilities. Printers look for nuances like the actual colour of 'black' in the shadows, or the colour hiding in highlights of hair in a portrait, or the actual 'greyness' of tyres in photographs of autos. You can be shown how to do this stuff, but only practice not knowledge will make you proficient. If you don't have that acquired skill then you shouldn't underestimate the capability of people who do possess it. regards, Anthony Farr > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > they would hold up the actual colored object next to the print. not the same > thing. > > Herb
Re: E6 with JOBO
they would hold up the actual colored object next to the print. not the same thing. Herb - Original Message - From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 1:01 PM Subject: RE: E6 with JOBO > Colour printers (the people not the machinery) have for decades been getting > accurate colour balance from negatives in the absence of reference targets > such as grey cards or colour targets. Quite simply you can't tell a client > to go away just because their negatives lack those things. You do the job > as well as you can, and there ARE methods to zero in on correct colour by > considering the casts in shadows and diffuse highlights in conjunction with > the major mid-tonal areas.
RE: E6 with JOBO
Colour printers (the people not the machinery) have for decades been getting accurate colour balance from negatives in the absence of reference targets such as grey cards or colour targets. Quite simply you can't tell a client to go away just because their negatives lack those things. You do the job as well as you can, and there ARE methods to zero in on correct colour by considering the casts in shadows and diffuse highlights in conjunction with the major mid-tonal areas. regards, Anthony Farr > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > not acceptable for critical color accuracy. what you like and what is > accurate are frequently quite different things. > > Herb
RE: E6 with JOBO
That may be so, but the high density areas in a negative coincide with lighter areas of the print where noise will be easy to see. Noise in high density areas of trannies will be in dark areas of print where it isn't as obvious. regards, Anthony Farr > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > properly exposed negatives have less density range than properly exposed > slides. that makes the scanner's dynamic range less critical. >
Re: E6 with JOBO
- Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO not acceptable for critical color accuracy. what you like and what is accurate are frequently quite different things. I play numbers boy when I need to, and can provide better by the numbers colour matching than most techs, but ultimately, it is the human eye that discerns whether the colour is acceptable. In my end of the business, acceptable and accurate are not always in precise register. In other parts of the business, they are. William Robb
Re: E6 with JOBO
not acceptable for critical color accuracy. what you like and what is accurate are frequently quite different things. Herb - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 10:17 AM Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO > Perhaps that is where my methods differ from most. > I look at the work I am outputting and decide if the colour is > acceptable or not.
Re: E6 with JOBO
properly exposed negatives have less density range than properly exposed slides. that makes the scanner's dynamic range less critical. Herb - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:25 PM Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO > I expect you are right, but I also have heard that it is easier to > get good quality scans from negative film.
Re: E6 with JOBO
- Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO I don't have so much experience in balancing colors and correcting for uncalibrated scanner by hand so it is much easier for me to start from a good scan with calibrated colors and then do my own modification on top of that, it is less work. I have been doing this for a very long time now. William Robb
Re: E6 with JOBO
> > I can compare the scan to the slide which is priceless, with > > negatives you can't do > > that. > > Perhaps that is where my methods differ from most. > I look at the work I am outputting and decide if the colour is > acceptable or not. I don't have so much experience in balancing colors and correcting for uncalibrated scanner by hand so it is much easier for me to start from a good scan with calibrated colors and then do my own modification on top of that, it is less work.
Re: E6 with JOBO
- Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO Are there any other smelly chemicals used at this time ? Nothing that is any worse than most household cleaning products, both in odour and environmental threat. William Robb
Re: E6 with JOBO
- Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO I expect you are right, but I also have heard that it is easier to get good quality scans from negative film. I can compare the scan to the slide which is priceless, with negatives you can't do that. Perhaps that is where my methods differ from most. I look at the work I am outputting and decide if the colour is acceptable or not. William Robb
Re: E6 with JOBO
> I expect you are right, but I also have heard that it is easier to > get good quality scans from negative film. For me personally negatives are hell to scan as you can never know what were the original colors, the best you can do is something like autolevels, you can't even calibrate the scanner with negatives properly. With slides I can get dead on colors if I scan an IT8 target first to calibrate the scanner and I can compare the scan to the slide which is priceless, with negatives you can't do that. My Minolta Elite II does a pretty good job for me in shadow areas, if my exposure is correct there is no problem scanning. On the other side, I have only 1 year of experience with photography so I could be wrong. :)
Re: E6 with JOBO
Are there any other smelly chemicals used at this time ? > Formaldehyde is no longer used in film processing.
Re: E6 with JOBO
> > You may be right... I just ordered D with the 16-45 for around > > $1350 after rebate. It will pay for itself after one year in film > > and processing savings. I will also shoot more as I don't have to > > conserve film. > > And as long as you are happy giving up slides I use slides only to scan them, I never project them.
Re: E6 with JOBO
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "John Francis" > >> >> I'd bet that for the majority of slides shot over the last decade >> the prime use is to make a digital scanned image. A digital image >> capture device removes two steps from the process (developing and >> scanning), not to mention eliminating the need for expensive >> one-use materials. > >I expect you are right, but I also have heard that it is easier to >get good quality scans from negative film. I've always shot 90% slides as opposed to negs and never projected a single slide! It's print output for me. Indeed, most professional slide film use is intended for print output one way or another. And I've always had better results scanning slides than negs. Perhaps it's just my greater experience with slides... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: E6 with JOBO
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:25:40 -0600, William Robb wrote: > I expect you are right, but I also have heard that it is easier to > get good quality scans from negative film. Hmmm. I suspect that may be based on the type of photos you usually take. For me, slide films work better for one simple reason: my scanner picks up a lot more grain noise in dark areas. That means that the skies on all of my negative film end up looking like some sort of pointillist nightmare instead of a smooth blue gradation. Skies make up a lot of my shots, since I'm doing primarily automobile road racing. What dark areas exist in my photos I can usually smite pretty easily in PS, as needed. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: E6 with JOBO
William Robb mused: > > > - Original Message - > From: "John Francis" > Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO > > > > > > > I'd bet that for the majority of slides shot over the last decade > > the > > prime use is to make a digital scanned image. A digital image > > capture > > device removes two steps from the process (developing and > > scanning), > > not to mention eliminating the need for expensive one-use > > materials. > > > > I expect you are right, but I also have heard that it is easier to > get good quality scans from negative film. > > William Robb That wasn't my experience. With entry-level equipment there can be problems with scanning some slide films (Velvia is the prime example). And, of course, colour negative film is a little more forgiving on exposure latitude. But most folks who sell their shots have something better than the cheapest scanners, and know how to get the exposure right. Once I got a better scanner I switched to Provia 100F (from Kodak Supra 100) for improved colour fidelity & less grain. Plus, of course, the publishing world had pretty much been insisting on slides for pre-press for some years, and most of the time those slides went straight into a scanner. That market, needless to say, is now almost entirely digital.
Re: E6 with JOBO
- Original Message - From: "John Francis" Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO I'd bet that for the majority of slides shot over the last decade the prime use is to make a digital scanned image. A digital image capture device removes two steps from the process (developing and scanning), not to mention eliminating the need for expensive one-use materials. I expect you are right, but I also have heard that it is easier to get good quality scans from negative film. William Robb
Re: E6 with JOBO
William Robb mused: > > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO > > > > You may be right... I just ordered D with the 16-45 for around > > $1350 after rebate. It will pay for itself after one year in film > > and processing savings. I will also shoot more as I don't have to > > conserve film. > > And as long as you are happy giving up slides > > One of the things I find baffling is the concept that a digital image > can replace a transparency. > They are a totally different beast, not only in technology, but also > in concept. > > I can understand a digital SLR replacing negative film, since the > concept is similar, they use a different technology, but the end use > is to make a print. I'd bet that for the majority of slides shot over the last decade the prime use is to make a digital scanned image. A digital image capture device removes two steps from the process (developing and scanning), not to mention eliminating the need for expensive one-use materials.
Re: E6 with JOBO
- Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO Forget it, my wife would kill me if the whole house got the formaldehyde smell, I ordered D with 16-45 instead. I would love to play with chemicals but I don't have a separate room to do it and doing it in the bathroom is not fun. Formaldehyde is no longer used in film processing. William Robb
Re: E6 with JOBO
- Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO You may be right... I just ordered D with the 16-45 for around $1350 after rebate. It will pay for itself after one year in film and processing savings. I will also shoot more as I don't have to conserve film. And as long as you are happy giving up slides One of the things I find baffling is the concept that a digital image can replace a transparency. They are a totally different beast, not only in technology, but also in concept. I can understand a digital SLR replacing negative film, since the concept is similar, they use a different technology, but the end use is to make a print. William Robb
Re: E6 with JOBO
One thing to consider. I have the JOBO CPE-2 with lift (wwhich was, as you note, quite cheap). Although only doing B&W in it so far. One thing to consider though, try getting a CPP-2 with lift. It has better (digital) temperature control and also a cold water valve, which both combine to simpler work at high temperature. I can't help much on the processes. I just remember Tetenal had several, including some tablets only (easy to mix). In fact Tetenal had so many E6 and C41 kits that it got me confused ;-) IIRC, the Kodak kit is the full spec E6 process with the most number of separate baths, the others use usually combined bleach and fix and sometimes more combined with stabiliser? Though the Kodak might be more archival. dunno. Good light! fra
Re: E6 with JOBO
Forget it, my wife would kill me if the whole house got the formaldehyde smell, I ordered D with 16-45 instead. I would love to play with chemicals but I don't have a separate room to do it and doing it in the bathroom is not fun. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:12 PM Subject: Re: E6 with JOBO > > - Original Message - > From: "David Zaninovic" > Subject: E6 with JOBO > > > >I got a wild idea that I could do my own E6 processing as used JOBO > >CPE-2 processors with lift are cheap right now. Is anybody on > > the list doing that ? Which chemicals are the best, Kodak or > > Tetenal ? How long can unmixed chemicals last after the bottle is > > opened with Kodak vs Tetenal ? Which process is the easiest and > > which one is the best ? > > Too simple. > Best does not exist, only what compromises you consider important. > What brand of film are you shooting? > It matters. > > Don't take on E-^ processing because you think it will be cheaper. > Take it on because you want to be a tech head, and you want to be in > control of your work, no matter what it costs. > > > > > > I am using ZX-M and scanning, and I am too cheap to go *ist D/Ds so > > this is on topic. :) > > I don't know how slide processing has anything to do with digital > cameras. > > William Robb > >
Re: E6 with JOBO
You may be right... I just ordered D with the 16-45 for around $1350 after rebate. It will pay for itself after one year in film and processing savings. I will also shoot more as I don't have to conserve film. - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 6:26 PM Subject: RE: E6 with JOBO > I think you have this backwards, it is cheaper to use a digital > camera than buy and process E6 film after X number of exposures... > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: David Zaninovic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: E6 with JOBO > > > I got a wild idea that I could do my own E6 processing as used JOBO > CPE-2 processors with lift are cheap right now. Is anybody on the list > doing that ? Which chemicals are the best, Kodak or Tetenal ? How long > can unmixed chemicals last after the bottle is opened with Kodak vs > Tetenal ? Which process is the easiest and which one is the best ? > > I am using ZX-M and scanning, and I am too cheap to go *ist D/Ds so this > is on topic. :) >
Re: E6 with JOBO
- Original Message - From: "David Zaninovic" Subject: E6 with JOBO I got a wild idea that I could do my own E6 processing as used JOBO CPE-2 processors with lift are cheap right now. Is anybody on the list doing that ? Which chemicals are the best, Kodak or Tetenal ? How long can unmixed chemicals last after the bottle is opened with Kodak vs Tetenal ? Which process is the easiest and which one is the best ? Too simple. Best does not exist, only what compromises you consider important. What brand of film are you shooting? It matters. Don't take on E-^ processing because you think it will be cheaper. Take it on because you want to be a tech head, and you want to be in control of your work, no matter what it costs. I am using ZX-M and scanning, and I am too cheap to go *ist D/Ds so this is on topic. :) I don't know how slide processing has anything to do with digital cameras. William Robb
RE: E6 with JOBO
I think you have this backwards, it is cheaper to use a digital camera than buy and process E6 film after X number of exposures... JCO -Original Message- From: David Zaninovic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: E6 with JOBO I got a wild idea that I could do my own E6 processing as used JOBO CPE-2 processors with lift are cheap right now. Is anybody on the list doing that ? Which chemicals are the best, Kodak or Tetenal ? How long can unmixed chemicals last after the bottle is opened with Kodak vs Tetenal ? Which process is the easiest and which one is the best ? I am using ZX-M and scanning, and I am too cheap to go *ist D/Ds so this is on topic. :)
