Lloyd, have you considered processing C-41 yourself? I use Tetenal chemicals, and they are easy to use and only get smelly on the third batch run.
Lloyd, have you considered processing C-41 yourself? I use Tetenal chemicals, and they are easy to use and only get smelly on the third batch run.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
Brian,
I've thought about it too.. my only issue is that I cannot maintain the required temperature and agitation easily (I am using inversion processing with a Jobo 2551, with diafine as my main developer due to the ease of use.) Hard to make a big water bath and roller motor in my small bathroom
Thanks for your advice.
Lloyd, I bought a CPE-2 with lift and lots of goodies for $300 a few years back from a retiring wedding photographer. He said he tried it once, and just didn't like it! Well, for me its been a work horse.
I process my film in my bathroom. I have just enough space on my sink counter that the Jobo fits in there nicely. Otherwise I could put it on a table, in my tub, or in my shower. I have talked to other people who process color by hand. Temperature control is achieved by using a tray of water heated with a fish tank heater. It takes a while to initially figure out where to set the dial, but after that its absolutely reliable.
If you buy a CPE-2 used, make sure that if it comes with a lift that they haven't been running the color stabilizer chemicals through it. Big no-no, because it builds up a residue which can't be removed. The stabilizer chemicals should be in a bowl (porcelain or ceramic is good) at the proper temp.
Jobo also sells a little roller base for rolling the drums by hand for $20. You could put the roller base in a tray, along with the fish tank heater, and then you'd have rotary processing! The water just needs to touch the base of the tank. I have also heard of people rolling the expert drum, too.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
I must say, it depends !
In mixed light condition, then nothing will beat negs !
In sunny days, with too much contrast, then nothing will beat negs !
Under a cloudly sky, nothing will beat slides !
If you are not confident with the meter, then go for the neg !
If you wants to know if everything is ok in your picture, then go for the slide...
scanning negs is sometimes a real pain !
we have slides and negs available, so let's use both !
it depends entirely on the transvestite
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
Crap! I was going to throw that out just now...
- Randy
In line with the humorous responses...
You shoot them when they over-charge and then threaten to tell your wife.
I occasionally shoot transparencies and then cross-process them into negatives. This results in lurid, over-dense, near psychedelic colors, aesthetically similar to Ilfochrome, but less accurate. Not accurate at all, sometimes. These negatives are difficult to scan, so I get C prints of them.
I know this technique is anathema to most LFers, but it is in fact something you can do with transparencies that you cannot with negatives. Unless you use PhotoShop, like everybody on this forum except me...
My experience is in the film industry. They only shoot neg and only ever have. To a cinematographer - reversal - they turn their nose up at it. The film industry would not dream of shooting reversal. Admittedly this has a lot ot do with the post production process, but today a lot of the film is scanned just as the stills industry does.
I am new to LF but want to know the answer to this as well. Everyone says neg is grainier, and I accept this, but would not some of this extra grain be because neg has a far higher dynamic range and you are seeing far more into the blacks? Also why is the film industry and the stills industry so much at odds with each other over this issue -that the film industry has always shot neg and the stills industry has always favoured slide? Remember 35mm movie film is blown up a lot larger than stills film generally is. So why is there such a discrepency between the two industries as to which is the best - tranny or neg?
On a recent trip I shot color negative for the first time. Fuji 160 Pro. Wonderful film. It scans well and there is no discernable grain. I now plan to use chrome only when reciprocity failure is a factor.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks