E-6 to C-41: A Transition

[Drew Wiley]

David - the best way to start (if you haven't already done this) is to make a master
negative out of your MacBeath chart or other standard color reference, expose it either under tightly controlled studio conditions, or outdoors under mild white subdued sunlight using the exact correction specifications of your color meter, along
with precise exposure compensation per exact 100 ASA. Everything we do needs some kind of calibration, and Ektar is fussy about getting off on the right foot to begin with... My own tests were standardized to the latest Fuji CA II paper, which
seems to hit its sweet spot with about a 3X or 4X magnification ratio per the standard neg (though actual subject shots will obviously differ in contrast). I control
this up or down through silver masking, but if you attempt this, the tricks are a bit
different than masking for either b&w printing or Ciba. You might have a problem
with too much contrast if you are contact printing. You can take a step down using
portrait paper (Type P - discontinued, but still plenty around), or take a step up in
contrast using Super C (also discontinued but still available). These papers are not
quite as clean in chroma as the new Type II but are still pretty good anyway. Or you
could just shoot Ektar selectively in more limited light ratio settings analogous to
how we have successfully shot chromes all along. You'll get on the road pretty fast.

[Corran]

I would love that info!

My plan is to contact print either extar or portra and I am leaning towards extar in 810.

I got so frustrated with trying to color correct I essentially gave up clr neg film. There was another thread on here that really opened my eyes to the issue of exposing all of the layers correctly to avoid all of the PS guesswork and frustration.

Now I find that when I meter the color then correct for temp and correction I get negatives that are as close to perfect as I have ever had with clr negative film when scanned.

The next step is to make this happen in the darkroom.

david

Link to thread? Sometimes I get great color negs, sometimes they suck. I am reading all I can so I'd love to see that thread.

[atlcruiser]

Link to thread? Sometimes I get great color negs, sometimes they suck. I am reading all I can so I'd love to see that thread.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...t=76385&page=3


I am in atlanta if you wanna hook up and play with the toys

[Drew Wiley]

Once you've gotten your standardized test neg, use it to balance your paper exposure under the colorhead. As your tests get closer and closer, it will seem that
every little adjustment is like power steering. At the end, even a 1cc adjustment will
make a visible difference. All the white to black patches of the Macbeath chart should come out almost perfectly neutral under a standard viewing light. Every other
patch should come out clean, vibrant, and without any visible contamination from
another hue. There shouldn't be any visible bias, either blue or red. Sounds impossible for a color neg film? Well, that used to be the case. Not with Ektar,
provided your standard neg is spot on. Enjoy your new Porsche.

[Corran]

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...t=76385&page=3


I am in atlanta if you wanna hook up and play with the toys

Thanks, I will be reading that thread...
I live waaaay down here near Florida, otherwise I would take you up on the offer. What are you shooting? I just started with 4x5 and home development about 2 months ago.

[Jan Normandale]

wow.. what a thread... clearly there are two separate worlds going on. I frankly don't really care all that much because I'm not reproducing image colours accurately and I don't think it's really possible despite assurances by film manufacturers. The whole shooting, ISO rating, lens character, film character, film processing accuracy, printing process using chemicals at varying temps and ratios , human error and idiosyncracies all affect the final image throughout these steps. In my opinion it's "voodoo"

So I'll go back to shooting and developing with questionable accuracy then dealing with scanners that probably should be calibrated over individual films with different planes of curvature, covered with dust and other junk or printing in a darkroom where I have chemical process that is affected by temperature variations and on and on.

Point I'm trying to make is that the image "right" or "wrong" is what people look at and often the most heavily manipulated ones or cross processed ones or over exposed ones are favoured. C prints, darkroom prints or inkjet prints all add one more level of variable.

My thanks to Ben for some very interesting 'chart analysis' and explanatories. It confirms what I suspected but now know thanks to his lucidity. I'm back to my camera now. I'll leave the charts and hope to compose a photograph that will work. FWIW I obsess over lens character.. maybe a thread on that topic next? I'm sure it has the potential to exceed this discussion. Then again maybe not.