E-6 to C-41: A Transition

[atlcruiser]

At first I thought I would learn much from this thread about color and color theory...now I can just lean how to argue on the internet. Still and all educational

[David Higgs]

I'm still learning with Ektar, when it works, it really really works, but when it doesn't - I get really stuck with colour balance.

The Portra stuff appears much easier, but you never hit the highs that Ektar can give.

I'm looking at the learning curve and the top seems a long way away!

[Drew Wiley]

David & David - you can pretty much ignore a lot of the semantics debate in this lengthy thread and just skip to the how-to results. Like I suggested, Ektar is like a Porsche with power steering. Very small changes in color balance will steer it rather
abruptly, but when it tracks down the road correctly, it's an incredible performer.

[atlcruiser]

Thanks Drew..i bought a minolta color meter and a ful set of CT and CC filters. With portra 160NC i get excellent results and i have a box of extar100 in 810 that i need the time to mess with

[Drew Wiley]

David - so far I've calibrated Ektar from 8X10 down to 6x7, which basically just involved minor gamma changes in the contrast mask via dev time. Magnification ratio
significantly affects how not only the contrast responds, but internal chroma
too. I'm obviously working analog, but these kinds of corrections should be fairly straightforward in Photoshop too, or even easier.

[Ben Syverson]

I don't regret much in my life, but I do regret the time I've recklessly bled away on these types of inane internet arguments.

At the end of this epic (and epically stupid) discussion, you should know that Drew and I both agree that C-41 can be made to look "much like" E6, though it is "tricky" (in the darkroom, anyway).

[Drew Wiley]

Nothing tricky about it in the darkroom at all, Ben. Rather simple cure to anyone with
elementary sheet film developing skills and a registered contact print frame. Digital or analog same issue - understanding how the film behaves and how to best plan for it.
The operator of a Lambda, Lighjet, or Chromira would face exactly the same issues trying to optimize the look of the film. Just punching up the contrast via PS won't accomplish the same thing because it inherently skews the film curves relative to one
another - you will be effectively reshaping the curves differently by selectively exaggerating just one part of the curve slope versus another, and the three dye curves aren't either identical or symmetrical in the first place. Someone else already
tried pointing this out to you with respect to scanner sampling error. With Ektar these
kinds of errors build up faster because its a narrower-range curve with more saturation. Like I said, you can always drive a Porshe like a Chevy, but it you want to
optimize what this film is capable of, then you need to understand it in a specific sense. And once you start discovering the sweet spot, Ektar is more capable of duplicating the results of a chrome film than Portra films, with the added advantage of
the wider latitude of a color neg. But if you ignore its idiosyncrasies, you're going to
face certain serious reproduction issues that could otherwise be prevented. I have
no interest in complicating your own workflow, but please give others a chance to
learn from my own very specific testing without confusing them with the idea that it's
all a wash. It isn't.

[Ben Syverson]

I'm the one confusing people? Fine. Honestly, I'm done. I would strongly prefer that a moderator delete all of my posts from this thread, but I wouldn't torture them by making them revisit every page of this train wreck.

From here on out, feel free to discuss "color casts" in color negative films (-"Ektar is too blue!" -"No, it's too red!") and other mystical superstitions, but you'll be doing it without me.

[atlcruiser]

David - so far I've calibrated Ektar from 8X10 down to 6x7, which basically just involved minor gamma changes in the contrast mask via dev time. Magnification ratio
significantly affects how not only the contrast responds, but internal chroma
too. I'm obviously working analog, but these kinds of corrections should be fairly straightforward in Photoshop too, or even easier.

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

[Drew Wiley]

I'm not in this to discredit anyone or disprove this or that. I'm in it for completely
selfish motives. The stimulus of the whole topic over this thread and analogous ones
(like the thread on correct ASA for Portra) has been helpful in gelling a series of
experiments already underway; and I thank Ben for this. What I get out of it is a
dramatic reduction in time, money, and trouble getting to a practical endpoint.
And given the fact that members of this forum have been kind enough to put up with
my often abrupt and unpolished hillbilly manners, the least I can do is share the
results for the sake of anyone who might also wish to save money or grief in an
analogous manner. Second, I'm not really interested in replicating the results I get
with chrome film. Each media has its special idiosyncrasies and look; but what I
am interested in is a step forward with results which are actually better and cleaner
than I typically get printing chromes!