Fuji Velvia or Provia for portraits?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I will be picking up both plus Extar 100 and Portra 160. Curious which slide film for natural light portraits. I also use for landscapes. 4x5 camera.

[koraks]

Velvia for portraits especially of Caucasian skin is not a huge success in my opinion. People tend to look like they spent a particularly grizzly holiday in chernobyl. Better stick with provia and portra for this purpose.

[jim_jm]

Provia if you must use slide film for portraits, but Portra is my favorite color film for people.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Ok. I have some of each. Is it just velvia slide film in general no good for portraits? It has been 15 years since took portraits with any film so I don't recall info on slide film. I do remember slide film giving that wet saturated color look to everything. Like looking at a glass picture.

[Mark Sampson]

Portra film was designed for portraiture. It renders skin tones very nicely. Run an A-B-C-D comparison and see which you like better.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I am planning a comparison. It does look like the slide film will need possibly a warming filter. Most of what I found is people like the Provia over the Velvia. Portra is a given, but also has uses as a landscape film from some of the reviews I have read.

[Jim Andrada]

+1 on Provia. I still have 100 sheets of it in 5 x 7 in the freezer. When it's gone it's gone:(

[Pere Casals]

People portrayed with Velvia, specially the 50, looks like they have been inside a microwave owen.

A good slide film for portraits was Astia, perhaps, but it was discontinued. With Provia we have a neutral film that can be good for portraits, but it hasn't an special spectral interpretation for portraits like Portra or Fuji 160 negative films.

So the good choice you have today is Provia, perhaps you may experiment with some mild filtration to obtain what you want.

In theory color films that are portrait oriented have lower saturation, lower contrast and some spectral interpretation that enhances skin hue separations and IMHO some shift to deliver a less brown and a more pinky skin. If you see the Ektar vs Portra datasheets you will find the color curves are quite different...

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Interesting. I am currently working on a photo of my son shot on Provia 100F. One thing I noticed is that it is on the cool side. You can also see this in the histogram with blue histogram being amplified. He was shot in shade about 4 in the afternoon all natural light, no reflectors or anything. Strongly lit background. I even noticed blue shift in bright sunlight, did not notice that with digital or 35mm film back in the day that I remember.

I do have a Tiffen 812 and 81B filter on the way to see how they will work. Looks like Provia for slide and Portra for color reversal. Not sure yet on b/w yet. I tried Ilford D100 and going to try Tmax 100 and Fuji Acros 100. I have 60 sheets and looking for more. There are others for sure out there so bw will be a harder challenge to find a for portraits.

[Pere Casals]

was shot in shade about 4 in the afternoon all natural light,

In that case a lot of light came from blue sky, so blue histo expansion is due to the effective color temperature...

I've not tested it yet, but I'd like see how the Hoya Portrait filter works.

178588

https://hoyafilterusa.com/product/hoya-portrait/

"The Hoya Portrait filter is a subtle didymium filter who’s glass has been formulated to enhance pink and reduces both yellow and orange to make human skin tones more vivid and clear. Combination use with HD3 UV (0) is ideal when shooting under fine blue skies...."

[Jody_S]

Portra film was designed for portraiture. It renders (...white...) skin tones very nicely.


AFAIK, anyone who uses slide film for portraiture is a masochist.

[Pere Casals]

AFAIK, anyone who uses slide film for portraiture is a masochist.

Consider that, just before the digital DSLR era, slides were the most regarded choice for Pro fashion photography, the top dollar one included.

An advantage was that slides are a calibrated process not tied to a necessary postprocess, so the photographer could specify the result.

In the other hand slides are an imaging medium that this 2018 has no performance equivalent in the digital world, by far. We can talk about static contrast for example.

Single problem is that the magnificience of slides cannot travel through TCP/IP networks.

Who uses slide film for portraiture is probably a refined photographer, a perfectionist, and somebody in love with beauty.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/32681588@N03/28684976474/in/album-72157669005071262/

In fact today the "Provia" mode in Sony digital cameras tries to commercially exploit that prestige.

[koraks]

I think the use of slides also had to do with the need for a positive transparency for the making of printing plates. I'm not sure though.

[interneg]

You can use whatever colour film you like for making portraits - some follow rather more 'pleasing' (as socially defined) skin tone reproduction & some are rather less so. Nothing stopping you using Velvia if it suits your aesthetic (or Ultra 50 for that matter - pity it's long gone). Ektar can be pretty surprisingly nice too - if you invert it correctly.

Analysing colour repro of a transparency on your computer is not going to tell you anything useful, unless you can eliminate the variables of scanner behaviour, software etc. A daylight balanced lightbox will tell you far more, far faster. The 81A/B/C filters would be a good place to start if your transparencies are a bit cold - Provia's competition was various Ektachromes which could tend cooler, so it's not entirely surprising. It has generally seemed a tick warmer to my eye with Nikon or Fuji glass than with most of the other brands.

[Pere Casals]

I think the use of slides also had to do with the need for a positive transparency for the making of printing plates. I'm not sure though.

Well, IMHO the difference is that having the slide the printer has an absolute reference to be placed in the destination color space, to the possible extent.

A negative film does not determine well how the result has to be, because RA-4 is in the middle to get a result, and the printing process requires an interpretation to print well different films in different papers.

In the other hand Graphic Arts industry had convenient resources to use positive or negative film, but the slide was nice because the photographer could specify well the desired hues to the publisher and to the printer, so if the published result was nasty then the slide worked as a notary about who was guilty.

[interneg]

I think the use of slides also had to do with the need for a positive transparency for the making of printing plates. I'm not sure though.

"Match the transparency" was easier than colour balancing a colour neg for a long time - especially in an era before colour profiling was really a thing. And transparency had a 2+ decade head start in professional imaging before neg film even vaguely began to catch up - and arguably took until the 70's & colour neg's increasing use as an artistic medium for repro houses to even begin to consider how to handle it.

[Pere Casals]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dkimg/18467890604/sizes/l

[koraks]

Either way, much of the preference for slide film for fashion photography was down to the specific needs of bringing the image to high-volume print through non-digital processes. That's a different scenario from shooting for a limited edition of prints, a single print or digital processing.
Obviously, fine images of any subject can be made with positive film; the image linked to by Pere is just one illustration. I still wouldn't prefer velvia for portraits of Caucasian people though; I've banged my head on that particular scenario many years ago and it didn't work out for me.

[Pere Casals]

Either way, much of the preference for slide film for fashion photography was down to the specific needs of bringing the image to high-volume print through non-digital processes. That's a different scenario from shooting for a limited edition of prints, a single print or digital processing.
Obviously, fine images of any subject can be made with positive film; the image linked to by Pere is just one illustration. I still wouldn't prefer velvia for portraits of Caucasian people though; I've banged my head on that particular scenario many years ago and it didn't work out for me.

We have 3 Velvias, for portraiture the 50 is the weirdest, then we have velvia 100 and the velvia 100 F. The F is less weird one. Provia can be used but the best one was the defunct Astia.

The single way I think Velvia 50 can be used for portrait is in female portraits with a ton of the right makeup, time ago I saw a velvia 50 original MF slide of a japanesse girl with white makeup, with fill front fill/key flashes and a real sunset in the back... I got atonished...

Of course it's hard to compete aganist Portra 160 in portraiture (or Fuji 160), IMHO that's the greatest spectral interpreation it can be found today for that, with the permision of Vision 3 in the right hands, no digital bug comes close to it. We see a lot film usage in the best wedding photographers, and this is not by chance.

Provia is not a portraiture specialist, so IMHO it has to be used creatively to get great results.

What IMHO is clear is that a regular a Velvia 50 portrait cannot be succesfully solver later with Photoshop, and this points the importance of the spectral interpretation at the shot time. Sadly digital sensors have that interpretation blocked to a single way, depending on Bayer dyes. With film cameras we have choices...

[koraks]

Astia would indeed have been the most logical choice for more subtle portraits.
I've used all three velvias and never liked the 100f. Both the 50 and the 100 are very nice - for other things than portraits in my shooting ;)

[faberryman]

Who uses slide film for portraiture is probably a refined photographer, a perfectionist, and somebody in love with beauty.
And who doesn't plan on viewing them anywhere other than on a light box.

[erian]

I shot a human being on a slide film about 10 year ago last time. Ektachrome gave good results. Well it is not available anymore (or yet) and what will be produced will be VS (very saturated) version of it.

About modern films, Let There Be Film (http://www.lettherebefilm.com/exposures/) compares different current films for the portraiture.

Last two are Provia 100F and Velvia 100. These appear much colder than negative films. It might be partially caused by the change in light.

Velvia 100 is looks really weird. Provia 100F brings up the skin texture. Perhaps not the most desired feature.

If I had to choose then I would try Provia with a warming filter and would slightly overexpose perhaps.

[koraks]

Last two are Provia 100F and Velvia 100. These appear much colder than negative films. It might be partially caused by the change in light.

Velvia 100 is looks really weird. Provia 100F brings up the skin texture. Perhaps not the most desired feature.

If you look at the background, it becomes very obvious that the Provia and Velvia shots were made in different lighting conditions compared to the preceding ones. Also see the light on the model's arm. The Provia and Velvia shots were made in overcast weather or, more likely, when the sun had just dropped below the horizon. This makes the comparison entirely worthless for this purpose. Velvia 100 does NOT give a cold color rendition; very much the opposite. The only thing this comparison shows is that the person who set it up didn't care about accuracy of the test in any way.

[Pere Casals]

And who doesn't plan on viewing them anywhere other than on a light box.

Well, sometimes slides are a personal treasure. If it is a Velvia 50 8x10 one may remember very well how it was shot, every detail in the image, and were it is stored. It is something one proudly shows to family and friends.

Also slides can be uploaded and shared: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dkimg/18467890604/sizes/l

But sadly today's monitors are not able to display that beauty.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

In that case a lot of light came from blue sky, so blue histo expansion is due to the effective color temperature...

I've not tested it yet, but I'd like see how the Hoya Portrait filter works.

178588

https://hoyafilterusa.com/product/hoya-portrait/

"The Hoya Portrait filter is a subtle didymium filter who’s glass has been formulated to enhance pink and reduces both yellow and orange to make human skin tones more vivid and clear. Combination use with HD3 UV (0) is ideal when shooting under fine blue skies...."

Blue skies can do that, but when it is the least dominant portion of the scene it should not dominate. And when I compare the same scene from my digital camera the blue shift is not there. I have noticed this with negative film as well. It could also be me not getting exposure right as well.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Well, I have both provia 100F and velvia 100 Professional RVP, Portra 160 and Extar 100. Once my filters get here I can shoot a coiple frames of each, 1 without filter and 1 with for comparisons. I am also going to shoot Tmax 100 and Acros 100 as well. See which I prefer for portraits (may be neither). There are a lot of bw films to choose from. Used Ilford D100 seemed soft with little contrast, again, that could be me not getting exposure right.

So wish I could do this full time! Portraits, landscapes, architecture fine art and all the developing and printing etc.

[erian]

I am also going to shoot Tmax 100 and Acros 100 as well.

I hope you do not fall in love with Acros. It is discontinued.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I hope you do not fall in love with Acros. It is discontinued.

I am sure I will. I have 100 sheets and I buy it whenever I find it.

[interneg]

Well, I have both provia 100F and velvia 100 Professional RVP, Portra 160 and Extar 100. Once my filters get here I can shoot a coiple frames of each, 1 without filter and 1 with for comparisons. I am also going to shoot Tmax 100 and Acros 100 as well. See which I prefer for portraits (may be neither). There are a lot of bw films to choose from. Used Ilford D100 seemed soft with little contrast, again, that could be me not getting exposure right.

So wish I could do this full time! Portraits, landscapes, architecture fine art and all the developing and printing etc.

The 'problem' you describe with Delta 100 is operator error. Likely one or a combination of poor exposure, processing or scanning decisions. Making judgements about the suitability of a film off such fundamentally flawed 'tests' is not a good idea. Same with the colour balance issues you describe upthread - are you looking at the transparency film on a daylight balanced lightbox, or just scanning it straight in? Most current colour neg films are pretty neutral in colour balance, & 'wrong' colour is more likely a result of processing (or more likely) bad scanning. Solve these problems & your comparisons will be much more meaningful & useful to you.

[faberryman]

I'd be much more worried about portrait technique than which film to use. If not natural light, what lighting equipment are you considering? Not that film choice is unimportant.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I see the cast on a daylight balanced light box. As for operator error on black and white I am sure it is there somewhere, but when I used the Tmax it is very good. As for developers, that was done at a facility so I do not know what they used. I developed the Tmax shots myself in Tmax developer.

I am going natural light for the portrait shots which is not all that easy to get right. I am not sure I want to use artificial lighting or fill flash.

[Chester McCheeserton]

+ 1 for Portra and color negative film. The gain in dynamic range captured is well worth it, although you do have to work a little more and understand color correction when you scan it

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I use color perfect to convert my negatives from scanned raw images. I will be interested to see how well the portra does. For both people and landscapes.

[interneg]

I see the cast on a daylight balanced light box. As for operator error on black and white I am sure it is there somewhere, but when I used the Tmax it is very good. As for developers, that was done at a facility so I do not know what they used. I developed the Tmax shots myself in Tmax developer.

I am going natural light for the portrait shots which is not all that easy to get right. I am not sure I want to use artificial lighting or fill flash.

Long & short of it is that Delta 100 is just as capable of being as punchy as TMAX - for that matter, TMAX developer & Delta 100 should work just fine together. Don't dismiss it out of hand until you've actually tried it.

Provia can be 'chilly' under certain exposure circumstances & tends to fairly ruthlessly reproduce what's in front of the lens - colour neg offers the chance to alter things both at time of exposure &/ or at printing/ inversion of scan stage. You can get incredibly accurate (to the point where you can actually see what the film is really doing in terms of the colour balance etc intended by the manufacturer) inversions from colour neg, and you don't need plugins or anything like that, but you will need the best scan you can get & most consumer flatbeds (Epson etc al) really won't cut it when compared to a drum/ high-end CCD or even a DSLR scanning rig.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I use the plug in from Colorperfect as it allows me quite a bit of control on the conversion process and I avoid the baked in results of a scanner. My V850 produces very good results both in terms of resolution and shadow detail. I don't use the software to cook in the conversion process as I found it to not be that great, good, but not great.

As for Delta100 I am basing what I see from experience with it. That is not to say that it won't produce superb results. And my next batch of it I will develop my self.

Thank you for your input. All of it helps.

[Drew Wiley]

I think Provia is a wretched portrait film, Velvia even worse. Astia was better, but now gone. Nonetheless, I not only took portraits on chrome films, but made very nice portrait prints on Cibachrome, another big no-no according to conventional wisdom. But color neg Portra and RA4 chromogenic prints are far more forgiving for this kind of work.

[Pere Casals]

I think Provia is a wretched portrait film, Velvia even worse. Astia was better, but now gone. Nonetheless, I not only took portraits on chrome films, but made very nice portrait prints on Cibachrome, another big no-no according to conventional wisdom. But color neg Portra and RA4 chromogenic prints are far more forgiving for this kind of work.

Drew, I fully agree.

[koraks]

With today's high-contrast, high-saturation RA4 papers, it's doubtful that the process is still very forgiving for portraiture. It used to be when more subtle papers were still being made.

[Pere Casals]

With today's high-contrast, high-saturation RA4 papers.

I guess this comes comes from digitalization.

With digital process a high saturation paper may better, as you can lower saturation in the digital file, or perhaps in the areas you want. Image enhancing software detects the faces, the age, if it is female or male, if caucasian or other... then the right saturation/LUT is aplied in the face. Then other areas are classified as being flowers, the sky or the sea, and again local adjustments are aplied. The high saturation paper work perfect everywere. High saturation paper can work everywhere in the scene, while a low saturation paper would have limitations.

So we can say Portra + RA-4 is forgiving if going the hybrid way.

[interneg]

With today's high-contrast, high-saturation RA4 papers, it's doubtful that the process is still very forgiving for portraiture. It used to be when more subtle papers were still being made.

Odd. I've seen plenty of enlarger RA4 prints made in the last year that looked absolutely fine in terms of skin tones. There are a lot of assumptions being made in this thread that don't hold up if you actually work with the materials in question...

[koraks]

if you actually work with the materials in question...
Which I do. My "assumptions" are based on optical printing of c41 negatives on both Fuji (original CA and CAII) and Kodak papers. Including pushing and pulling of negatives to control contrast and bleach bypass for reduced saturation in RA4.

[interneg]

Which I do. My "assumptions" are based on optical printing of c41 negatives on both Fuji (original CA and CAII) and Kodak papers. Including pushing and pulling of negatives to control contrast and bleach bypass for reduced saturation in RA4.

My own experience is that the sheet Fuji available in UK/Europe (coated in NL, cut & packed by Harman) can be a wee bit anaemic & that DP-II can be very contrasty if not controlled by a pre-flash (which is used by many of the labs that do enlarger RA4 printing) - and Endura seems fairly well behaved, if not as widely used & with neither DP-II or Endura being available in sheets, unless you order from a couple of German retailers who cut rolls down, people's options tend to be rather limited. My own perspective is that I'd rather have to get rid of too much contrast (by flash or mask) which is relatively easy compared to adding contrast back in. Interestingly, it's also worth noting that Ctein's Post Exposure which, when discussing the much more diverse range of papers on the market at the time it was published, suggests that the difference between the hardest and softest papers on the market in the 1990's equated to only about a grade (in the BW sense) or maybe a fragment more. Personally I'd be happy if Endura & the CA Velvet were readily available in 16x20 sheets...

[koraks]

Thanks for the suggestion on pre-flashing; I'll give that a try. I find CA-II not a wee bit anaemic, but horribly so, with brown, mottled blacks that I get with no other paper. I understand others have run into this as well, but have heard nothing about a solution. Apparently Fuji has stated that CA-II was formulated to meet the demand for a very cheap paper and some argue that they cut a few too many corners in achieving this. I indeed use the cut stuff distributed by a German supplier.

the difference between the hardest and softest papers on the market in the 1990's equated to only about a grade (in the BW sense) or maybe a fragment more
I readily believe this. But what about saturation? The only two flavors currently seem to be 'high' (Fuji) and 'extreme' (Kodak). Don't get me wrong; I quite like these papers (particularly Endura) for a lot of images. But for portraits, they do require the use of a more subtle film and subtle lighting. And of course, that way it's perfectly possible to get more subdued outcomes.


Personally I'd be happy if Endura & the CA Velvet were readily available in 16x20 sheets...
It would be nice for a start to see Kodak distribute cut sheet in the first place. And to see Fuji distribute Crystal Archive Supreme in sheets as well. Really, any size would do for me...

[interneg]

Thanks for the suggestion on pre-flashing; I'll give that a try. I find CA-II not a wee bit anaemic, but horribly so, with brown, mottled blacks that I get with no other paper. I understand others have run into this as well, but have heard nothing about a solution. Apparently Fuji has stated that CA-II was formulated to meet the demand for a very cheap paper and some argue that they cut a few too many corners in achieving this. I indeed use the cut stuff distributed by a German supplier.

I readily believe this. But what about saturation? The only two flavors currently seem to be 'high' (Fuji) and 'extreme' (Kodak). Don't get me wrong; I quite like these papers (particularly Endura) for a lot of images. But for portraits, they do require the use of a more subtle film and subtle lighting. And of course, that way it's perfectly possible to get more subdued outcomes.


It would be nice for a start to see Kodak distribute cut sheet in the first place. And to see Fuji distribute Crystal Archive Supreme in sheets as well. Really, any size would do for me...

I was trying to be diplomatic in describing the Fuji CA-II paper, but yes, I'd agree!

I believe that there was latterly one employee at Kodak cutting & packaging the sheet paper products & when they retired, apparently it was felt there was insufficient demand to continue. I've asked Alaris in the past about cut sheets & their comments were to the effect of: 'if there is sufficient demand'.

I think the current much more intense saturations came about out of perceived criticism over the years of the 'low' saturation of chromogenic papers for negs & a need to be able to compete with Ciba/ Ilfochrome in terms of saturation when exposed in a Lambda etc. As it is, I understand that the the saturation relates to the material's contrast, so processes that reduce contrast can be used to adjust saturation - so pre/post fogging, masking (can be filtered to specific colours) or adding sulfite to the developer could all be tried & one/ a combination might work. 'Pulling' in the RA4 developer seems to be recommended against, however. Do you work with a continuous drive machine, tubes or trays?

The nuclear option would be to make masked RGB separations, then dev them to a specific CI that gives you the saturation you want relative to the paper, a la Dye Transfer - how much work do you want to put into one chromogenic print?

[koraks]

I suppose I'm way too lazy for any serious masking ;) I tend to resort to changes to the chemistry/development and exposure to get as close to what I want. I think lighting is the key parameter to optimize. I work in trays at room temperature (Fuji Hunt mp90) for ra4 and a jobo at 100F for c41. I find that pushing and pulling c41 is quite effective in controlling contrast and saturation in one go (at the cost of apparent sharpness when pulling), while bleach bypass in ra4 shifts colors a bit and makes them more subdued without changing contrast, but the curve changes - it tends to become more shallow at the bottom.

Adding sulfite to the developer is something I still need to try, but am hesitant to do due to the likely loss of dmax.

How much do you preflash for reduced contrast? I assume it gets highlight detail a bit sooner before the shadows block up, but how pronounced can the effect expected to be?

BTW, I'm sort of fine with the lack of cut sheet as long as there are third parties willing to cut it for me at a reasonable cost. And otherwise I'll devise a rig so I can do it myself...

[Drew Wiley]

I still prefer RA4 over inkjet, esp for anything nuanced hues like skintones. In fact, todays color neg films and RA4 papers are better than ever. As far as contrast and saturation control go, no problem doing it all in a darkroom. If you like hybrid, fine. But don't claim it's any any better. It isn't. And yes, I mask sometimes.

[koraks]

Drew, what do you do to control contrast and saturation in C41/RA4?
And yes, I also prefer RA4 over inkjet. But it also has to do with my preference for getting my hands wet; not just the end result.

[interneg]

How much do you preflash for reduced contrast? I assume it gets highlight detail a bit sooner before the shadows block up, but how pronounced can the effect expected to be?

Fundamentally, it's the same deal as a BW pre-flash, main important difference being that your flash has to be balanced for neutrality - a neg of a grey card is probably best - and giving out guideline times won't help as it's highly dependent on your own process, enlarger light source, age of chemicals. A second enlarger will make it easier to do - and like any pre-flash, it'll separate the shadows a bit better & probably effectively wipe about a grade off the contrast. Post-fogging might also be worth a shot too, but masks are (unfortunately) the ultimate answer.

[Pere Casals]

ike any pre-flash, it'll separate the shadows a bit better

Interneg, it should be the counter. As we are printing a negative (RA-4), the shadows are in the paper shoulder, so additional preflash exposure pushes the shadows into the toe, this is compressing.

Instead, the highlights are pushed out of the paper toe into the linear zone, thus expanding the range and separating.

If preflashing just until some density appears in the paper, then every bit of exposure from the extreme highlights (very dense in the negative) is able to build some density in the paper, allowing detail in the highlights.

Preflashing should be more noticeable in the (dense in the negative) highlights, because the amount of exposure added there is relatively important, while in the shadows (thin density in the neagive) the added exposure is relatively very low.

[interneg]

Interneg, it should be the counter. As we are printing a negative (RA-4), the shadows are in the paper shoulder, so additional preflash exposure pushes the shadows into the toe, this is compressing.

Instead, the highlights are pushed out of the paper toe into the linear zone, thus expanding the range and separating.

If preflashing just until some density appears in the paper, then every bit of exposure from the extreme highlights (very dense in the negative) is able to build some density in the paper, allowing detail in the highlights.

Preflashing should be more noticeable in the (dense in the negative) highlights, because the amount of exposure added there is relatively important, while in the shadows (thin density in the neagive) the added exposure is relatively very low.

It's pretty clear you've never actually used a pre- or post-flash exposure. The effects I mentioned are very, very obvious if you use a pre- or post-flash. More to the point, you don't pre-flash until you see density, you pre-flash until just before you see density. It's all there in Ctein's book, complete with step wedges - of course there's some effect in the highlights, but nothing like as much as a post-exposure flash or various masking techniques. Pre- and post-flashes are not difficult techniques to try.

[koraks]

Thanks for the explanation and I'm grateful for the little discussion between the two of you, as it suggests it does work differently than I had expected (my expectation paralleled that of Pere). I need to try this - which will evidently be challenging with one enlarger, but I'm going to give it a shot. And yes, I understand the flash exposure needs to be color balanced.
Interneg, if you reflect on the difference between pre- and post flashing, what would you say the difference is? I would expect not much difference at all, but that's based on just logic, not experience.

[interneg]

Thanks for the explanation and I'm grateful for the little discussion between the two of you, as it suggests it does work differently than I had expected (my expectation paralleled that of Pere). I need to try this - which will evidently be challenging with one enlarger, but I'm going to give it a shot. And yes, I understand the flash exposure needs to be color balanced.
Interneg, if you reflect on the difference between pre- and post flashing, what would you say the difference is? I would expect not much difference at all, but that's based on just logic, not experience.

You might want to try the RH Designs paper flasher - though you'd need a set of colour printing filters for it & those are probably the trickiest thing to find - I've heard of opal diffusion being used under the lens with the neg still in the enlarger & that should potentially work quite well too.

To simplify it to extremes, you'd use a pre-flash if your shadows are crushing together, but your highlights are about right; and a post-flash if you've got nice punchy shadows with good separation, but your highlights are flying off the scale/ are too awkward to burn in - to give an idea, I was making some BW prints this afternoon, G4.5 gave amazing, punchy, separated shadows at 16s exposure, but the highlights would have needed at least a stop of burning with awkward fenceposts that would have been almost impossible - 2s of post-flash white light from an enlarger with head at top of column & a 50mm at f16 brought everything together perfectly. I graduated in the exposure, keeping the flash away from the foreground area that I wanted to keep the intensity of the core exposure in - essentially it's controlled fogging. You don't need a fancy enlarger for this sort of pre/post-flash - if you can find an LPL or cheapo medium format Durst with a colour head you'll be set.

[koraks]

For now, all I have in color is a simple Durst M305; I still need to figure out a way to do color with my 138. Color heads for that one are hard to come by around here, so odds are I'll have to cobble something together.

Anyway, I did a quick round of testing, and I have to admit that to my surprise, you are entirely right about the difference between pre- and post flash. To my surprise, as I honestly would have thought it didn't matter one jota if the flash exposure occurred before or after the main exposure, but what do you know, it makes quite a pronounced difference indeed. Goes to show I've got a lot to learn still.

I did 3 prints of the same negative, in the same chemicals, etc. The main exposure was also identical for all three exposures, which I color balanced by eye (turned out to be Y55/M60 6 seconds f/11 on Crystal Archive II 13x18cm paper from a normally processed Fuji Superia or C200 negative exposed at about EI100). The pre-flash and post-flash were also identical exposures, 1 second at f/16 (so roughly 8% of the main exposure) through the clear, but masked, leader of the film. I left the filter settings in place, which means the flash exposure was not perfectly balanced and tended towards green.
The regular exposure without flash looks normal for a sunlit +1 stop overexposed frame. Nothing blown out in the highlights, deepest shadows barely contain detail, but it's there.
The pre-flashed print shows more muted highlights. Shadows haven't changed much at all. Color balance is of course off a bit. In terms of contrast, one paper grade less in B&W speak sounds about right to me.
The post-flashed print also shows more muted highlights - more so than the pre-flashed print. More importantly, shadow contrast seems to be increased a bit as well. Color balance is also off and different from the pre-flashed print.

I also made a print in which I pre-flashed half of the frame and left the other half alone, then followed with a normal exposure. The difference is blatantly obvious in the highlights, but not the shadows.

All considered, it looks very much like the way you described it. I'll have to look into it further to get proper control of it, but at least, it evidently does something.

[interneg]

For now, all I have in color is a simple Durst M305; I still need to figure out a way to do color with my 138. Color heads for that one are hard to come by around here, so odds are I'll have to cobble something together.

Anyway, I did a quick round of testing, and I have to admit that to my surprise, you are entirely right about the difference between pre- and post flash. To my surprise, as I honestly would have thought it didn't matter one jota if the flash exposure occurred before or after the main exposure, but what do you know, it makes quite a pronounced difference indeed. Goes to show I've got a lot to learn still.

I did 3 prints of the same negative, in the same chemicals, etc. The main exposure was also identical for all three exposures, which I color balanced by eye (turned out to be Y55/M60 6 seconds f/11 on Crystal Archive II 13x18cm paper from a normally processed Fuji Superia or C200 negative exposed at about EI100). The pre-flash and post-flash were also identical exposures, 1 second at f/16 (so roughly 8% of the main exposure) through the clear, but masked, leader of the film. I left the filter settings in place, which means the flash exposure was not perfectly balanced and tended towards green.
The regular exposure without flash looks normal for a sunlit +1 stop overexposed frame. Nothing blown out in the highlights, deepest shadows barely contain detail, but it's there.
The pre-flashed print shows more muted highlights. Shadows haven't changed much at all. Color balance is of course off a bit. In terms of contrast, one paper grade less in B&W speak sounds about right to me.
The post-flashed print also shows more muted highlights - more so than the pre-flashed print. More importantly, shadow contrast seems to be increased a bit as well. Color balance is also off and different from the pre-flashed print.

I also made a print in which I pre-flashed half of the frame and left the other half alone, then followed with a normal exposure. The difference is blatantly obvious in the highlights, but not the shadows.

All considered, it looks very much like the way you described it. I'll have to look into it further to get proper control of it, but at least, it evidently does something.

Glad to hear it's working for you! Post-flash can be drastically less subtle than pre-flash - & it is important that the latter be fairly carefully controlled as it otherwise becomes a fogging exposure rather than a pre-flash.

& If you're looking for colour heads for the 138, the good news is that it's not a difficult enlarger to adapt to - another 138 user here (and DeVere 504), but with a DeVere dichroic on one of the 138 chassis, the other 138 still having its condenser head attached - that being said, I much prefer the DeVere 504 in some ways, but the 138 is very useful for wall projection etc. Kienzle & Heiland make new colour heads for the 138 & I imagine John Boyce at Odyssey Sales would likely happily sell you a 5x5" or 5x7 dichroic DeVere head & quite possibly have hardware to adapt it.

[koraks]

The 138 was a gift and even just to honor the fact that it was given to me and the person who entrusted me with it, I'll continue to use it. More importantly, it works quite well for me and I have very little reason to upgrade, even though I'm sure there are yet more convenient options out there. Like you said, it's fairly easy to adapt/modify due to its straightforward design. I'm currently running it with an Ilford 500 system (another gift). I half a half-assed plan to construct an RGB LED head for it. Yes, I'm aware of the availability of Heiland's (undoubtedly excellent) heads and the other options on the second hand market - but a friend describes me as a 'bottom feeder' and I think I'm going to honor title that as well - I worked hard to deserve it ;) Ah, it's just one of those things I have to look into one of these days. Last year I spent my time getting the basics of color printing down; it's only now that I seriously consider going larger as I feel I'm getting the hang of it and it's something I'll probably stick with as long as materials are available.

[Drew Wiley]

I wouldn't contemplate an LED additive system for actual color printing unless the prints are going to be small and you have enlarging lenses with very
wide max apertures. VC paper printing might work.

[koraks]

I thought about that, Drew, and it's one thing I need to test. These days there are quite powerful LED sources and I figured that since I generally print color no larger than 24x30cm (not inches!), I might just get away with it. But I agree that it's an ope question for now.

[interneg]

I wouldn't contemplate an LED additive system for actual color printing unless the prints are going to be small and you have enlarging lenses with very
wide max apertures. VC paper printing might work.

The Heiland system has plentiful light output - by all accounts at least equalling the output of the units they're designed to replace - Ilford had tested one & found it performed very closely to the MG500 unit - in other words, the 4x5 unit equates to about 600w of additively filtered MOSFET switching tungsten halogen. Given that most chromogenic papers today are pretty fast, I think the bigger issue is choking off the light output. I think you're underestimating the level of thought that has gone into designing them.

[Pere Casals]

It's pretty clear you've never actually used a pre- or post-flash exposure. The effects I mentioned are very, very obvious if you use a pre- or post-flash. More to the point, you don't pre-flash until you see density, you pre-flash until just before you see density. It's all there in Ctein's book, complete with step wedges - of course there's some effect in the highlights, but nothing like as much as a post-exposure flash or various masking techniques. Pre- and post-flashes are not difficult techniques to try.

I've been using preflash.

You were saying the same as Ctein Page 100 (http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf)

But 8-1 Figure (Page 100) shows (IMHO) that the middle fogged strip has better highligh separation.

I had been thinking in that effect... perhaps it depends in how fogging technique is used, and on how general exposure is corrected if fogging. What I found in my personal tests is that if fogging just the amount to overcome the "paper inertia" then any amount of highlight detail in the negative builts density, allowing separation in extreme highlights, while having little impact in the shadows.

Anyway I found better to use a right grade for general exposure, and then dodging/burning locally under the right contrast filters.

[interneg]

I've been using preflash.

You were saying the same as Ctein Page 100 (http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf)

But 8-1 Figure (Page 100) shows (IMHO) that the middle fogged strip has better highligh separation.

I had been thinking in that effect... perhaps it depends in how fogging technique is used, and on how general exposure is corrected if fogging. What I found in my personal tests is that if fogging just the amount to overcome the "paper inertia" then any amount of highlight detail in the negative builts density, allowing separation in extreme highlights, while having little impact in the shadows.

Anyway I found better to use a right grade for general exposure, and then dodging/burning locally under the right contrast filters.

Perhaps marginally (fractionally) better highlight separation - but because of the boost in effective speed from the flash, highlights will come in faster anyway, just not necessarily better separated - my results match Ctein's very closely & the shadow separation is definitely stronger than any improvement in the highlights.

[Drew Wiley]

The problem with LED's isn't their cumulative light output, but the imprecision of the key colors. You could hypoithetically add "trimmer" filters to narrow
the spectral outputs to get something more accurately true RGB; but that would itself greatly reduce light output. For color prints to look "clean" you need
to be fairly tight in your nm definition of all three colors. This isn't the case with VC black and white papers. A different kind of problem is that LED's are still an adolescent technology for this kind of application, which means if you need to replace certain bulbs or elements, that specific type might not still be around when you need it; even the manufacturer might be gone. It a fast-paced industry at the moment, and a some of the players are going to be left behind,
just like electronics tech. Halogen enlarger bulbs, by contrast, have been standardized for a long time.

[Pere Casals]

The problem with LED's isn't their cumulative light output, but the imprecision of the key colors.

Drew, if you use CRI 98 type LEDs you probably would have a high quality light source:

179370

179371

[koraks]

Drew, I also wondered about spectral purity and initially rejected the option due to my concerns in that respect. However, I later figured that decent results may be achievable, but that it requires some testing to see if it'll work. Again, an open question, but it may just work.

Pere, your option of a high CRI led source would also be an option if it is combined with dichroic filters. That's another option I consider.