Has anyone here done three-color photography on B/W with a Speed Graphic or similar?

[RLangham]

So I really like the look of Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii's three-color photos from the 1900's and 1910's, with their brilliant, life-like color response and shimmering rainbow artifacts around moving objects. My understanding is his camera was probably a falling plate model that automatically exposed three dry plates with different color filters in decently quick succession. "An elegant solution, for a more civilized age... not as clumsy or as random as slide film..."

There were even three-color cameras that could compensate for the subtly different color sensitivities of early panchromatic emulsions by altering the shutter speed, though I don't know if Prokudin-Gorskii had one. Obviously, these cameras are pretty obscure now (though they were made into the 50's for some applications, apparently,) and my chance of ever getting one is less than zero.

However, I think for static shots like landscapes, all you'd really need to mess around with this would be a decent pan film (check), a very stable tripod (check) and three different color filters of appropriate, known hues and about equal density (not check), as well as the photoshop or GIMP knowledge to composite the scans together (tentative check?). Has anyone tried this? Results? Any images they'd like to share?

I will say I do have film holders with clearly distinguishable notches (courtesy of previous owners) so that it wouldn't be hard to tell the three different exposures apart. What do you call those notches anyways? Index notches?

I'd also note that, if you were very smart, had the proper equipment and you were willing to mess around with doing different exposures, you could expose two regular sheets and an infrared sheet and simulate or approximate the false-color response of the old Aerochrome infrared color slide film, where infrared was reproduced as red, red became green, green became blue, and blue was blocked out altogether. That would be totally tubular, in my opinion. IDK, I think infrared sheet film is probably too rich for my blood.

[Tin Can]

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/25/how-to-create-full-color-photos-using-only-bw-film/

[Corran]

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?21100-In-Camera-Tricolor-separations-HOW

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?105362-Trichromatic-Photography

One of my experiments with this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JWlDBLGfuy4/VIVFsaxodqI/AAAAAAAAGHY/lDKiyrrPHkw/s800/colormotionfinished01s.jpg

The biggest problem for me was equalizing exposure and contrast ranges on the different filters. I can't remember exactly what my results were. Testing is key.

[RLangham]

Ah, Corran, I was hoping you had some relevant experience! That image has some excellent qualities to it. It definitely reminds me of a Prokudin-Gorskii image in that, even knowing the artifacts it would cause, neither of you shy away from photographing running water. Also, the color response in the forest is very similar to his best images. I do note a lot of violet artifacts: did lighting conditions change?

All in all, very interesting and beautiful picture, thanks for sharing!

Do you want to share any details of the production? Camera, film, exposure, development? I'd be especially interested in hearing what filters you were using.

It's a shame J. Lane only makes Speed Plates in Ortho, or I would legitimately try this with plates.

[Corran]

Thanks! A bit of artifacts in the forest area was probably wind blowing the fronds around.

I have used T-Max 100 mostly for experimenting with tri-color images. I wrote a bit about my experience here:
http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/2014/12/tri-color-photographs.html

Basically I used RGB filters of # 25, 58, and 47. Technically I think a 29 filter for red is more commonly recommended, I just didn't/don't have one so went with what I had. I found filter factors of 2.5 stops, 2, stops, and 3 stops respectively worked for me (just reading my notes, which is mostly what my blog was for :)).

I can't remember what I developed the film with but it was probably either Rodinal or Acufine back then.

My intention for doing the tri-color images was to use the motion of the water (or the leaves in it here) to make these rainbow effects. The conditions have to be just right to do it, with stuff in the water moving and the light illuminating it all properly. I've only ever got one other image like it, because I don't usually bring all those filters with me:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D_ei7kCnF5s/WKpPagWmGyI/AAAAAAAALzM/voGt22if03sK75E2Li7Nmd9N2XJU6Ht-QCLcB/s900/amicalolacreek-tricolor-2s.jpg

Pardon the 120 film here but that's what I had that time.

Take a look at those threads and you might find a lot more info from those that have done it. It's a fun experiment.

PS: Just last year I found a copy of Photographs For The Tsar for $2 at a flea market. Score! I should start looking for these types of images again, once spring hits.

[RLangham]

Another very nice image. Now you have me wanting to do it medium format as well.

I also need to look for that book that you mention. I've seen a lot of people impressed that there are color photos of WWII, and it's funny because there are actually better color photographs (in my opinion) from before WWI! Sure there were great impracticalities about most of the early color systems, but boy did they get the job done with a feel that has seldom been replicated.

If I do this and feel like I get any worthwhile result, I will certainly make or find a thread over in image sharing. Thanks especially for giving me specific color filters to look for!

Also thanks to Tin Can for the link! Some interesting images in that one.

[John Layton]

Bryan those are amazing!

Another good resource (understatement of the year, he is a walking encyclopedia)...for both tri-color and dye transfer - is James Browning in Lebanon, NH. I've known Jim forever (graduated from same HS during the last ice age). Google him.

[RLangham]

Bryan those are amazing!

Another good resource (understatement of the year, he is a walking encyclopedia)...for both tri-color and dye transfer - is James Browning in Lebanon, NH. I've known Jim forever (graduated from same HS during the last ice age). Google him.

Alright, I will. By coincidence I just ordered a film scanner from NH.

[Havoc]

I haven't got the restoration of my National Photocolor One-Shot started. But I already got replacement filters. I bought Lee TRI-RED (25), TRI_GREEN (58) and TRI_BLUE (47B) which are meant for color separation work.

[Corran]

RL, it's certainly easier to shoot these in MF. I recommend you standardize on filter order so you always know what image is what filter. I always just do R - G - B, though I considered doing it in filter factor order, from least to most.

Thanks John. I have the idea of a series of these, but like I said the conditions have to be just right and you've gotta have the filters ready when you find it...

[RLangham]

RL, it's certainly easier to shoot these in MF. I recommend you standardize on filter order so you always know what image is what filter. I always just do R - G - B, though I considered doing it in filter factor order, from least to most.

Thanks John. I have the idea of a series of these, but like I said the conditions have to be just right and you've gotta have the filters ready when you find it...

Yes, consistency would be a major factor... I would probably do RGB as well, as it's easy to remember. And of course, filter factor is going to be the bugbear for me. Is it more than a stop or two difference between any two of the filters?

[Corran]

I didn't find the filter factors to have that kind of disparity, but if you go for a more extreme red (29) filter you might hit a higher filter factor (recommended at 4 1/3 for standard photography, but I found the standard recommendation of 3 stops too much for an R25 filter when used for tri-color, so YMMV).

[RLangham]

I didn't find the filter factors to have that kind of disparity, but if you go for a more extreme red (29) filter you might hit a higher filter factor (recommended at 4 1/3 for standard photography, but I found the standard recommendation of 3 stops too much for an R25 filter when used for tri-color, so YMMV).

Alright, if I do this I'll probably go with the same filters you used then. Thanks again for the info.

If 3 stops is too much for r25, what did you use, about two and half? Two?

[Corran]

From my notes on the blog:

Red 25: 2.5 stops
Green 58: 2 stops
Blue 47: 3 stops

Seems to be what I arrived at.

[RLangham]

Wonderful. Thanks, Corran! So blue's the slowest. I wouldn't have guessed that!

[blue4130]

Here's my try at this. The pencils and hammer were 4x5 and the bottle and flowers were 35mm. Both using the same RGB filters. Just some cheap square ebay color filters with no markings or color codes.
200545

200546

200547

200548

[Dan Fromm]

http://struangray.com/articles/secondary_primaries/

https://galerie-photo.com/trichromie.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20190903073020/http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php

[RLangham]

Vance: very nicely done!

[C. D. Keth]

Perhaps grafmatics would help you get the needed exposures in somewhat shorter time with less manipulation of the camera. They even hold sheets in a multiple of three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RLangham]

Perhaps grafmatics would help you get the needed exposures in somewhat shorter time with less manipulation of the camera. They even hold sheets in a multiple of three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've looked at them for the general convenience of shooting faster, and I don't think I'll go that route. First off, they're very expensive (for my budget) on the used market in good shape, and second, I think they would lead to me shooting 4x5 too quickly and not treating it like it is, a very limited resource for me.

As for this application, I don't know that it would speed up the operation that much, since the real time-consuming thing is not dealing with the film holders, but changing the filters without moving the camera. Lord knows if I were a rich man I would just have a grafmatic, a separate identical lensboard and lens already cocked and set for each of the three exposures, and real TMAX 100 to shoot in it.

[Corran]

Keep your eyes peeled and you may find one cheap. I have 4, one of which was free and the others I paid half the typical price seen on eBay. They are super helpful and the numbers would be especially useful for this application (plus, 6 sheets is perfect for two tri-color images).

[Gary Beasley]

Another antique option I found were film holders with the color filters built in. These I found were in poor shape and I never rebuilt them to useability but thought the idea was interesting. A set of these would make the shooting much faster.

[Corran]

Whoa that's cool, mind posting some photos? Never heard of such a thing personally.
You could make some custom ones with gels, but any kind of defects on the gels would mess things up! Perhaps custom darkslides with gel filters attached?

[RLangham]

Another antique option I found were film holders with the color filters built in. These I found were in poor shape and I never rebuilt them to useability but thought the idea was interesting. A set of these would make the shooting much faster.

Yeah, I just saw an Adapt-A-Roll 620 back on eBay where the seller through in some of those. They didn't look like they were the same size or in good shape, but it was interesting to see.

[Gary Beasley]

I dont have them anymore, couldnt say what happened to them, its been a while.

[Gary Beasley]

Funny, while looking for them I found a couple of wooden glass plate holders with film sheaths. One needs some really tiny screws to put it back together.

[Gary Beasley]

I would imagine if you had gelatine filters the size of the film it would just be a matter of loading the film into a holder with the gel on top.

[RLangham]

I would imagine if you had gelatine filters the size of the film it would just be a matter of loading the film into a holder with the gel on top.

Yes, but I would worry about scratching. I wonder how it would work in practice...

[Drew Wiley]

It takes quite a bit of work up front, and a lot of time making densitometer plots, to learn how to do truly balanced separation negatives. Then, unless you're just winging it for fun (which some do), you need to be able to achieve precise registration when printing. This requires greater precision in-camera than ordinary circumstances, and precise position repeatability in either a registered enlarger carrier or registered contact printing frame. There is also the scanning and post-register option. As per filters and film: for TMX100 (undoubtedly the best color separation film choice currently available), I recommend 29red, 47blue, and 61 green. 47B will likely take too long an exposure, in relation to the others to be practical. Get good quality glass filters. Gels won't hold up well, and ones big enough for sheet film are going to be very expensive, if you can even find them. Acetate and polyester "gels" are not the real deal and are optically inferior. Your camera will have to be locked down rock solid, and extreme care has to be taken that nothing shifts when changing film holders. This is a slow business during exposure. So you need to find something that doesn't move, whether a studio setup or outdoors without wind. Of course, there are all kinds of "creative" ways to bend the rules, but that's a different story. Just for kicks, find and refurbish an old Devin or Curtis Tricolor camera that takes all three shots at once. It will be a helluva lot of work to fully restore, but some people enjoy that kind of shop torture challenge.

[Corran]

Luckily with Photoshop it's basically a one-click merge and registration, so no big deal on that if you are doing it digitally.

[RLangham]

Luckily with Photoshop it's basically a one-click merge and registration, so no big deal on that if you are doing it digitally.
Oh, yes, unless I decide to invest in that enlarger, I am pretty much just hybrid.

[Gary Beasley]

Going with good glass filters if there was a way to make a rotating disk with the filters mounted in them you could change to the next filter pretty quick. Oversize glass would be handy. Would take some inventive engineering to get a practical mount for that.
Alternatively something like the cokin system that would allow the glass filters to be dropped in would be pretty fast change too.

[RLangham]

Going with good glass filters if there was a way to make a rotating disk with the filters mounted in them you could change to the next filter pretty quick. Oversize glass would be handy. Would take some inventive engineering to get a practical mount for that.
Alternatively something like the cokin system that would allow the glass filters to be dropped in would be pretty fast change too.

I have the Cokin holder, but did they even make a mount that'll attach the holder to the Optar's (*googles it frantically*) 38mm filter threads?

[Tin Can]

Then why not try it first with all DIGI, but using affordable filters, some DSLR have B&W mode


Oh, yes, unless I decide to invest in that enlarger, I am pretty much just hybrid.

[RLangham]

Then why not try it first with all DIGI, but using affordable filters, some DSLR have B&W mode

For me personally, I don't own a DSLR or really any digital camera except my phone. I don't mind devoting a few B/W sheets and the chemicals to develop them, though. From everything I've seen I should be able to colorize and merge the negatives with software rather easily, assuming I expose them correctly in the first place.

[Tin Can]

In no way do I want you to stop experimenting!

It's ALL interesting

I look forward to your images

When I first joined here 9 years ago I was very shy about showing images for a long time, the experts can be daunting...

Now I post anything

almost...


For me personally, I don't own a DSLR or really any digital camera except my phone. I don't mind devoting a few B/W sheets and the chemicals to develop them, though. From everything I've seen I should be able to colorize and merge the negatives with software rather easily, assuming I expose them correctly in the first place.

[RLangham]

In no way do I want you to stop experimenting!

It's ALL interesting

I look forward to your images

When I first joined here 9 years ago I was very shy about showing images for a long time, the experts can be daunting...

Now I post anything

almost...

Oh, I certainly wasn't drawing any inference that you were discouraging me! What you said is definitely a good idea for anyone looking to try it who has a DSLR.

[Drew Wiley]

Digi and film are quite different in this respect, with an appropriate film having much greater linearity. But it takes a LOT more than a few sheets of film to learn the ropes.

[blue4130]

Digi and film are quite different in this respect, with an appropriate film having much greater linearity. But it takes a LOT more than a few sheets of film to learn the ropes.

Maybe I got lucky, but the wine bottle and flower shot were my FIRST attempt at this process. It's really not that difficult if you already have film photography down.

[C. D. Keth]

Another antique option I found were film holders with the color filters built in. These I found were in poor shape and I never rebuilt them to useability but thought the idea was interesting. A set of these would make the shooting much faster.

Trouble with that would be dust, anyway. Filters in the holder project any dust from the filter sharply onto the film. You already have 6 surfaces per image (3 sheets, front and back) to try and keep dust-free. Add a filter close to each piece of film and you increase that to 12 surfaces all combining their dust onto one photo. I would not want to spot that print.

If I were doing this, I would use a cokin type holder for square filters. Filter changes are quick and easy if you have everything ready. Expose in either ascending or descending order of filter factor so you’re not juggling settings around too much. You could get your three exposures as quick as a minute or minute and a half with regular holders and even less with a grafmatic and some practice.

[jnantz]

i use an old land portrait camera that takes 6 views on a 4x5 sheet and i am able to make tri chrome stereo views without much fuss. RLangham - you might look on ebay to see if you can find some sort of passport camera that uses film that you can still get and that way you won't have to worry about your subject moving between exposures or problems with registration because all the images will be taken at the same time. the unfortunate problem with these cameras is that you will learn the hard way that they are optimized for your subject being 8 feet away or you will end up with picturesque ( read soft ) views. have fun!
john
this one was taken with a graflex slr with cheep gels...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jknan/13272024393/in/dateposted-public/

[Drew Wiley]

It's not so easy to get balanced exposures; the filters differ. You either have to fiddle with the aperture and risk differences of depth of field between exposures, or risk getting into recip failure territory. Add to this the even bigger fact that the gamma of a film can significantly vary between these hard contrast filters, esp at long exp times.
Then that has to be corrected by independent development of each. That is why I recommend TMX100. If you get the exposures right, you can develop all three sheets together for the same time and get matching contrast. But the point is to get the signature of a very long contrast scale, which can be manipulated later. That is why tricolor exposures did such wonderful things for still life shots when they were dye transfer printed. You need a film with a very long straight line to begin with. But TMX also was engineered with special characteristics to begin with which make it suitable for tricolor work, essentially replacing Super-XX yet even more convenient, with much finer grain.
Most people aren't aware of that fact today.

[RLangham]

It's not so easy to get balanced exposures; the filters differ. You either have to fiddle with the aperture and risk differences of depth of field between exposures, or risk getting into recip failure territory. Add to this the even bigger fact that the gamma of a film can significantly vary between these hard contrast filters, esp at long exp times.
Then that has to be corrected by independent development of each. That is why I recommend TMX100. If you get the exposures right, you can develop all three sheets together for the same time and get matching contrast. But the point is to get the signature of a very long contrast scale, which can be manipulated later. That is why tricolor exposures did such wonderful things for still life shots when they were dye transfer printed. You need a film with a very long straight line to begin with. But TMX also was engineered with special characteristics to begin with which make it suitable for tricolor work, essentially replacing Super-XX yet even more convenient, with much finer grain.
Most people aren't aware of that fact today.

Well, thank you for the advice. I haven't used TMX100 in 4x5" size yet. Certainly I won't try this with Shanghai 100!

[Corran]

Maybe I got lucky, but the wine bottle and flower shot were my FIRST attempt at this process. It's really not that difficult if you already have film photography down.

Same. First try was the photo I posted on the first reply I made.

It's not rocket science. I'm sure you'll be fine.

Good choice of subject btw Vance.

[Drew Wiley]

I think you'd discover a staggering qualitative difference between what optimized film protocol can do and simply winging it and trying to bully it in PS afterwards. Neither approach is necessarily "correct". There's nothing wrong with fun for fun's sake. But people have spent a good part of their lifetimes trying to perfect this kind of thing. That's why it's such a rare skill these days. What has dramatically changed is the ability to scan and conveniently post-register your shots IF you are doing hybrid output. I'm not quarreling with Corran - we're really talking about two different things. By analogy, one can learn the ABC's of developing and printing b&w film and paper in a single day. But why do so many of us spend decades perfecting a relatively simple three bath premise? Same reason buying a ten dollar set of pigments and a brush in an art store does not make one Rembrandt. Goofing around is one thing. Learning a predictable and controlled high-quality color printing regimen is another thing entirely. Regardless of how you do that, what is the point if you don't achieve something superior, or with distinct characteristics, over the routine digital camera options these days? Convenience-wise, we're all dinosaurs. But there are other personal rewards for doing things the hard way.

[Corran]

Being a really good technician also doesn't make you Rembrandt or [insert artist name here]. But that's going down a different path with regards to discussing "art." Anyway, if one has a decent grasp on a predictable exposure and development strategy for b&w film and a decent set of filter factors worked out, this process is relatively simple. I'll leave the handful of people who can or would try making tri-color darkroom prints of some variety to perfect that aspect - I'm not that invested in the process or idea, I just think the color blending effect is neat in this application.

[Tin Can]

Our expert is not Rembrandt

DIY anyway one wants

Then go over to see what color is about https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?156152-Medium-Format-Digital-Images&p=1537290&viewfull=1#post1537290

ymmv

[Drew Wiley]

Like I just stated, we're talking about two entirely different things. Anyone who has looked at the results of an accomplished printmaker knows the difference. I'm kinda stuck in another gear at the moment, doing things with optical chromogenic printing people said couldn't be done. But I do very well understand what's involved in making matched sets of color separations, and there is a helluva lot to it. Start with densitometer plotting and see if you can get all three curves almost precisely overlapped the total distance. And that's just getting to first base. But what I really intended to mention is per toys. If someone has a solid studio monorail setup, they might recall that Sinar's first venture into digital capture, called Epolux, involved a 3-color rotating automated turret in front of the lens. Probably nearly every one of those has ended up in landfill by now; but if any are left in storage anywhere, they could probably be acquired for free and repurposed for tricolor film work instead.

[C. D. Keth]

If someone has a solid studio monorail setup, they might recall that Sinar's first venture into digital capture, called Epolux, involved a 3-color rotating automated turret in front of the lens. Probably nearly every one of those has ended up in landfill by now; but if any are left in storage anywhere, they could probably be acquired for free and repurposed for tricolor film work instead.

I noticed while looking for other things that there's an expolux shutter on ebay right now.

[Tin Can]

Read the listing

LOL


I noticed while looking for other things that there's an expolux shutter on ebay right now.

[Drew Wiley]

Just some odd n' ends on Ebay, not the necessary filter turret itself. No sense paying for any of that. You can get something equivalent new from Edmund or rig one up yourself. But that's just if someone is serious about studio tricolor with film, in which case you'd also want to set up a copy camera with a pin-registered back etc fpor still-life work. No sense if this is just a fun wiggle the toes in the water proposition. But that's how lots of us got hooked on serious darkroom work of one type or another to begin with, so ya just never know. But today there are multiple potential paths involving strictly film & darkroom, vs all sorts of hybrid, vs all-digital, so pick your poison and have fun with it.

[jnantz]

Well, thank you for the advice. I haven't used TMX100 in 4x5" size yet. Certainly I won't try this with Shanghai 100!

too many purists in this world
sure try it with shanghai try it with fresh film, expired film
nothing but fun to be had, unless you want to recreate what the
russian photographer from 1911 did, then you will have to get panchromatic glass plates
and a camera similar to his or you will be doomed to fail :)

don't forget to have fun!
john

[blue4130]

Certainly I won't try this with Shanghai 100!

Haha that is exactly the film I used for my 4x5 shots. It worked just fine.

[Drew Wiley]

Are you implying that it is just fine for Haha results? That would be logical. Sure you can do that. You can drive around with three flat tires on a car too, but it won't be very efficient. I wouldn't call that insight being a purist - just common sense. Certain panchromatic films were designed with this purpose in mind, most weren't. This is also a scenario where you want film with as much batch to batch consistency as possible, otherwise what works one time might not the next. That's not being a purist either; I learned it the hard way a long time ago.

[jnantz]

Are you implying that it is just fine for Haha results? That would be logical. Sure you can do that. You can drive around with three flat tires on a car too, but it won't be very efficient. I wouldn't call that insight being a purist - just common sense. Certain panchromatic films were designed with this purpose in mind, most weren't. This is also a scenario where you want film with as much batch to batch consistency as possible, otherwise what works one time might not the next. That's not being a purist either; I learned it the hard way a long time ago.

I'm not quite sure what "Haha results" means; and I am not sure why using whatever films one has on-hand is equated with driving a car with 3 wheels flat. Is it because quality is crippled? I've never had quality-problems with a variety of films fresh or expired ( kodak, foma, forte, astia, fuji, ilford, even c41+e6 i process + use as b+w films ); but, I've never used Shanhai or Lucky, I had imagined they would be about the same as everything else. I'm not projecting with 3 magic lanterns, or pin registering on color paper, making my own kodachromes or autochromes but scanning and using photoshop and i gave up on perfection decades ago because as far as I can see there is no such thing. Maybe you make your trichromes differently, hand print them on color paper &c and or used the separation negatives for Dye Transfer prints and you need to use specialized films, I'm just doing them for personal enjoyment.

[blue4130]

Are you implying that it is just fine for Haha results? That would be logical. Sure you can do that. You can drive around with three flat tires on a car too, but it won't be very efficient. I wouldn't call that insight being a purist - just common sense. Certain panchromatic films were designed with this purpose in mind, most weren't. This is also a scenario where you want film with as much batch to batch consistency as possible, otherwise what works one time might not the next. That's not being a purist either; I learned it the hard way a long time ago.

Not sure what your problem is, but it seems that you want to discourage or make this as complicated as possible. Isn't photography supposed to be fun? Anyway, I know that my tri-colors are not perfect, but I still enjoy them.

[Havoc]

Are you implying that it is just fine for Haha results? That would be logical. Sure you can do that. You can drive around with three flat tires on a car too, but it won't be very efficient. I wouldn't call that insight being a purist - just common sense. Certain panchromatic films were designed with this purpose in mind, most weren't. This is also a scenario where you want film with as much batch to batch consistency as possible, otherwise what works one time might not the next. That's not being a purist either; I learned it the hard way a long time ago.

Nothin wrong with taking a photo of a color check card with each fresh batch. Certainly easy that way if you're going hybrid.

[Drew Wiley]

Precisely the opposite - I'm giving firm clues how to make it EASIER using correct tools. Sure you can fix a bicycle with a pipe wrench; but that's how you strip bolts too. Even PS curve correction is much more efficient if your tricolor curves are close to begin with. No, I'm not a shoot-from-the-hip type; bullets are too expensive, and so is 8x10 film. I want to know what I'm aiming at. But if some of you want to teach that sloppy is better, it's your perfect right. But I don't think you're really helping anyone doing that.

[C. D. Keth]

Precisely the opposite - I'm giving firm clues how to make it EASIER using correct tools. Sure you can fix a bicycle with a pipe wrench; but that's how you strip bolts too. Even PS curve correction is much more efficient if your tricolor curves are close to begin with. No, I'm not a shoot-from-the-hip type; bullets are too expensive, and so is 8x10 film. I want to know what I'm aiming at. But if some of you want to teach that sloppy is better, it's your perfect right. But I don't think you're really helping anyone doing that.

I think Drew is right on here. Making color separation negatives IS a discipline where an ounce of technical preparation will prevent a pound of wasted film, time, chemicals, and strife later. There are too many variables to fudge your way through completely. You will just chase yourself in circles and waste 3x the film in the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RLangham]

Guys, I'm sorry I started this. Obviously whether done hybrid or not, it's a difficult process to pull off that requires thoughtful preparation as well as some real time spent experimenting with exposure and development.

I'm actually not going to try messing with tricolor photography right now. It sounds like it's liable to cost too much for too little payoff.

[Tin Can]

Don't be sorry, I hope you do try it one day when you are ready and do it the way you want to

Armchair quarterbacks never win any game...


Guys, I'm sorry I started this. Obviously whether done hybrid or not, it's a difficult process to pull off that requires thoughtful preparation as well as some real time spent experimenting with exposure and development.

I'm actually not going to try messing with tricolor photography right now. It sounds like it's liable to cost too much for too little payoff.

[RLangham]

Don't be sorry, I hope you do try it one day when you are ready and do it the way you want to

Armchair quarterbacks never win any game...

Oh, I'll certainly get around to it. A working front shutter will probably be the prerequisite... I come to realize that this is going to take more precise exposures than I can manage using the time exposure feature on the back shutter. Also I can't get any TMAX into my budget right noe!

[Drew Wiley]

There's nothing armchair quarterback about it if someone actually knows what they're talking about. For decades people spent entire careers doing color separations. Off-brand film is going to cost you way more in money and time and sheer frustration in the long run; and you'll never land securely on first base anyway, let alone get past it. It's better to do your densitometer boot camp up front. And you could easily burn up several 50-sheet boxes of TMax just learning to play the chords. Been there, done that. Some dye transfer printers allocated 15 sheets of film per image. Filter factors differ at long exposures, and many pan films simply cannot get all three separations in synch. The tremendous advantage of doing it on pan film with a long balanced straight line is that you can dig about ten stops of accurate color separation out of it. You simply cannot do that with any color film. Someone is going to argue about the significant latitude of traditional color neg films, but in that case the dye curves overlap on a significant portion of the scale and are not crisply separated at all . And simply shooting and PS-balancing a color checker chart is only the equivalent range of color transparency film, even less range. But the gist of this is that you need to match the separations to your intended output medium.

[Corran]

Guys, I'm sorry I started this.

Welcome to the forum I guess :(.

Just ignore Drew honestly. Make your own way. Can't learn until you fail after all, regardless of process/difficulty.

[Dan Fromm]

Guys, I'm sorry I started this.

You have nothing to apologize for. You asked a question, people responded and the thread drifted. Thread drift is a fact of life on on-line forums. The original poster doesn't own the discussion and can't control where it goes.

[jnantz]

Guys, I'm sorry I started this. Obviously whether done hybrid or not, it's a difficult process to pull off that requires thoughtful preparation as well as some real time spent experimenting with exposure and development.

I'm actually not going to try messing with tricolor photography right now. It sounds like it's liable to cost too much for too little payoff.


its really not that hard, and its too bad folks make it seem harder than it actually is !
to be honest, the hardest part is stacking all 3 layers on eachother perfectly after you scan them, and before you do anything else,
( you use the cropping tool and make them all exactly the same so when you stack them in your layers box in photoshop they sit right and don't "frill". )
honestly, if you are going the hybrid route it takes less than no time to expose the negatives, no time to process the film and no time to drag and drop the files into their own image...
i hate to suggest this on a LF website, but you can easily do a dry run with a miniature 35 and see how simple it is.. and then use a bigger negative once you are hooked ...
and then once you are hooked see what film works best for you and fine tune your approach with hard core technical revisions to your boot strap origin story.

[Drew Wiley]

What if a person actually sees some qualitative potential in this? A half-baked approach means they're just going to have to start all over at some point. A lot of time and money will just be wasted - for what? Saving twenty bucks on a box of discount film? Anybody can bake a cake too. Whether it tastes good or not is a different story. Yeah, some things have gotten easier doing hybrid workflow. Not necessarily better, but certainly faster. But if you start out with roadkill, just how much time do you want to waste trying to make it look alive again? Once someone actually starts plotting tricolor curves the truth comes out. On this thread, even the need to match curves is being called in question, or apparently not even perceived. How are you going to downsize to an economical 35mm or 120 film test unless the film involved is capable of matched tricolor development times on the very same roll? Only one film can do that, and it's TMax100. Then you still have to establish actual filter factors, which might not even reasonably match the published factors at long exposures. So what you might get away with shooting 35mm film at relatively large apertures is likely to need recalibration when switching to LF and small lens stops. So if you do go the small film route first, stop down as much as your lens will allow. That will obviously affect sharpness due to diffraction, but that's a non-issue for gray card or color chart testing.

[jnantz]

What if a person actually sees some qualitative potential in this? A half-baked approach means they're just going to have to start all over at some point. A lot of time and money will just be wasted - for what? Saving twenty bucks on a box of discount film? Anybody can bake a cake too. Whether it tastes good or not is a different story. Yeah, some things have gotten easier doing hybrid workflow. Not necessarily better, but certainly faster. But if you start out with roadkill, just how much time do you want to waste trying to make it look alive again? Once someone actually starts plotting tricolor curves the truth comes out. On this thread, even the need to match curves is being called in question, or apparently not even perceived. How are you going to downsize to an economical 35mm or 120 film test unless the film involved is capable of matched tricolor development times on the very same roll? Only one film can do that, and it's TMax100. Then you still have to establish actual filter factors, which might not even reasonably match the published factors at long exposures. So what you might get away with shooting 35mm film at relatively large apertures is likely to need recalibration when switching to LF and small lens stops. So if you do go the small film route first, stop down as much as your lens will allow. That will obviously affect sharpness due to diffraction, but that's a non-issue for gray card or color chart testing.

Drew:
I am certain your way is fantastic, and well worth pursuing, but it isn't the only way. If someone just wants to try large format photography for the first time, should they go out and purchase a $20,000 20x24 Ebony camera and set of 5 brand newS+S 2ox24 film holders and 4 boxes of tmx, a schneider xxl 1200mm lens and 4 boxes of tmx for testing the waters and seeing if Large format photography is worth doing, or should they purchase a maybe a graphic viewII, a few used film holders, an old wollensak 150 lens and a box of ilford hp5+ ?
I'm sure some might say if the hopeful LF candidate might as well spend the $35,000 on the ULF camera, and while they are at it a densitometer, a clean room, drum scanner and new darkroom, but some might also say the calumet might be good enough.

[Drew Wiley]

There are certain basics. Low budget, high budget aren't the issue. What does matter is having the information on the film to begin with. And in this case, all three exposures need to be balanced in that respect, not only at midtone, but over the complete range. Otherwise, it's not true tricolor photography, but something less. If that's the look you want, fine. People do all kinds of fun things. No crime. Yes, I do have a cleanroom as well as a couple of densitometers. That's fairly routine for color printmakers. If lint and dust marks are somebody's idea of creativity, that's their artistic right. With tricolor you'll have a real fun time with dust marks. Triple the fun. Want to try HP5 for color separations? Just do it. But it's not the film that even Ilford recommends for that application, and there's a reason why not. Nor is a film like ACROS ideal because it's not even true panchromatic, but orthopan, which means the red filter reproduction will be truncated at some point. So Corran just lucked out using a 25 rather than 29 filter.

[grat]

I would think a rectangular strip with three square filters in it, placed in a cokin-style filter holder, would allow for rapid switching between colors, and a wide-latitude film (Bergger pancro?) would help lessen the impact of the different filters.

I'm fairly certain Prokudin-Gorsky didn't have a densitometer or a histogram function, yet his plates scanned into Photoshop a century later with minimal fuss.

Granted, he did it that way because it was the only way then, but there's some merit in the process anyway.

[Jim Noel]

"There were even three-color cameras that could compensate for the subtly different color sensitivities of early panchromatic emulsions by altering the shutter speed, though I don't know if Prokudin-Gorskii had one. Obviously, these cameras are pretty obscure now (though they were made into the 50's for some applications, apparently,) and my chance of ever getting one is less than zero."

The "one-shot" cameras had a single lens and shutter, they did not and could not, alter the speed for each film. The 3 sheets of film were at varying distances from the shutter depending on the color, thus wavelength, of the light to be recorded. They were very heavy. My 2.25x3.25 probably weight 20+pounds. They were intriguing cameras, and I always used a tripod. That was a really long time ago. I sold my camera when I went off to the university in 1945. Would I like one again? NO.although the dye transfer print made with the negatives were unsurpassed in beauty, they were a real PIA.One error near the end of the process, and you started over.
Sadly , I don't even have a print from that period in my life.