Should Kodak/Fuji rethink color sheet film for room temp processing?

[sharktooth]

From other threads here it seems clear that large format is now the realm of artists and hobbyists. It doesn't make sense any more for daily professional use, and hasn't for years now. Maybe it's time to rethink large format colour film to suit the existing market.

The current color film processes (C-41 and E-6) were made for high volume commercial lab use, which made sense at a time when there was high volume, and commercial labs were everywhere. Nowadays, most of those commercial labs are long gone, and the ones that are still around are using old equipment that nobody still makes.

When I first got into photography in the 70's black and white was already gone from the mainstream, and was a niche thing that color film is today. Black and white photography still flourished with artists and hobbyists since it could easily be processed at home with relatively inexpensive equipment.

I started doing color film processing in the late 70's using Agfachrome 50S film. Agfa made a chemical processing kit that could be used at room temperature. The times were longer due to the lower temperatures (compared to E-6) so it was less sensitive to small errors in processing time or temperature. Unfortunately, Agfa switched to an E-6 compatible film in the 80's and it was no longer home development friendly.

I think Kodak and Fuji would be wise to rethink color film for the current market. It seems like scanning rather than printing is the way things are going, so there's more ways to digitally correct for color balance issues than there was in the past. Maybe a less perfect color film with a more user friendly process is the better way to go now, especially for sheet film.

[Oren Grad]

C-41 and E-6 kits with instructions that include time/temp combinations down to 70-75 F are available now. What else are you looking for?

[ic-racer]

Scanning seems to make no sense to me. Why not just use a digital camera in the first place. Also, since it is easier to heat water on a simple closed loop electronic circuit (rather than COOL WATER), tight temperature control is much less expensive when recommended processing times are ABOVE room temperature. As is the present case.

[otto.f]

Cinestill offers Cs41 with flexible temperatures and I saw very good results with it even with 35mm film. I doubt whether the old big names in analogue photography deserve their reputation to date, there are quite a few new players which have a reputation to win and a lot to loose as starters on this market. .

[sharktooth]

I could be wrong, but it's always been my understanding that low temp processing of C-41 and E-6 produce very badly mismatched color curves. What I'm hoping for is a tweaked film and process that is better suited to low temperature home processing. Something that's optimized for the real world uses today. It's the same reason that I don't think anyone would be rushing to buy a new Ilford B&W film that is optimally processed at 100 degress for 3.25 minutes.

[r.e.]

Scanning seems to make no sense to me. Why not just use a digital camera in the first place.

Money, although Fuji's medium format digital cameras are getting there on quality and are within reach financially. At this point, there's also an argument for certain of the newer full frame 35mm digital cameras. The cost of colour sheet film makes those options look all the more attractive.

[Drew Wiley]

"Real world use" simply means an appropriate tempering bath, tempering box, precise mixing valve, or thermoregulator - something PREDICTABLE of constantly sustained corrected temperature. The problem with 20C room temperature is that you often have to add a cold water line or chiller etc to one of the above anyway.
And once high volume processing is no longer the priority with color film manufacturers, there will be no financial incentive for them to keep making the film at all, much less a niche film specially tweaked for .00001% of their customer base who won't even invest in the simplest basics. Yes, a fancy thermoregulator is nice; but an oversized tempering box for your ingredient bottles sufficient to keep developer solution per se on target plenty long enough can be made out of a big plastic pail if needed - a five dollar investment at worst.

[Bruce Watson]

Scanning seems to make no sense to me. Why not just use a digital camera in the first place.

You know of a camera with a 5x4 sensor that allows separate manipulation of lens and sensor planes? Please, tell us. I would love such a camera.

[Bruce Watson]

From other threads here it seems clear that large format is now the realm of artists and hobbyists. It doesn't make sense any more for daily professional use, and hasn't for years now. Maybe it's time to rethink large format colour film to suit the existing market.

There hasn't been any R&D done in film, chemical processing, or darkroom printing in decades. I don't think you're going to see any now. Especially not from Kodak, which isn't really in the business any more anyway.

The thing that used to drive film, and probably still does, is cinema. When Hollywood finally drops film, you will to. Because color film manufacturing will cease.

[sperdynamite]

Absolutely not, get a Jobo.



The thing that used to drive film, and probably still does, is cinema. When Hollywood finally drops film, you will to. Because color film manufacturing will cease.

I used to think about that but 1. Kodak's problem is supplying enough film, interest in it has not been an issue. 2. If instant film can be brought back from the dead someone will move heaven and earth to make a C41 film.

[Drew Wiley]

Digital shooting is a whole different ballgame. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same. The whole point with actual color film for me is that I can print it in my own darkroom facility to a very high degree of quality, and avoid all the secondary jumping through hoops. Even if masks are in place, they're there to modify the actual original exposure itself, integrally and directly. Nothing is lost, just subtly emphasized or de-emphasized. And I like the more subtle tonal and hue control possible, versus being stuck on the inkjet path if a digital camera were used (though there are other options, just not as conveniently). Don't try to re-train a trumpet player to play a fiddle instead. Different tones.

[Bruce Watson]

I used to think about that but 1. Kodak's problem is supplying enough film...

Kodak, last I heard, wasn't in the film business anymore. Who owns the gigantic film coating line in Rochester these days? Anyone know? Oren?

And why don't you think it's a supply problem? Kodak, before bankruptcy, said demand was so low that they were at minimum production (I remember something about a single shift four days a week). They were having problems with finished film going out of date in storage due (and being scrapped) because of low orders from retailers. That's not a supply problem, that's a demand problem.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Who owns the gigantic film coating line in Rochester these days? Anyone know?...

Yes. Eastman Kodak Company. And, according to someone with industry connections, demand at least for 35mm film is exceeding Kodak's capacity to finish it from master rolls:



https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/three-new-film-photography-products-from-fujifilm.183254/#post-2407594

[Oren Grad]

There hasn't been any R&D done in film, chemical processing, or darkroom printing in decades.

Little or no fundamental R, but a fair bit of D in recent years - Kodak reformulating Ektachrome to enable bringing it back to production, new-generation Multigrade RC emulsion at Harman/Ilford, ongoing work at Adox to bring additional films and papers to (or back to) production in their new facility, to name some obvious examples.

[Drew Wiley]

Kodak is still making film, and even doing some investment to increase production. The marketing entity side of it is a little more involved, and not the old Kodak per se. The problem all along is that they had so many tentacles into so many things, and were so captive to the stock market, that they couldn't juggle all the eggs at once anymore. If they had operated and thought like a smaller dedicated film and paper producer instead, seeking just a net profit instead of still trying to keep up with the Jones's on Wall Street, they could have managed all along, that is, if divided into several smaller independent companies. But publicly traded corporations aren't run like that, so it's been smoke and mirrors huffing and puffing ever since they put much of their own significant profits into buying back their own stock just before it plummeted, instead of using that money to upgrade their business and manufacturing model. But that's all ancient history now. Even if their film selection is much smaller than it once was, and overall sales volume much smaller, the quality and performance of their film products is better than ever. Not dead by any means.

[Mark Sampson]

It's just that few of us realize the just how big Kodak's Research Labs were, and how much it cost (in time as well as money) to invent new processes and films.
I was, if not 'there', at least down the hall, and believe me, the amount of testing and analysis done on any new product is extremely lengthy and expensive.
EK began cutting Research Labs' budget in the mid-90s; there must be very little left, and the deep institutional knowledge that made photographic innovations possible must be almost gone. I'm sure that the True Believers still there are doing a great job, but they are few compared to the heyday.
I'm sure it would be possible to re-design E-6 to work at 68F, but no corporation would ever attempt it, simply because they could never recoup the expense.

[LabRat]

80°F for C-41 is not hard to hold for the 3 something minutes of development... Allowing the temp to fall from slightly above will slowly fall in that time window...

E-6 is a little more critical, but with getting everything ready before hand and a larger water bath, not difficult...

With C-41, you can develop at different temps, but will have a specific color balance at each temp, so you need to be consistent...

Steve K

[sharktooth]

We're in a catch 22 situation with large format color film. Color films are designed for high speed machine processing, since time is money. Machines are expensive though, so you need to have a lot of product running through those machines to justify the cost. The problem these days is that the volume of film needing processing is tiny now, and there's hardly anyone left who can make money processing color sheet film. It was nice that Kodak brought back Ektachrome, but finding someone that can do E-6 processing is like finding hen's teeth. The catch 22 is that you can buy the film, but you may not be able to get it processed, and if you can't get it processed you won't buy the film. I don't see a happy ending with that strategy.

I think the time has come to acknowledge that film will never be a mass market product like it was in the past, so we shouldn't keep trying to make it suit the mass market. It needs to be tailored to the artists and hobbyists now if it's to remain viable. Black and white film has lasted since it's been doing exactly that. It survived since it's can be done simply and easily without expensive equipment.

Another option might be to go back to the original roots of Kodak success, where they sold the film with the processing (you take the picture, we do the rest). I remember shooting lots of Kodachrome and sending it off to Kodak in the prepaid mailers. Maybe something like that could work again now.

[Ironage]

I have been concentrating on my color processing and have been using a tempered bath in a restaurant bin heated by a Anova Suss vide. Now I think temperature control for B&W processing is more troublesome!

[Tin Can]

KODAK is not thinking about much

nor listening

[tykos]

Absolutely not, get a Jobo.



I used to think about that but 1. Kodak's problem is supplying enough film, interest in it has not been an issue. 2. If instant film can be brought back from the dead someone will move heaven and earth to make a C41 film.

[i think that:]
kodak is having troubles supplying film because it's using old freezed master rolls or the research production facilities. The big machines that produced film in the old era would put out LOTS of film, way more than the quantity needed for the current instagram posts' rate. And revamping those old machines may be a little complicated, they are incredibly complex and all the old mantainance workers are gone.
Regarding research: there are no film engineers anymore. Adox would love to produce some new bw films, but they say it's quite impossible to find an engineer, they usually "capture" a young generic chemical engineer in the wild and teach him/her all film things, if he/her i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶e̶s̶c̶a̶p̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶s̶o̶n̶ is willing to work there for some time. Colour/slide reasearch is 100x more complicated, i think.

[Drew Wiley]

Kodak is doing a lot of fresh coating. That's an evident fact from both completely new products like E100 chrome film, and from successive new batch numbers on longstanding popular films like TMax.

[Tin Can]

Good to know


Kodak is doing a lot of fresh coating. That's an evident fact from both completely new products like E100 chrome film, and from successive new batch numbers on longstanding popular films like TMax.

[Bernice Loui]

Why ?

Given the intensive research and development that was applied to achieve color film image excellence there little if any justification to alter the entire color film system for "room temperature" processing out of "ease" for those that do not fully appreciate or understand the very real demands and needs of GOOD color film images.

If plants require good clean water and sunlight to grow, why try giving plants anything else?

Seems these days, film photography has become far more "hobbyist" centric than serious color film image maker centric where the serious color film folks knew what is GOOD color and accepted what was required to achieve this. There are a few relics from that era that still remember what was required and demanded to achieve good color on film. Think-suspect this is not quite true today as opinion-perception has become the greater deciding factor.


Bernice

[sharktooth]

Like it or not, the reality is that film has to be "hobbyist" centric now to survive. The mass market went digital long ago, and it's never coming back to film. Black and white film exists today since the "hobbyist/artist" market kept it viable. The black and white film market went through this catharsis at least 50 years ago. It was a tiny market then, and remains a tiny market now, but it has survived the digital age quite nicely thank you very much.

As I stated in the original post, Agfachrome 50S Professional film could be processed at room temperature using Agfa chemicals. This is more than 40 years ago. I'm sure that Kodak and Fuji have done research on room temp processing long ago, but it would never have made sense for production then, since volume throughput would be the key to profits. The Agfa process was an anomaly in that era, since it was catering to the "hobbyist", and probably against their better interest at the time.

My point is that machine processing of color film may survive for 35mm in the foreseeable future, but the prospects look grim for 120 and especially large format. We're losing large format film at an alarming rate, and the people that process it are disappearing even faster. The only way to keep it around is for everyone involved, from manufacturers to users, acknowledges that the market is going to be small, and probably similar in size to the black and white large format market now. The black and white market is hobbyists and artists who are primarily doing things themselves. That's just the way it is, and the only way it can work.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, making film is apparently art as well as science, and therefore dependent not only on well-tuned equipment but a continuity of informed film-craftsmen, so to speak. But given the fact that the quality control of Kodak color film is better than ever, they must be doing something right, even if it's at the expense of dropping quite a few films of the past. That was inevitable anyway.

Hobby film use is a drop in the bucket square footage wise. Yes, there are a few deliberately goofy fun 35mm color films now briefly on the market which by very nature do not require tight quality control; but Kodak does not participate in that. And most amateur interest has shifted toward digital anyway. There would be no sense in Kodak risking their own high-quality reputation niche by somehow compromising manufacture. Let's hope it lasts. Ilford is analogous - good stuff too, but only in black and white.

[Bernice Loui]

Why color film today?

Well understood the possible advantages of color film compared to digital. Read from Post# 50 and forward:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164243-Why-View-Camera-amp-Sheet-Film-Today-in-our-here-and-now/page6&highlight=demosaic

Hobby color film ok, question becomes again why when the color image becomes an expression of fantasy instead of accurate/precise and correct color rendition, contrast, saturation and LOTs more involved with color images. How "good" was that Agfachrome color image processed at home?

At this point in time what is defined is a good color image, who is decided and judges what is good color or good enough color?

The requirements to achieve excellence in color images is more than what most would want to do/try/know. If color film is scanned into a digital film, not convinced this is the ideal hybrid process a it would incur problems from both digital and analog film process.. resulting in a "different" color image in place of trying to meet a standard reference of color image excellence.

Kinda like folks doing alternative process images ~just to be different~
Yet, different alone does not constitute image excellence.

The bigger picture has more to do with the many hundreds of millions of digital images up-loaded to the web daily. This reality tends to discount and dilute the value of images in the eyes of the beholder in a similar way as want to believe propaganda.

Hobby color film is ok, question is will the manufactures of photochemical image making support this or simply stop and move on to another business that is viable? Fact is, color film might disappear regardless of what the hobbyist market demands.. Just like Fuji Velvia.

There are many good reasons to do B&W sheet film images. Consider why this is true?


Bernice








Like it or not, the reality is that film has to be "hobbyist" centric now to survive. The mass market went digital long ago, and it's never coming back to film. Black and white film exists today since the "hobbyist/artist" market kept it viable. The black and white film market went through this catharsis at least 50 years ago. It was a tiny market then, and remains a tiny market now, but it has survived the digital age quite nicely thank you very much.

As I stated in the original post, Agfachrome 50S Professional film could be processed at room temperature using Agfa chemicals. This is more than 40 years ago. I'm sure that Kodak and Fuji have done research on room temp processing long ago, but it would never have made sense for production then, since volume throughput would be the key to profits. The Agfa process was an anomaly in that era, since it was catering to the "hobbyist", and probably against their better interest at the time.

My point is that machine processing of color film may survive for 35mm in the foreseeable future, but the prospects look grim for 120 and especially large format. We're losing large format film at an alarming rate, and the people that process it are disappearing even faster. The only way to keep it around is for everyone involved, from manufacturers to users, acknowledges that the market is going to be small, and probably similar in size to the black and white large format market now. The black and white market is hobbyists and artists who are primarily doing things themselves. That's just the way it is, and the only way it can work.

[Drew Wiley]

Bernice - so what is your alternative? If you're worried about color film being abused for unrealistic results .... well, doing digi instead, or having ones fingers on a cornucopia of pushbutton fake-isms after a scan sure isn't going to help in that respect. But it is a mighty jaded opinion if someone thinks that color is a less noble medium than black and white film photography. Any medium is capable of abuse, or of careful respect the other direction. No photographic medium represents actual visual reality or ever will. We have to be the shamans who connect the rather limited logistical possibilities of the photochemical world to an impression or illusion of the visualized ideal. And at that point, the subject of taste and esthetics is inevitable.

I personally can't stand a lot of popularized color photography, there's no nuance to it; but that's never the fault of the film itself - it's neutral in that respect. I just want a dependable quality product; and at least we still have that. There's nothing inherently "amateurish" about color film. That lies in the mind itself : if one thinks like a dork, they'll take dorkish photos, regardless of the gear involved. And sheet film never had much amateur appeal to begin with. I've had my color prints side by side to prints by some of the best known black and white photographers who ever lived, and held my own, even beside the works of top tier abstract expressionist painters and Impressionists at one point or another. Just because it's color film and used outdoors doesn't mean we all want to make postcards of cute little chipmunks who charge five dollars apiece to pose on the south rim of the Grand Canyon six yards from the tour bus turnout.

I'm being sarcastic of course, and am speaking axiomatically, and certainly not implying that you yourself have discriminatory views on the potential of color film. I like it specifically for its capacity for subtle nuance, extreme detail, and yes, even its signature limitations corralling one into not going hog wild, at least in the darkroom, relatively speaking. What people do with computer apps is up to them; but most don't know the distinction between thoughtfully modulated hue and fluorescent curb marking spray paint.

[Kiwi7475]

Why color film today?

Well understood the possible advantages of color film compared to digital. Read from Post# 50 and forward:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164243-Why-View-Camera-amp-Sheet-Film-Today-in-our-here-and-now/page6&highlight=demosaic

Hobby color film ok, question becomes again why when the color image becomes an expression of fantasy instead of accurate/precise and correct color rendition, contrast, saturation and LOTs more involved with color images. How "good" was that Agfachrome color image processed at home?

At this point in time what is defined is a good color image, who is decided and judges what is good color or good enough color?

The requirements to achieve excellence in color images is more than what most would want to do/try/know. If color film is scanned into a digital film, not convinced this is the ideal hybrid process a it would incur problems from both digital and analog film process.. resulting in a "different" color image in place of trying to meet a standard reference of color image excellence.

Kinda like folks doing alternative process images ~just to be different~
Yet, different alone does not constitute image excellence.

The bigger picture has more to do with the many hundreds of millions of digital images up-loaded to the web daily. This reality tends to discount and dilute the value of images in the eyes of the beholder in a similar way as want to believe propaganda.

Hobby color film is ok, question is will the manufactures of photochemical image making support this or simply stop and move on to another business that is viable? Fact is, color film might disappear regardless of what the hobbyist market demands.. Just like Fuji Velvia.

There are many good reasons to do B&W sheet film images. Consider why this is true?


Bernice

I find this too broad of a statement. If you’re doing product photography, maybe (not even). But say in landscape photography for example, portraiture, or documentary/street photography, color accuracy is not the end-all.

We routinely adjust and manipulate B&W contrasts and tones in the darkroom, isn’t that fantasy too? So what do we care if the colors are not exactly truthful? (within limits).

Many professional landscape photographers I know scan their film negatives and adjust/manipulate in PS. Lightly. Carefully. These are not “Instagram” photographers.

“Excellence in color images” is sometimes more than achieving perfectly accurate “captures” of the colors and tones.

[tykos]

hobbyist market has always kept the industry alive, even in the past decades, except maybe let's say before 1950-ish. For every roll shot by a pro there have always been thousands of rolls shot at birthdays, school trips, etc. For every camera bought by a pro there were thousands of cameras sold to the amateurs.
These days, however, the hobbyist market is waaaaay less than 20 years ago, and the pro market either.

[Drew Wiley]

Doesn't matter. Hobbyists never drove sheet film manufacture even in the heyday of film, nor did the movie industry.

[Bernice Loui]

Drew, For those interested and committed to creating and crafting color images using film and it's related photo-chemical process, there is not a lot of alternatives. The idea-belief if color images are made via color film the print making process should be carried to complete via the photo chemical process. Many do not agree with this and for a long list of reasons, not possible.

Realize this is much about accuracy of color rendition, moderate color saturation with excellence in contrast gradation. Once this point of reference for what any color print must meet, anything less might not suffice. It is the values and opinions of the very few.

Consider why Fuji Velvia lived a LOT longer in the Foto film market than Astia (remains one of my all time fave color transparency films).

It is much about nuance in how the print presents in real life under specific viewing conditions and what emotional stir comes to an individual viewing the print_coupled with what the artist is trying to convey and achieve as a means of expression.

One primary difference between color -vs- B&W prints, folks tend to have some point of reference for color as humanoids see the world in color giving a near instant point of reference relative to color perceived and viewed on a print. The B&W aka "monochrome" print has a different presentation from the initial view making it instantly different than a color print.


We are back to a continued discussion on LFF about color and all related to what any color print means.


Bernice




Bernice - so what is your alternative? If you're worried about color film being abused for unrealistic results .... well, doing digi instead, or having ones fingers on a cornucopia of pushbutton fake-isms after a scan sure isn't going to help in that respect. But it is a mighty jaded opinion if someone thinks that color is a less noble medium than black and white film photography. Any medium is capable of abuse, or of careful respect the other direction. No photographic medium represents actual visual reality or ever will. We have to be the shamans who connect the rather limited logistical possibilities of the photochemical world to an impression or illusion of the visualized ideal. And at that point, the subject of taste and esthetics is inevitable.

I personally can't stand a lot of popularized color photography, there's no nuance to it; but that's never the fault of the film itself - it's neutral in that respect. I just want a dependable quality product; and at least we still have that. There's nothing inherently "amateurish" about color film. That lies in the mind itself : if one thinks like a dork, they'll take dorkish photos, regardless of the gear involved. And sheet film never had much amateur appeal to begin with. I've had my color prints side by side to prints by some of the best known black and white photographers who ever lived, and held my own, even beside the works of top tier abstract expressionist painters and Impressionists at one point or another. Just because it's color film and used outdoors doesn't mean we all want to make postcards of cute little chipmunks who charge five dollars apiece to pose on the south rim of the Grand Canyon six yards from the tour bus turnout.

I'm being sarcastic of course, and am speaking axiomatically, and certainly not implying that you yourself have discriminatory views on the potential of color film. I like it specifically for its capacity for subtle nuance, extreme detail, and yes, even its signature limitations corralling one into not going hog wild, at least in the darkroom, relatively speaking. What people do with computer apps is up to them; but most don't know the distinction between thoughtfully modulated hue and fluorescent curb marking spray paint.

[sharktooth]

Can we at least agree that large and medium format color film is essentially dead as a product or tool for commerce? If that's the case, then it's only artists and hobbyists left using these films. That's an undoubtedly tiny number of users compared to what it once was, but that should be no surprise. What puzzles me, however, is that Kodak brought back Ektachrome at a time where it was, and still is, very difficult to find a place that will run the E-6 process. It just seems like there wasn't any thought put in to how this could be successful without considering the processing conundrum and the radically changed user base.

Kodak and Fuji can't keep making color films to suit the commercial market that no longer exists. If color film is to remain viable it has to be geared toward the artists and hobbyists that will be using it. That's the same type of people that have been using b&w film for decades. Kodak, Ilford, Adox, and others, have already figured this out for b&w film, but Kodak seems to have the blinders on with regards to color film in medium and large format. Fuji seems to just want out of the game entirely, which is probably in their best interest anyway, no matter how disappointing that may be.

I keep going back to the old Agfa process for Agfachrome 50S and 50L Professional films. It was just as easy and forgiving as b&w processing, with a few extra steps. Re-exposure was done in roomlight, and after the initial development and stop bath you could do everything else in normal room light. This was Agfa's top end professional film of that era, so there was no "sacrifice" of quality. It only went away when E-6 became the dominant process due to processing speed and compatibility in the marketplace.

I'm also thinking that something like Kodachrome might make sense now, as odd as that seems. Kodak could go back to making the film AND doing the processing. I know that was feasible in 35mm and 120 back in the day, but I don't know if it's feasible in large format.

Anyhoo, I'm just hoping that the big guys start thinking about the whole system instead of just the film itself. You can't keep making F1 cars if there are no tracks to drive them on, but you could make a modified F1 car that could be practically driven on normal roads. We've got the equivalent of F1 color film, but it isn't all that practical for the folks that want to keep using it.

[Drew Wiley]

No, it's not dead as a tool of commerce either, just diminished. With jillions of folks out there learning digital imaging skills not only early on, but at an actually career level, that equates to a lot of competition for jobs attempting to make a buck at it (I'll exclude the multitude of website and social media crooks). But that leaves real niche opportunities for those offering an alternative, even in portrait studios. And there are still niche specialty labs doing well by not following the same horde of lemmings over the cliff. Real film even seems to be having a bit of a revival. And why are even relatively new brands of view camera selling well, even if in lesser quantities than the mass-production days of yore?

E6 processing is easy to get. In a few minutes, I'm driving a short distance to a lab which offers E-6, though my own pick up involves C-41 film. On both sides of the Bay, E6 processing up to 8x10 film size is available, maybe even 11x14 at one of them. Then there are numerous mail-in options. Most now offer film and digital services parallel. But it's getting awfully overhead-costly to still uphold old school full-service labs. Around here, they all went out of business not because of lack of business, but because the land itself became so valuable for redevelopment purposes that the rug got pulled out from underneath them.

Kodak didn't guess it wrong. The reintroduction of chrome film right at the time Fuji was beginning to duck out was a wise strategy, and automatically goes in tandem with helping E6 chemistry itself stay available. But anything color in sheet sizes is getting expensive. Kodachrome would be astronomical, equivalent to reintroducing the true Technicolor movie process. That's not going to happen, even in 35mm film size.

Bernice - I see even black and white prints mainly in color. I'm obsessed with nuanced image tone. No - I am definitely NOT one of those artsy/craftsy types trying to replicate some kind of heavily toned look. A good magician never shows his hand; but the effect is there, and ideally should be on the borderline of the conscious and subconscious. I have exactly the same attitude about color printing per se. It has absolutely nothing to do with saturated versus unsaturated hues - I work with them all - but with relationships between hues and neutrals and spatial dispersement, intelligently modulated. I abhor "gotcha" style advertising photography and stereotypical scenics. I want the eye drawn into the composition year after year, discovering new nuances and hidden details.

Not everyone despises real quality. And even most of the general public can, within a split second, notice the significant distinction between an optimized real optical print and an inkjet. The very nature of taste, whether the taste buds in our mouth or what our eyes encounter, is that we quickly tire of the same thing over and over again. The same goes for art and photography itself. There will always be niche opportunities, at least until they themselves become routine, tedious, and taken for granted, and then something else will take over. That's the way it's always been. People want variety and choice; it's what keeps Baskin Robbins with all 31 flavors in business.

[Bob Salomon]

as a point of kodak history, the temperatures were chosen to accommodate emulsion+processor needs.

in 1949, the processing chemicals were used at 68F, but it was found in 1950 the temperature could be raised to 75°F shortening the overall processing time
;
Type C (Kodak brandname) was marketed from 1955, followed by Kodak Ektacolor paper, Type 1384 in 1958.
Type 1384 was designed for 75°F processing, but by 1959 the paper was found to have sufficient hardness to enable the processing temperature of the P-122 process to be increased by 10°F. The Color Developer temperature was halved to 6 minutes, taking 14 minutes off the total processing time, thus increasing productivity.

1963 CP-5 rapid process print
;Negatives

C-22 1956
Developer was used at 75°F, +/– ½°F, and the other solutions and washes were allowed a 4 degree latitude in temperature, 73°–77°F.

C-41 [Flexicolor] 1972 // 100F
; Chrome
E-2 1955 (75F), E3 1959, E4 1966 (85F),
E-6 1976 (100F)

Around 1977 when Resorts opened in Atlantic City I was selling Hope processors. A guy named Wayne Cashman invited me down for dinner and to discuss equipping all of his casino properties with new roller transport film and paper processors. As he had the casino concession for dinner and nightclub photos he needed very fast processing times so finished prints could be delivered to the patrons by the end of dinner or the show.
He wanted us to crank up the time and temperature so he could deliver prints within the hour. Longevity was not his concern.
His proposal was that I deliver modified processors to him at no charge to test for 6 months and, if they held up and delivered good enough quality prints, he would. Order them for all his Las Vegas and Reno labs as we as for AC properties.
I refused the deal.

[Tin Can]

https://encycolorpedia.com/826257

[sharktooth]

I don't think 826527 is trying to hex this forum, Mr Can, ..... but I can't be sure.

Still though, his/her/it's post on the history of color processing temps clearly shows that room temperature processing is no major technological hurdle.

Maybe a better question for this thread is: Would you shoot more color film in 120 and large format if it could be home processed at room temperature much like current b&w processing?

[Tin Can]

Better ? Mr Shark

I will never be shooting and processing color film, papers or slides

I rejected that path 22 years ago

Color is Digi for me.....now

I do miss Kodachrome (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1880399/)

I saw the movie 2X so far

[sharktooth]

I guess my own experience is somewhat unique. I started with b&w development in the early 70's, and then graduated to color transparencies with Agfachrome 50S in the later 70's. Most of that color work was in 120, and a bit in 35mm. Kodachrome was the primary goto for 35mm. I found the Agfa process to be very easy and reliable, so I did a lot of it.

When Agfa switched to the E-6 process I stopped developing color film. I tried C-41, but I got poor results, and didn't even attempt E-6. I still liked chrome, so I just did everything through a lab. Many years later I got a good deal on a Kreonite machine and started to do color printing from negs, but still processed the negs through a lab.

These days the Kreonite is long gone, but I've had more time to get back doing some photography. I've been scanning a lot of my old stuff and that's really been a godsend for bringing that stuff back to life. Photoshop easily allows you to do things that were previously practically impossible. There are so many more possibilities now no matter if the original is digital or film. I'd really love to shoot more in chrome now, but I'd like to do it myself like I did with the old Agfa process. I can certainly understand why people aren't excited about color film since it's just too expensive and problematic and digital is so easy. I guess my own experience with easy home processing of color film could never have been experience by anyone under 60, and very rarely for anyone over 60.

It's starting to look like you're ahead of the curve, Mr Can. I can't see any need at all for large format color film that remains geared to a mass market that doesn't exist. I need to dig out my old tri-color filters and do some testing.

[Drew Wiley]

The "old tri-color filters"??? No wonder it was such a headache. Why not a decent ordinary colorhead? Gosh, with respect to color films and papers, it's the 21th Century now, not the 11th, hunting down Merlin to develop things in a kettle of squid head brine. Even color neg films and RA4 papers have come a long long way.

[sharktooth]

Tri-color filters over the camera lens so I can shoot black and white separations. O.K. for stuff that doesn't move. Scan and align the layers in Photoshop to get a color image.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh, now I understand. Yeah, I ran careful tests with a specific tricolor filter set, along with densitometer plots, the whole nine yards, plus specific exposure notes on the dedicated 8x10 holders, and then there they sat loaded with TMax in a special transport box for about two years. I never did spot an appropriate shot where everything would hold still long enough. I even have pin registered precision negative carriers. Oh well, maybe someday. Back to color film and basic colorhead use. I have made tricolor separations from chrome film.

[Bob Salomon]

Oh, now I understand. Yeah, I ran careful tests with a specific tricolor filter set, along with densitometer plots, the whole nine yards, plus specific exposure notes on the dedicated 8x10 holders, and then there they sat loaded with TMax in a special transport box for about two years. I never did spot an appropriate shot where everything would hold still long enough. I even have pin registered precision negative carriers. Oh well, maybe someday. Back to color film and basic colorhead use. I have made tricolor separations from chrome film.

Did some of a small waterfall in a trout spring with a Rollei 3003. Kind of a neat effect with all of the different colors produced as the water fell and rushed over some small rocks in the spring.

[Bernice Loui]

https://darkside.photography/tricolour/


Bernice




Tri-color filters over the camera lens so I can shoot black and white separations. O.K. for stuff that doesn't move. Scan and align the layers in Photoshop to get a color image.

[Bernice Loui]

This previous LFF discussion applies here.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164243-Why-View-Camera-amp-Sheet-Film-Today-in-our-here-and-now


Bernice

[sharktooth]

It would be interesting to know how much b&w sheet film is sold compared to color sheet film. Maybe someone from a larger retailer that sells both could give us some perspective. I'm guessing that b&w sheet film sales far surpass color sheet film sales these days, but i really have no idea on the real situation.

[Drew Wiley]

That is no doubt correct. The lion's share of color photography has defected to one form or another of digital capture. On the other hand, people still seem to think of black and white as more the rightful domain of dedicated darkroom workers, and digital black and white as the odd man out. That's certainly the case in this area. Most of the printing from color film is being done by specialty labs via scanning anyway; and cost-wise it becomes awfully tempting to simply cross over to original digital capture and inkjet print it yourself, that is, for those who even want prints. Someone like me who prefers a totally optically workflow might not necessarily buy large quantities of sheet film. My manta is, If it ain't worthy of printing, don't trip the shutter to begin with. I'd make a poor stock photographer.

[sharktooth]

My own interest now is in a hybrid workflow for color. I'd like to use film for original capture in large and medium format. After that it would be scanned for further Photoshop manipulation and digital printing. The actual digital printing would be sourced to a commercial printer with the equipment and expertise.

To me, developing color film, either neg or pos, doesn't have to be any more difficult than developing b&w film. It's just developing, so there's only time, temperature, and agitation to manage. On the other hand, analogue color printing is a whole other ballgame, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, now or then
I think people have been scared off of color film, since color printing was always very difficult via the analogue chemical route. It was even worse to get prints from color transparencies since the contrast had to be managed through difficult and expensive techniques that are well beyond the capabilities of the average home user.

With a hybrid workflow all the stuff that was difficult before is now very easy from the digital side. The analogue capture with film can be very easy too if there's a tweak to make the processing more compatible with general users. I'd bet a lot more people who are happily doing b&w work at home today would have no difficulty at all developing color film with that kind of tweak. Everyone who posts pictures here is already using a hybrid workflow to digitize their images, so they already have everything they need to do color too.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I don't bother to develop my own color film because that kind of development is standardized, and something a lab machine can do well. I'd rather be doing other things with my darkroom time. And that includes a lot of pre-color-printing work like generating masks etc., sometimes color separations. But I for one do not yet post pictures here. I haven't touched my scanner in over twenty years; and back then, it was only for web applications. I have set up a deluxe digital copy-stand station for sake of cataloging my print collection, but don't plan to use it for awhile, and certainly not for any kind of printmaking application per se. But this is a sort of new Golden Age in terms of all the workflow possibilities overlapping one another, with seeming endless hybrid options and opportunities. Something for everyone. I prefer the more tactile approach of pure optical darkroom workflow.

[sharktooth]

If sales of color sheet film are now less than b&w sheet film then I don't think that color film is sustainable in the marketplace. Fuji now doesn't make any b&w film themselves anymore, so I can't believe they're going to keep supporting color sheet film with an even smaller market.

I fear that the days of color film in medium and large format are surely numbered if they can't even sell at b&w volumes. At that point it won't matter what way you're using film, since it just won't be available.

In my mind the only hope of keeping color film alive is to get the user base up to at least the level of b&w users. The only way I can see that happening is for color film to cater to the DIY crowd of artists and hobbyists, just like b&w. A hybrid workflow can help to bring younger people to film, since all the hard stuff is taken care of digitally, and they're already familiar with it. Even an old geezer like me can see the attraction.

[Drew Wiley]

Fuji gradually withdrawing from the game makes the success of Kodak continuing to provide color film more optimistic. What you have to remember is that if the so-called market share percent of film is much less than what it once was, the world population is also much greater now. And within that, there are plenty of people with a lot of money. Sheet film is a sub-niche. Who knows? Catastrophic climate change is just around the corner and already making its presence known; a World War could be triggered by that, or by a major depression, or all kinds of things. An asteroid impact on Rochester wouldn't help. Can't worry about everything. Life is too short. Keep shooting.

[reddesert]

Disclaimer: I don't process color film at home, but I have thought about it recently, which I never did before. IMO, it would be cheaper and probably more cost effective for Kodak to bundle a $30 sous-vide temperature controller and a $10 basin (tempering bath) into a home C-41 kit, than to try to re-engineer C-41 into a room temperature process. They could probably give every one of 100,000 hobbyists in the country (if there are that many) a free temperature control kit for much less than it would cost to develop a new chemical process.

That comment was a little facetious, but IMO if there is an opportunity in color processing, it would be for someone to develop an inexpensive Jobo-like temperature controlled processor using 2020s technology (cheap temperature control, 3d-printing prototypes, etc). I know there are a couple of hobby efforts in this area. If there is a market, it would be a lot easier to make ersatz Jobos than create a new film process.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Fuji now doesn't make any b&w film themselves anymore...Unless you have insider information and are likely violating an NDA, you don't know that.

Either Fujifilm subcontracts the entire coating and finishing process of ACROS II to HARMAN, or it coats master rolls itself and ships them to HARMAN for finishing. We cannot say for sure which is the case.

[Bernice Loui]

What is your time worth?

What are the cost of chemistry, processing related hardware, what if something goes really wrong with your processing and ...

These are the hidden cost to doing any image making, yet very real and must be considered in the overall cost to do any project.

FYI, back in the days of sheet film color transparency centric commercial image making, there were more than a few clients that had a E6 lab processing bill exceeding $8K per month at The New Lab.

All relative and much more to consider than just the superficial cost of film processing.


Bernice



using Underdog Lab [bay area] would cost over $8K to process part of a current project.
as to internegs: holding more than 2 point AIM means altering the developer. A push/pull can hold limited AIM.

the reason for some to process their own should be clear. Most of those current to LargeFormatForum shootin color have it sent out because they don't have enough volume.

this is a different problem; one which Tetenal could solve for the casual or low volume user. Small kits.

[tykos]

Unless you have insider information and are likely violating an NDA, you don't know that.

Either Fujifilm subcontracts the entire coating and finishing process of ACROS II to HARMAN, or it coats master rolls itself and ships them to HARMAN for finishing. We cannot say for sure which is the case.

well, coating in house and shipping all over the world those delicate master rolls in a controlled environment would be feasible only to justify the line "well guys, film production costs waaaaaaaay too much" in the next year's budget.
Especially because fuji already has the packaging line for the other films, and the finishing is the easy part of the process.
We don't know what's going on, but that move seems unlikely.

[Sal Santamaura]

well, coating in house and shipping all over the world those delicate master rolls in a controlled environment would be feasible only to justify the line "well guys, film production costs waaaaaaaay too much" in the next year's budget...I have no idea what the point of that statement is. Master rolls, contained in the robust "caskets" used for storage, can be shipped just as easily as anything else in today's transportation environment.


...fuji already has the packaging line for the other films, and the finishing is the easy part of the process.
We don't know what's going on, but that move seems unlikely.Finishing ("confectioning") of master rolls is currently one of the major choke points in film production. It might seem "easy" to you, but that doesn't mean every manufacturer has maintained sufficient capacity to do enough of it as demand, especially demand for 35mm, increases over its nadir of the recent past.

Again, unless you have insider information and are probably violating an NDA, neither ACROS II / HARMAN scenario is less likely than the other.

[Wayne]

If a less perfect color film is all you need just develop it at the recommended temp as best as you can. If you can't maintain the temperature, you'll get less than perfect.

But maintaining it isn't that hard, plenty of people who are even dumber than me do it.

[Drew Wiley]

Per ACROS II (hypothetical). There have been cases in the past where an emulsion itself has been batched in one country by the primary manufacturer, and then shipped liquid fashion to a subcontracted coating facility elsewhere. I heard a rumor that this was the case with ACROS, but don't know the hard facts. I'm still shooting the previous version of Acros.

[tykos]

I have no idea what the point of that statement is. Master rolls, contained in the robust "caskets" used for storage, can be shipped just as easily as anything else in today's transportation environment.
i'm not saying it is an impossible task, everything can be done (almost) easily these days, just that it is a really pricey one in a market with tight margins.



Again, unless you have insider information and are probably violating an NDA, neither ACROS II / HARMAN scenario is less likely than the other.
well, if one should only talk about things not covered by and nda i think we could delete half the internet webpages and their speculations, this forum included.

[tykos]

Per ACROS II (hypothetical). There have been cases in the past where an emulsion itself has been batched in one country by the primary manufacturer, and then shipped liquid fashion to a subcontracted coating facility elsewhere. I heard a rumor that this was the case with ACROS, but don't know the hard facts. I'm still shooting the previous version of Acros.

i've heard of that, and it seems easier and more feasible than shipping master rolls. Just think of the quantity of emulsion (some microns) and its weight vs. base+canister volume and weight in a roll.

[Sal Santamaura]

I have no idea what the point of that statement is. Master rolls, contained in the robust "caskets" used for storage, can be shipped just as easily as anything else in today's transportation environment...


i'm not saying it is an impossible task, everything can be done (almost) easily these days, just that it is a really pricey one in a market with tight margins...

And the cost of that shipping might just account for 35mm ACROS II being priced at $12 vs $8 for FP4 Plus. :)

[Tin Can]

KODAK X-Ray was LAST cut and boxed in Mexico