View Full Version : Color pictures from B&W vs. Color film
With the cost of 4x5 color film over $2 per sheet these days, and with the even more expensive cost to develop, I'm looking at $5 a photo or more. B&W film is only $0.40 a sheet and development is virtually free (pennies at most).
By taking a set three B&W pictures, one with red filter, then green filter, then blue filter, and merging the colors together in Photoshop will give the color picture, and be much cheaper than using color film. Has anybody had experience with this method and its effectiveness?
Reference:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2007/11/colour-images-from-b-film.html
This was the method for color photography up to 1935 Kodachrome was invented. Also special cameras with a beam-splitter where aviable. And quick change backs for three exposures.
Try it with the Kodak Wratten filters 29 deep red, 61 dark green and 47B dark blue and panchromatic film. But the problem is registering the three images. One needs a realy good tripod, a sturdy camera and realy flat film.
BTW the Technicolor movie camera was also equipped with a beam-splitter and three strips rawstock up to the fifties.
Brian Ellis
2-Mar-2008, 08:57
I'm far from being a Photoshop expert but as you probably know, Photoshop has its own red, green, and blue filters. If using "real" filters would work as Peter suggests, maybe using Photoshop's filters would work as well and you'd avoid the registration problem since you'd be working on only a single image duped three times.
D. Bryant
2-Mar-2008, 09:10
maybe using Photoshop's filters would work as well and you'd avoid the registration problem since you'd be working on only a single image duped three times.
Say what?
Don Bryant
Nathan Potter
2-Mar-2008, 09:44
Say Brian, I don't quite follow you here. I guess the workfow would be as follows.
One would still have three original negatives taken with three different filters. These would have to be individually scanned then loaded into PS then combined through the PS appropriate filters and registered using PS. I'm not really adept at PS yet but it seems this could be done for an original static image (where the three original negs. are spacially exactly identical). The characteristics of the original color separation filters would need to be reproduced pretty exactly in PS in order to reproduce the original scene color characteristics. Whew! A lot of effort. Interesting though.
Nate Potter
Daniel_Buck
2-Mar-2008, 09:53
I'm far from being a Photoshop expert but as you probably know, Photoshop has its own red, green, and blue filters. If using "real" filters would work as Peter suggests, maybe using Photoshop's filters would work as well and you'd avoid the registration problem since you'd be working on only a single image duped three times.
that won't work, since your data has already been captured in B&W, you need to filter before your light hits the film. for color film, the filters will work in photoshop, because photoshop already has different info for the RGB, not so in a B&W shot. You would need to filter R G and B on seperate pieces of B&W film then combine them.
PaulRicciardi
2-Mar-2008, 10:00
I'm not too sure you could take a single BW image and make it colour in PS. I've been sitting here in CS2 for the past hour trying to do it. Here's what I have tried.
Starting with a BW image I duplicated it three times, making each new layer R, G, B. Then colorized each one accordingly and dropped opacity to 33%. Also tried to messing with the blending modes but that didn't help. The idea was to replicate a CMYK screen print but that didn't work.
I then tried it again with CMYK. Once again no luck.
Next attempt was to create three copies of the original layer, once again RGB, and then go to the channel mixer for each one and adjust the outputs for each layer. For example on the R layer I jacked up the R channel and lowered the GB channels. Did the same thing for GB channels. Then went to channels and merged channels. Nothing.
I tried the last thing again but instead of working in colour I worked in BW. Once again, three layers-RGB, channel mixer, played with channels in monochrome and then merged channels for the 3 layers. Nothing.
Maybe I am doing something wrong. I think I have the right idea...you can replicate BW filters in PS so it would serve to reason that you could replicate RGB filters on three images and then merge them together like in the original link.
My PS skills generally aren't used for this sort of thing...PS is mostly a final minor touch up for me, curves, levels that's about it so perhaps someone with more skills could figure this one out. Im curious.
PaulRicciardi
2-Mar-2008, 10:01
that won't work, since your data has already been captured in B&W, you need to filter before your light hits the film. for color film, the filters will work in photoshop, because photoshop already has different info for the RGB, not so in a B&W shot. You would need to filter R G and B on seperate pieces of B&W film then combine them.
That's what I was thinking...well there we go!
One has to take three b&w negs, one with a blue filter, the second with the green and the third with the red filter. After processing and scanning the blue neg is inverted and colorized yellow, the green-filter neg will be magenta and the red-filter cyan. Than you have to combine the three images.
To try it without a camera, open a color image in PS, copy each channel, red green and blue, as three new b&w images, colorize this images as mentioned above and combine this images as a forth new image.
Have a look at "Le blog de la Trichromie": http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/
Henri Gaud is a specialist on the subject.
G
Gene McCluney
2-Mar-2008, 12:34
You have to have separate "records" of the Red, Blue and Green content of the original scene to be able to combine all three in photoshop to get a full color image. If you shoot without filters, then the film will record all colors at once as shades of gray. When you filter your camera, you are excluding all colors except for the one you wish to record on a particular piece of film. I am sure you can see that you need separate "captures" of each primary color (as shades of gray) to be able to reproduce the colors correctly when combined in photoshop.
Gene McCluney
2-Mar-2008, 12:36
Also, for another "vintage" look, you could try the 2-color system, of exposing thru just 2 filters, a salmon color and a cyan color. This does not produce "true" full color, but can be fairly accurate on skin tones and things, and was the basis many color processes prior to 3-color Technicolor, in fact Technicolor was a 2-color process prior to the introduction of the 3 color process in 1932.
The first Kodachrome process from 1915 was also a two-color-system. It used red and green superimposed images.
Also, for another "vintage" look, you could try the 2-color system, of exposing thru just 2 filters, a salmon color and a cyan color. This does not produce "true" full color, but can be fairly accurate on skin tones and things, and was the basis many color processes prior to 3-color Technicolor, in fact Technicolor was a 2-color process prior to the introduction of the 3 color process in 1932.
Very interesting! Can we see examples of this?
The first Kodachrome process from 1915 was also a two-color-system. It used red and green superimposed images.
what about the blue skys? red and green clouds?
There is an interesting site at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm
Kirk Gittings
2-Mar-2008, 14:28
and be much cheaper than using color film
If you think this method is cheaper than shooting color film you are assuming that your time is worth nothing.
If you think this method is cheaper than shooting color film you are assuming that your time is worth nothing.
actually this method would save me a lot of time compared to what i'm doing now, which is coloring my B&W prints by hand using a fine brush.
Bruce Watson
2-Mar-2008, 14:49
By taking a set three B&W pictures, one with red filter, then green filter, then blue filter, and merging the colors together in Photoshop will give the color picture, and be much cheaper than using color film. Has anybody had experience with this method and its effectiveness?
Been there, done that. It's called Technicolor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor#Three-strip_Technicolor) There were even still LF cameras made to do this which exposed three B&W frames at a time (5x4 film IIRC). I saw one once but don't remember who made it.
The printing technique is called dye transfer. (http://www.jagger.com/dyetrans.html) If you want to go the analog route. Same technique used by Eliot Porter and more recently by Charles Cramer and Ctein.
But if you think this is going to save you any money I'd say considerably more research is needed on your part.
If you think this method is cheaper than shooting color film you are assuming that your time is worth nothing.
Of course one has to find filter factors and develping times for the film in use, but when this is done one can work nearly as fast as with color neg film. Scanning and PS helps a lot compared with Dye Transfer or other printing processes. And it's much cheaper too. The only problem, the "exposure time" is realy long.
Photo Utopia
2-Mar-2008, 15:37
[QUOTE=Bruce Watson;Been there, done that. It's called Technicolor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor#Three-strip_Technicolor) There were even still LF cameras made to do this which exposed three B&W frames at a time (5x4 film IIRC). I saw one once but don't remember who made it.
While Technicolor is a similar process, it is quite a modern one (1930's) compared to the one demonstrated in my blog. The inspiration for my little experiment came from the 1860's and the initial work done by Scottish physicist James Clark Maxwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_Maxwell)
His methods were refined and due to the faster emulsions available at the turn of the 20th Century brought about the beautiful work of Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky)
Other early colour processes include Dufaycolour and Autochrome which used a RGB 'reseau' in order to create their colour rather like Bayer array in a Digicam (but random)
The Idea behind this isn't to create a 'cheap' method to make colour images, but for me it creates a higher colour fidelity (filter quality allowing) with more control than conventional C-41 which has thick dye layers and orange masking rather than silver thin emulsions.
I've have found that it is a very good process for landscapes, registration in Photoshop is not a real problem if you put a grid over the image and nudge the layers into registration.
I'm enjoying experimenting!
http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/90950122.jpg
Regards
Mark
Maxwell's experiments could only work because the filters he used where no strong band-filters a the Wratten filters I've mentioned above, because the the plates he used where only sensitive for blue. Chemical sentisizing wasn't invented in this time. This is also true for the images taken by Ducos Du Hauron who invented the subtractive method to get color images on paper 1869.
There are many great books about this early processes as "Color Photography in Practice" by D.A.Spencer, London ca.1930 and "Practice of Color Photography" by E.J. Wall, Wollaston MA ca. 1925 as to mention only two.
Dave Parker
2-Mar-2008, 16:58
As with anything else in photography, it will take time to work it out....and if that is what your interested in, then I say, go for it, I can't see spending that much time on trying to recreate the past, but hey, I would be interested in seeing what you come up with.
Good luck in your venture, I remember the feeling, I couldn't afford a piece of ground glass 4 years ago, so I started playing,!
:eek:
Dave
Separation negatives isn't only a step in the past but also in the future. It's a recommended method for long time storage of color images to make three b&w separation negatives protected with selenium toner, because the dyes of color material can fade out during time whereas b&w film is much more stable.
Peter K
Hey, this also might be our safeguard when color film no longer exists! This technique also offers better potential resolution to film, which means smaller formats. And as suggested above, better overall tonal ranges vs. color film. But, this is no picnic....
I am curious about the camera that made 3 B&W filtered images...I assume it was NOT 3 images at the same time? Obviously 2 simultaneous images are easy with a beam splitter, but I can't think of an easy method for 3 simultaneous images. Also, these images would have to be shot on a normal to long fl lens, as their needs to be sufficient space to allow for the light folds.
This reminds me of the adage, what goes around, comes around :-)
Henri Gaud
4-Mar-2008, 00:46
Hey, this also might be our safeguard when color film no longer exists! This technique also offers better potential resolution to film, which means smaller formats. And as suggested above, better overall tonal ranges vs. color film. But, this is no picnic....
I am curious about the camera that made 3 B&W filtered images...I assume it was NOT 3 images at the same time? Obviously 2 simultaneous images are easy with a beam splitter, but I can't think of an easy method for 3 simultaneous images. Also, these images would have to be shot on a normal to long fl lens, as their needs to be sufficient space to allow for the light folds.
This reminds me of the adage, what goes around, comes around :-)
You can see those camera here
3 color One shoot camera (http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?Matriel-trichrome)
Have a good time
Thanks Henri.... very interesting cameras.... I assumed it had to be 2 beam splitters.
http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/images/*Z-TriMat/Devin-Tri-Color-Camera-1938.jpg
If I have this right, looking at the Devin diagram, excluding color filter losses, the top film will receive half the light from the lens.
The bottom and rear film will each receive 25% of the light. I am curious how this would be offset by filter losses? Would it come close to an equal exposure for all 3? Of course, with modern B&W film, this is not a deal breaker, as the exposure latitude is so great, these small differences would not ruin the final imagery.
The distance from the rear film, to the lens dictates the shortest possible fl. If using 4x5 film, I would think 6" would be the min. lens fl, or 150mm which is pretty acceptable IMO. I think the OP is on to something here.... albeit, a rubics cube of photography indeed, but it seems very feasible...specially if you scan the film and have the benefits of digital manipulation.
Hey, this also might be our safeguard when color film no longer exists! This technique also offers better potential resolution to film, which means smaller formats. And as suggested above, better overall tonal ranges vs. color film. But, this is no picnic....
With seventy years progress in color film there is no much room for better overall tonal range. And the resolution isn't better with three exposures because also small registering faults are always an issue.
Bruce Watson
4-Mar-2008, 06:47
I am curious about the camera that made 3 B&W filtered images...I assume it was NOT 3 images at the same time? Obviously 2 simultaneous images are easy with a beam splitter, but I can't think of an easy method for 3 simultaneous images.
Ah yes, the Devin Tricolor (http://www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/devin_tricolor.pdf) from the 1930s. Indeed, three images at the same time at 6.5 x 9 cm in size (so it's not 5x4). If you look through the manual (wait for it to load then skip over the begging page to start the manual) you'll find a diagram that shows how the beam splitters were arranged.
Kirk Gittings
4-Mar-2008, 09:51
Of course one has to find filter factors and develping times for the film in use, but when this is done one can work nearly as fast as with color neg film. Scanning and PS helps a lot compared with Dye Transfer or other printing processes. And it's much cheaper too. The only problem, the "exposure time" is realy long.
Back to the cost issue. I have no problem with the aesthetic ideas expressed here, but cost wise I think you guys are kidding yourselves. Shooting and processing three b&w negatives is cheaper than one color negative? But to each his own. In terms of exteriors, on an even slightly breezy day outdoors, how many sheets are you going to have to shoot, changing filters, so that nothing has moved on three negatives? The scans will make a huge difference too. For instance scanners in the Epson 750 range have such cheap step motors that it is difficult to make precisely identical sized scans back to back from the same negative much less from three different negatives (this is why the much touted Silverfast Multi pass sampling gives such soft results on these scanners. It is not that the software cannot register the film, it is that the scans are not the same size by a few pixels which softens the combined scan). So then what? 3 drum scans?
Color photography with the separtion negative method was always an expensive issue. With the invention of the multilayer films also "normal" people could take color pictures. Later Dye Transfer prints where also very expensive. And as Kirk mentioned, today one needs expensive equipment like drum scanner, a workstation and a high-end printer to get results like with color-negs and color paper. Not to mention a rigid tripod, a stable camera, apochromatic lenses and vacuum film holder. And no breeze around.
Wait a minute, all 3 images are taken at once, so why all these constraints? I am only referring to the capture, not the post processing.
Henri Gaud
4-Mar-2008, 11:19
Thanks Henri.... very interesting cameras.... I assumed it had to be 2 beam splitters.
http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/images/*Z-TriMat/Devin-Tri-Color-Camera-1938.jpg
If I have this right, looking at the Devin diagram, excluding color filter losses, the top film will receive half the light from the lens.
Hello thank for your attention, i try speak english and explain the trichromie one shoot.
The bottom and rear film will each receive 25% of the light. I am curious how this would be offset by filter losses? Would it come close to an equal exposure for all 3? Of course, with modern B&W film, this is not a deal breaker, as the exposure latitude is so great, these small differences would not ruin the final imagery.
Yes we have two beam splitter, 50% trans 50% reflex for the No 1 ans the No2 50/50 but of 50% and you have 3 Channels with 50%25%25% and you can chose one color by channel. If you choose 50 for Blue 25 for green and 25 for Red your are good for tungsten light and if you choose 25 for Blue 25 for green and 50 for red, your are good for day light.
Intersting system, but your have RVB filter, the expose is more 3-4 stops, and 2 stop for the two beam splitter, total 5-6 stops, the tri-X 320 is now 10-5 ISO, the autochrome in 1907 was 1,5 ISO.
With different exposure on R-V-B you can use every T°C, when the T°C is low your blue expose is more and more long
The distance from the rear film, to the lens dictates the shortest possible fl. If using 4x5 film, I would think 6" would be the min. lens fl, or 150mm which is pretty acceptable IMO. I think the OP is on to something here.... albeit, a rubics cube of photography indeed, but it seems very feasible...specially if you scan the film and have the benefits of digital manipulation.
We can't use wide angle with the one shoot camera, "normal" lens is a maximum.
I have buy other one shoot camera, and i make some photography on my blod after some week.
This technical is very intersting, by it is a big work, digital like Ds III is more speed, trichromy one shoot is only for photographer who have some time and some money. The camera is expensive, the splitter are very very fragile, and we have to make some test, and we have 3 films for one photographie, and we have a good scan, etc etc.
Have a good day
Henri, thank you for the response. Yep, this is no picnic for sure, and it just shows what our forefathers were up against.... Of course today, none of this makes economic sense, but just like many things that do not make economic sense, it still is a very interesting exercise... sort of a trip through time. But way too rich for my blood...
I did not realize the filters ate up this much light, that is extreme... maybe todays filters would consume much less light, helping the overall systems speed?
Henri Gaud
4-Mar-2008, 11:47
I did not realize the filters ate up this much light, that is extreme... maybe todays filters would consume much less light, helping the overall systems speed?
The RVB filter are good, they take 1/3 of the light in maximum, 1 1/2 stop, we double that it is not bad.
You can make trichromy with a normal camera, i do that. I have not try my one shoot camera, i have no time now, i try it in the futur.
Wait a minute, all 3 images are taken at once, so why all these constraints? I am only referring to the capture, not the post processing.
At the beginning of this thread was the question to replace color neg film with three separation b&w negs.
Also with beamsplitter cameras one needs apochromatic lenses, e.g. the Jos-PE camera used a special lens made by Steinheil. Also the british Penrose camera. The lens correction must take the beamsplitter in consideration, if not distortion is the result and the images cannot registerd.
But with all this cameras also a parallactic fault was visible, so the images made with this cameras could only contact printed or a little bit enlarged. the parallax = focal-lengt of the taking lens x distance of the image shift divided by the distance to the subject. The image shift or "eye-point shift" is the same phenomenon one can see by moving the head a little bit. E.g. with a taking lens of 200mm and 30mm "eyepoint-shift", a distance lens to the subject of 10 meters one gets a parallax of 6mm!
Of course one can use software also used with stitching to correct this. But this software must be buyed too.
Peter K
Peter, i forgot to consider parallax errors. I assume these errors are the result of each of the 3 light paths are different?
Your thoughts?
seems easier to just use a regular camera and make 3 exposures
> seems easier to just use a regular camera and make 3 exposures
Yeah, it's much easier, assuming the subject cooperates between the 3 exposures :-)
Peter, i forgot to consider parallax errors. I assume these errors are the result of each of the 3 light paths are different?
The path-lengths are the same, otherwise no sharp images are possible. But it's the angle of view together with the long focal-length used with LF beamsplitter cameras. The distance from one separation image to the next image is at least 8 cm with 9x12cm tricolor oneshot cameras. With 35mm movie cameras like the Technicolor beamsplitter camera and the short focal-lenghts used the parallax error is much smaller.
This thread started out about monetary savings, but in reality...? Look at the price of the toys we are playing with. It is kinda like the thread a couple days ago from Cyrus on photogravure (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=33797). That is too cool. And I KNOW it couldn't have cost more than a few pennies per pic :rolleyes:
I have been playing with the idea of photogravure and even have the old tasope 10X12 process camera and lens in preparation for it. Just haven't had nerve enough to jump off into it yet. Methinks we just all junkies to photography, eh?
Gene McCluney
5-Mar-2008, 08:53
what about the blue skys? red and green clouds?
With a 2 color system, you do not get pure blue skies. You get cyan-greenish skies, but you can get fairly accurate skin tones. Early 2-color motion pictures designed their sets and scenes to harmonize with the 2-color process, so you won't see many skys in these movies. And 2-color portraiture was almost all studio, where the background was controlled.
Peter, of course the paths are equal, otherwise, they would be out of focus.... but the paths are different.... However, each part of the image should be equal distance from the nodal point for all 3 images. So, now I am confused where the parallex is created?
Of course the rays of the center of the three images are going through the back nodal point of the lens, depent on the construction of the camera also through the front nodal point. But it's the same with panorama images, the nodal point is fixed, but the three images are taken from different angles. So you get three different images and they cannot registered.
With a real beamsplitter like it was used with Technicolor cameras or old color TV cameras equiped with three plumbicons / vidicons there is no problem. But for a LF camera one needs a glass cube with 5^3 inches.
There where cameras with mirrors used as beamsplitter aviable, but with this cameras one gets double images from the front- and the rear surfaces of the mirrors. Also cameras with big glass prisms where buildt. But all this very expensive glass couldt not improve the images.
> But it's the same with panorama images, the nodal point is fixed, but the three images are taken from different angles. So you get three different images and they cannot registered.
Peter, this is not a fair comparison. With nodal point rotating panorama shot, you are 1) taking 3 separate exposures, 2) you are changing the composition with each shot. This is NOT the case with this 3 film, single shot system we aer discussing, there is only ONE exposure being taken. So only ONE image is being passed to the beam-splitters. The only possible cause of parallex is possibly some mis alignment. But if there is NO mis alignment, I am not seeing any reason for parallax.... you should get the identical image on each film. If you think I am in error, can you please explain where exactly I am error? Or maybe we are talking about two different types of technicolor set-ups? I am referring to the Devin set-up in the link Henri provided??
Henri Gaud
5-Mar-2008, 11:58
With a 2 color system, you do not get pure blue skies. You get cyan-greenish skies, but you can get fairly accurate skin tones. Early 2-color motion pictures designed their sets and scenes to harmonize with the 2-color process, so you won't see many skys in these movies. And 2-color portraiture was almost all studio, where the background was controlled.
Some news about bichromy : the two color système.
here (http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?Nchromie)
Here (http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?Nchromie/2007/06)
How make bichromy (http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?2007/04/26/235-la-bichromie-expliquee)
It is the same with tricolor-cameras like the Penrose, Jos-PE and Camera Sunshine, the last on Henri's link: three exposures through one lens, each exposure differs a little bit in the angle of view.
With cameras like the Bermpohl and Devin the images are taken from the same angle, but with the mirrors used one gets double- and ghost-images because the reflecting surfaces could not be made thin enough. Today it is possible to make a beamsplitter with interference filters embedded in glass. So the reflection surface is very thin and there is no jump in the refractive index, but one can buy many color films for the money such a glass cube is worth.
Henri Gaud
5-Mar-2008, 13:20
<<Today it is possible to make a beamsplitter with interference filters embedded in glass. <<
Yes it is possible, but for few camera it is very very expensive.
> Yes it is possible, but for few camera it is very very expensive
I see these beam splitters used in many visual optics, where it splits one image into 2 images, one for each eye. If their was ghosting or scattering, the eye is very sensitive to any form of rivalry and it would be immediately noticeable. However, that is NOT the case. And these products are sold very cost effective....but, for 4x5, the Beam splitters would be much bigger, so maybe the cost would go up significantly. I guess this is why I was confused.... back in the early 1900's, I guess the technology for the beam splitters is not up to par with what we have today, whereas this camera could be built without too much difficulty today, albeit maybe very expensive. And with all this difficulty, of course, color film is the obvious choice.
Binocular tubes for microscopes where made since the middle of the 19th century e.g. by Nachet et Fils in Paris, also the Lummer-Brohum cube comes from the 19th century. So beam-splitter where state of the art at the beginning of the 20th century, the time color photography was in progress. Small band interference filters where aviable in the sixties. But such big cubes of optical glass where always very expensive. And heavy too.
And only necessary for a photographic system not better as modern color photography.
Joseph O'Neil
6-Mar-2008, 06:50
Going back to the original idea of a three B&W shots with three colour filters, the way things are going, such a shot taken today might be the only archival "colour" shots left 100 years from now. There are very few archival dyes and/or inks used in colour today.
joe
so has anyone else tried this yet?
I've tried it years ago as other old photographic processes like Daguerrotypies and Talbotypies. But now I prefer Ektacolor and Tri-X.
I tried it some time last year with Cokin Red, Green and 80A filters. I like the result and I'll continue with that once i get better set of filters.
http://48pixels.com/images/tc_tulip01.jpg
210 Symmar-S (Multicoated but not apochromatic) on a TXP in 1:1 D76.
Henri Gaud
8-Mar-2008, 11:28
I tried it some time last year with Cokin Red, Green and 80A filters. I like the result and I'll continue with that once i get better set of filters.
http://48pixels.com/images/tc_tulip01.jpg
210 Symmar-S (Multicoated but not apochromatic) on a TXP in 1:1 D76.
Very good,
If you want better filters i can send you a set
I copy your trichromy in my blog, and the link, if you have over trichromy, i can copy them, we have to speek about this experiment.
The link to my blog (http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?2008/03/08/654-marko-de-los-angeles-ca)
If you want filters (http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?2007/01/31/89-proposition-de-travail)
Henri Gaud
9-Mar-2008, 01:11
Hello,
I make a link with automatic translation with google on my blog,
If you like it,
It is the moment, you can go
In english, we can say in a funny english (http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?In-english)
Henri Gaud
4-Jan-2010, 01:07
Hello,
In my Work in Progress,
I post a new méthode for print trichromie with RA4.
Excuse me it is in French,
But the pictures are also in English.
http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/index.php?post/2010/01/03/TrichroR4A
And in English, but not very good English.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr&langpair=fr|en&u=http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/&prev=/translate_s%3Fhl%3Dfr%26q%3Dhttp://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie/%26sl%3Den%26tl%3Dfr
And happy new year in trichromy of course ...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.