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

[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

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.