Jump to content

How To Print Color


Recommended Posts

I'm basically a black and white photographer with a darkroom. I haven't shot color in years, and when I did I mainly shot slides and had a lab make Cibachrome prints. Recently I decided I want to shoot color film, but I've discovered that this is not as easy as it used to be. There are no C-41 labs near me, and Cibachrome is a thing of the past. So my question: What's the best (and least expensive) way to go from color film to large high-quality prints?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, and IMHO of course, but digital has raised the bar so far that messing about with wet process color prints is a fool's errand. Scan the negs/positives and get or make digital prints. I was a dyed-in-the-wool black and white photographer for decades, but never really warmed up to color. I did my own color printing back in the RIT labs and never enjoyed the process or the results. Only now do I feel enough control to be happy with color, and I wouldn't dream of shooting more color film of any type.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to do that today, I would scan (or have the film scanned) with a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED (or equivalent / better scanner), and then send the Lightroom processed files to a photo lab that uses a Lambda, Chromira, or equivalent printer. I have had Cibachrome prints done a long, long time ago, but a modern digital printer can produce excellent results and handles high contrast images much more elegantly than Cibachrome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scan the negs/positives and get or make digital prints.

+1.

I put a shedload of money into dichroic-filtered enlargers, stabilised power supplies, colour analysers and roller-transport print processors, back in the day. Not to mention the time spent improving my wet-printing skills. All are totally beaten on colour clarity, accuracy and flexibility by a scanned negative file printed digitally.

 

Converting to a digital workflow wasn't a particularly quick or painless process, but the quality of the end result makes it definitely worthwhile.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question: What's the best (and least expensive) way to go from color film to large high-quality prints?

 

Well, "best" and "least expensive" can each mean different things to different people, but for the most part I would concur with having the film scanned and then printed by some "digital means."

 

If you were doing significant amounts of portrait or wedding work, and had little interest in doing your own "lab work," I'd recommend to farm it all out to an outfit that knows what they're doing, and pay to have them do the color correction. This may APPEAR to be more expensive, but if doing so can save YOUR time, well, it can depend on how you value your own time.

 

Now, if the sort of work you do is of an artistic nature, and you have certain ways that you want it "interpreted," then this may be hard to get out of a lab. You might end up spending quite a bit having experimental versions printed.

 

In the latter case it MIGHT be worth taking the dive into learning to prep your own files, etc., or even to buy a largish inkjet printer. I dunno, though, there is quite a lot to learn. This is often glossed over by people on the internet who want to convert you to their "religion," digital imaging. At a minimum you would need to learn something about so-called "color management," meaning the "care and handling" of ICC profiles. You'd ideally get "profiling equipment," both hardware and software, for your computer monitor, as well as learn how to use an image processing program such as Photoshop. Now if these are things that you already intended to learn about then you might see it as simply getting an education. Otherwise you should perhaps treat it as an expensive surcharge to the cost of your prints.

 

I should perhaps mention that I've spent the majority of my work life heavily involved with pro-level lab work, so I'm pretty familiar with most of the aspects of portrait work from either traditional chemical or digital processes. This spans from prior to the current film and paper processes (C-41 and RA-4) up to around a half-dozen years ago.

 

Fwiw I've never been a proponent of people doing their own color film development and printing at home, provided that they had a good lab available. (Pro lab people were just so much better than even a very devoted hobbyist.) But today things may be different. Good labs are pretty scarce and anybody with an internet connection has easy access to technical information on the current processes. (See Kodak Z manuals, Z-130 and Z-131, I believe.) But there can also a big learning curve to all of this, as you'll discover if you look through the Z manuals. But... if you have the discipline to follow the process rules, and shoot professional color neg films under "proper" conditions such that manipulation is not much needed, and have a good-quality color head on your enlarger (and good color judgment), you ought to be able to make high quality color prints in a home darkroom. They're just not very easy to manipulate much beyond a straight print. (See Ctein's book on printing, available for free download from his website, for lots of info on optical printing.)

 

Best of luck on your endeavors. I'll be glad to elaborate further on anything you'd like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another possibility: if you do a lot of C41 process film then a C41 kit might work. Shelf life is short so you would need to use the chemicals up quickly to get as many rolls as possible from the kit. From there scan and adjust images to your preference. If you don't want digital prints there are still some labs that will make conventional (chemical based) color prints from digital files. Another possibility if you don't want to process the negatives at home is to send them to a lab that will develop and scan. The last option is what I do if I need enlargements from color negative film.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is often glossed over by people on the internet who want to convert you to their "religion," digital imaging.

Bill, I think you're also glossing over the steep learning curve of darkroom colour printing.

 

Not just being able to think in complementary colours and filter density values to correct colour casts in the print, but tightening up the tolerances of the entire processing chain.

 

Modern colour paper just isn't made for dish processing, and working at 'room temperature' will only give substandard results.

 

Darkroom colour printing requires an entire new skillset (and additional hardware) in itself. Not just a slight extension to B&W printing. Whether that skillset is easier, and cheaper, to acquire than that needed for digital printing is entirely debatable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are still a lot of C-41 labs around, but maybe you are far from one.

Mail order is expensive, at least by the postage cost both ways, though sending more than one

roll at a time makes it cheaper. Or you can do your own C-41 film processing. I am not sure if

that is supposed to be part of the question.

 

But as above, once you have film scanning and digital printing is the way to go.

It is the way just about all the labs out there will do it if you send negatives.

 

Note, though, that RA-4 is still a popular way of making digital prints, and it can

be done for very reasonable prices. This way, in the end, you can still image that

they were printed with an enlarger.

 

There is a lot of competition among the large mail-order companies, with

discounts very often. They may not be as good as professional labs, but

they are good, and well priced. Shutterfly keeps sending me offers for

free 16x20 prints, just pay shipping. The 16x20 prints might not be RA-4,

but the smaller prints that they make are, on Crystal-Archive paper.

 

If you look at the data sheet for Crystal Archive, you find that its

reciprocity characteristic allows for seconds (enlarger) or microsecond

(scanning laser digital) exposure.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I think you're also glossing over the steep learning curve of darkroom colour printing.

 

Not just being able to think in complementary colours and filter density values to correct colour casts in the print, but tightening up the tolerances of the entire processing chain.

 

Modern colour paper just isn't made for dish processing, and working at 'room temperature' will only give substandard results.

 

Darkroom colour printing requires an entire new skillset (and additional hardware) in itself. Not just a slight extension to B&W printing. Whether that skillset is easier, and cheaper, to acquire than that needed for digital printing is entirely debatable.

 

And don't forget time. It will take you a long time to get everything together and working right, followed by many hours going up the learning curve. After all that, the time invested in a single good print is more like hours than minutes. IMO, a game for the rich and retired. I've gone up both paths and wet process is definitely harder. By comparison, you won't beat the color from a Canon PRO-100, almost free when you consider some of the deal they have, or for somewhat more, get a printer with pigment inks if you think your great grandchildren will want your prints. Don't expect that kind of longevity from wet process prints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I think you're also glossing over the steep learning curve of darkroom colour printing.

 

I don't think so. I came right out and said there's a big learning curve, etc. Here's part of what I said:

But there can also a big learning curve to all of this, as you'll discover if you look through the Z manuals. But... if you have the discipline to follow the process rules...

 

Not just being able to think in complementary colours and filter density values to correct colour casts in the print, but tightening up the tolerances of the entire processing chain

 

In my view, nobody NEEDS to think in complementary colors. All they've gotta do is follow a simple rule for color correction, "Always do the wrong thing!" Now to get from there to the standard filters, magenta and yellow, yeah, you do need to sometimes go to the complementary colors, but this can simply be a mechanical procedure using a "color wheel" that someone can sketch in two minutes (three overlapping circles labeled red, green, and blue). Then the overlapping parts are labeled cyan, magenta, and yellow.

 

I can teach this to someone in an hour or two. Here's an example of how it works: say that your print is too red. Ok, you see that it's too red, and since you should "do the wrong thing," you're thinking that you want to add red filtration. But... we don't use red filters so you look at the color wheel and see that red is between magenta and yellow. So you add equal amounts of both magenta and yellow filtration.

 

The only problem now is to learn how to recognize the colors and how much correction is needed. If one (again) has the discipline to print a set of color ring-a-rounds for reference then this is a great help.

 

But let me go back and reiterate what I first said. My actual recommendation is to go with scanned negs and digital printing. And preferably these would be done by someone who knows what they're doing. I just bring up the possibility of diy printing as the OP already has a darkroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did make some color darkroom prints years ago but never got very good at it. I may have some slight color deficiency that makes it difficult to see very small color gradations. But what I'm really looking for here is a way to send off color film, get printable scans that a pro lab can make into reasonable exhibition prints, perhaps 16x20. I know some folks who have their work printed by Adorama, but they Photoshop them first. I would hope to find a lab that would provide any necessary adjustments themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I was printing colour negs in 1966, and continued to do so for about 35 more years. I know exactly what's involved and an hour's tuition won't even scratch the surface.

 

I'm smiling; it's kinda unusual for someone to play "that card" with me. I gotta applaud you for going color back then. I was strictly b&w then, being first exposed to electronic flash and cameras with built-in sync. I didn't start working with PROCESSING of color until near 10 years later; it was still a "black art" to me and I started working in a large lab with the intention of learning about it. No way I could have afforded to do my own color, nor did I have much interest in it other to understand the issues involved in shooting it for weddings, etc. (My primary interest was photojournalism, which was obviously b&w in those days, but I wanted to be well-rounded).

 

But back to color printing... I don't know what you had in your neck of the woods, but in the US the primary system in those days was Kodak's Ektaprint system (EP-3). Big difference from today. The developer used benzyl alcohol which was very difficult to get dissolved, and helped lead to these tarry blobs floating in the developer. If your paper passed through such a blob it was ruined and had to be reprinted. Then there was the long (relatively) process time, and high sensitivity to byproducts - the developer was very "touchy" in that respect. So learning to color balance was a "hard row to hoe," as they say.

 

One of my jobs back then, as a wet-behind-the-ears QC tech was printing sensitometric wedges on color papers that we were testing. I'm sure I exposed well over a thousand in those days, trying to balance to a neutral color. The boss would explain that each additional filter surface in the pack would reduce the transmission slightly, and that the filters are not identical, so that I may get unexpected results if I had to remove, say, 2 CC from a pack with a 40CC filter in it (the 40 is replaced with a 20, a 10, a 5, and a 2). So perhaps the new pack would show the 2 CC change, or perhaps not. At any rate, whatever the result, that was the current result, and testing continued from that point.

 

Periodically there was an unexpected color jump, presumably a result of me screwing something up. I spent plenty of time thinking through the corrections, thinking along these lines: "ok, the print is too red - that means too much yellow and magenta dye. Those come from the blue-sensitive and green-sensitive layers, so I need to reduce exposure on those two layers, only (OR, increase exposure on the red-sensitive layer). So I want to add, to my filter pack, filters that will block both bluish light and greenish light - that is, to add both a yellow (to block bluish light) and a magenta filter (to block greenish light)." Obviously this line of thinking was prone to error - one little slip up and you take an unexpected jump in the wrong direction. Then one day I read an article by a guy who knew what he was doing. He said that, in color-correcting prints from color negs, simply do "the wrong thing." It turns out that an idea that simple is just about infallible, and after that I never (that I recall) screwed up the direction of a color correction.

 

Now, coming back to more modern times - no more benzyl alcohol; the developer mixes quick and easy. The paper is chloride based - no more bromide being released to slow down development. The system is incredibly tolerant to replenishment errors (or "overuse" to a hobbyist user). And development is FAST - 45 seconds at aim temp, as I recall. And for the commercial users, no more benzyl alcohol carryover into the blix (in electrolytic silver recovery it gets oxidized to benzaldehyde, that cherry-candy smelling chemical, which tends to put a yellowish stain on the paper). So the new process/paper, Kodak's RA-4, was like a minor miracle. On top of this is the fact that dichroic filters became standard in enlargers - you just turn a dial to move the filter in or out of the light path. (Older Chromega color heads had large continuously variable filters that were subject to fading; the dichroic filters are hard-cutting non-fading setups).

 

I know exactly what's involved and an hour's tuition won't even scratch the surface.

 

Granted, the people I was dealing with weren't rookies; they had at least some "color theory" behind them - the sort that is taught with respect to photography. But with that sort of person, who has maybe struggled to understand how to color-correct, in one or two hours I could teach them enough to stop their "wrong-direction" errors. A lot of the time would be spent "proving" that it works by walking them through the full sequence of ideas (like I did above). Once they buy-in to the idea, AND if they make a set of ring-a-round prints, their color-correcting problems are mostly over. (Unless they have screwed up chemicals.)

 

I'm pretty darn confident that I could teach just about any serious and dedicated photo student to make decent color-corrected prints inside of 2 to 3 days (yes, days, cuz now I'm including mixing the chems and processing). As long as they don't suffer from a terminal case of "clumsiness" or brain-fade, nor have significant color vision deficiencies. Back in the office we'd use the "Farnsworth-Munsell 100-hue test" (I believe it was called) on potential color-correctors. This is probably about the best single test there is for this purpose. It consists of a series of color "caps" covering the entire range of hues in a sort of pastel shade. So it is a moderately saturated series of colors, not unlike the amount of saturation in typical skin tones. The test subject basically puts them all in order. If they have a color vision deficiency there will be a range of hues that look the same to them, and they'll get some out of order. The "scoring" of the test essentially rates them on how many were out of order, and how far out of position they were.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what I'm really looking for here is a way to send off color film, get printable scans that a pro lab can make into reasonable exhibition prints, perhaps 16x20.

 

Arthur, sorry to have sidetracked your post so much. I think it's a good plan, but unfortunately I don't have any lab recs. What I would personally do is probably to look online for some labs and get on the phone with them. Since I've done this sort of thing for a living I'd probably be asking different questions than you would, but you can probably still get a lot out of this. Just ask in terms of what you know and what you're worried about.

 

I'd be clear that I want their best product (or near to it) and am willing to pay for it (assuming that you are). (A "best" product probably means that a more skilled person is handling the job, and probably is given the leeway to spend more time on it.) I'd ask about their success in whatever sort of shooting you do. (I've primarily worked with portraits, so I'd be asking about skin tones - the gradation and how do different complexions and hair colors come out?) Are their other customers happy, etc.? And what specific films are they most successful with? What about such-and-such film (my favorite); are they successful with it?

 

If you do something else, say landscapes, these are open to more "interpretation," meaning that it is not cut and dried what the color SHOULD be. So I'd ask how they zero in, can they perhaps run some smaller samples for you to choose from? They might, for example, ask you to initially include some color charts in the scene; I dunno what they might suggest. Maybe they would keep a "profile" of you on file where they keep notes on the sort of color tones and "sharpening," etc., that you prefer.

 

Fwiw, different films may have different spectral makeups - the specific dyes in the film. And the specific scanners that they use may see the dyes differently than a different scanner. So the ideal situation is that the lab gets specific "setup data" for that film/scanner combination from either the film or scanner manufacturer. This is the main reason why I suggest to find out what films they "are successful" with. I would sort of expect a pro-level lab to be competent with Kodak Portra films (for portrait work) and perhaps Ektar 100 for landscape-type work.

 

If you're not happy with the answers, but the price is right, you might still wanna try em out, I dunno. I'd probably also look for lab recs from something like photrio.org.

 

You may get recs from people to get the lab scans and handle the digital files yourself. If you're knowledgeable about this sort of thing, great! If not, there's a big learning curve (yep, I think it's bigger than for optical printing). I'd suggest Bruce Fraser's (older) "Digital Color Management" as a good primer. The digital files will be in a so-called color space where each set of RGB values will represent a definite "color," or something akin to that. But unless your computer monitor has been "profiled" with a hardware/software package you won't know for sure how accurate it is. So if you try to fix up a digital file with an unprofiled monitor it's something of a crap shoot what you'll get back. As long as you're ok with this, it's another way to experiment. You might try several variations in a smaller size (to keep costs down) then order your preferred version in a larger size. (You might still find that the "sharpening" effect is set up differently on a large printer.

 

One last thing to note: you may have a choice to have the lab print on either inkjet or a silver halide RA4 paper. (The RA4 would most likely be exposed by digital means, such as a scanning laser.) As Conrad suggested, a "pigment-based" inkjet printer will likely hold up better under display conditions over a long period of time. And most likely will have the capability of having "stronger" colors, provided that such colors are in your image file. In typical portrait work this won't make much difference, but it may for certain colorful flowers, etc., it might; I dunno. One area where the RA4 probably still holds an advantage is in the ability to maintain its "color" under different lighting conditions. This is the counter side of the ability to show stronger colors. Stronger colors are a result of using colorants with narrower spectral peaks; this also tends to exaggerate differences in the light source, especially with something like energy-efficient fluorescent lamps. I believe that some more modern inkjet printers are using a greater number of inks in order to deal with this.

 

At any rate, the bottom line is that you ultimately have to just pick something out and try it. Best of luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern colour paper just isn't made for dish processing, and working at 'room temperature' will only give substandard results.

 

This just isn't true. Color prints can be developed with excellent results in trays at room temperature. I use Kodak Ektacolor RA Developer/Replenisher RT to develop Fuji CA II paper at the same temperature as b&w, 68F for two minutes, followed by bleach-fix for two minutes then a wash. In a tray, no stop bath is needed so it is even simpler and easier than b&w processing.

 

Darkroom colour printing requires an entire new skillset (and additional hardware) in itself. Not just a slight extension to B&W printing. Whether that skillset is easier, and cheaper, to acquire than that needed for digital printing is entirely debatable.

 

Besides the chemistry all that is really needed is to develop the skill of color balancing a print which can be learned with a little practice and a color head that can be acquired relatively cheaply these days.

 

There are of course many factors that can enter into a person's choice of medium, I just want to point out that darkroom color printing is not as problematic as many think it is and as such it often gets a bad rap because of this, and it is becoming a lost art and that is a shame because it is still a very viable way to produce high quality color prints, and is easier today than ever before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just isn't true. Color prints can be developed with excellent results in trays at room temperature. I use Kodak Ektacolor RA Developer/Replenisher RT to develop Fuji CA II paper at the same temperature as b&w, 68F for two minutes, followed by bleach-fix for two minutes then a wash. In a tray, no stop bath is needed so it is even simpler and easier than b&w processing.

 

(snip)

 

You can do it at room temperature, but it was designed for higher temperatures and works best at those temperatures.

 

But about 50 years ago, Unicolor invented the Unidrum, which is especially convenient for warmer print processing.

 

The plastic has a high heat capacity, so once warmed up it will keep the developer close to temperature for long enough.

(Close enough if the average temperature is right, so if it loses 4 degrees, start 2 degrees higher.)

 

The Unidrum holds just enough chemistry for one print, so single use.

 

The thing that Unicolor is named for wasn't really a great idea, and I believe ended long ago.

A big cost for color printing used to be the set of filters. Unicolor made a wheel with red, green,

and blue filters, which you then expose for the appropriate time for each, hopefully without moving

anything that isn't supposed to move. (Print, head, focus, negative, etc.)

 

But CP filters aren't that expensive. (CC filters are, so try not to use those.)

 

It can also be done with trays in a water bath to keep the temperature.

Not so easy, though.

 

I now have a 16x20 Unidrum in case I find a use for it. Also the 8x10 I bought 40 years ago.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

digital has raised the bar so far that messing about with wet process color prints is a fool's errand

 

You can process at home, but I did this only when I had a full-scale darkroom available.

To get the film processed by someone else, try some place like Dwayne's (Dwayne passed away, but the site still promises a 10-day delay because of the pandemic)

 

35mm Color Film Processing – Dwayne’s Photo

 

Then scan the negatives, or maybe the processor can do so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many will scan negatives. Some do it with a not so fancy scanner at not so high resolution.

It is a little easier to scan before cutting with some scanners, so a little easier to have them do it,

or have them return uncut negatives.

 

Some like the "scan with DSLR" method. Personally I like it for slides, but not for negatives,

especially masked color negatives.

 

I have some not so bad scanners, now long discontinued, though not one of the

often mentioned Nikon scanners.

 

Mail order is probably a good deal if you can wait until you have a few rolls,

to combine shipping costs. (Both ways.)

 

I remember when you could mail the Kodak prepaid mailers

with two stamps, but the postage rates have changed for unusual

(not flat) shaped objects. For one roll, the postage is close to the

processing costs.

 

Fortunately there is still one lab near me, though maybe closed

now for Covid restrictions.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can do it at room temperature, but it was designed for higher temperatures and works best at those temperatures.

 

 

This may be true for some developers but not for the Kodak RA-RT replenisher, used without starter. I have run sensitometric and visual comparisons to the high temperature developer with identical results. Ron Mowery, a deceased Kodak engineer (Photo Engineer over on APUG-Photrio website) discovered the ability of the RA-RT replenisher to produce excellent results at room temperature sometime after he retired, and endorsed its use, and many printers on that site have use it, although Kodak itself has never promoted this capability.

 

It is true that the C-41 process must be used at the correct temperature to avoid crossover.

Edited by robcalhoun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm basically a black and white photographer with a darkroom. I haven't shot color in years, and when I did I mainly shot slides and had a lab make Cibachrome prints. Recently I decided I want to shoot color film, but I've discovered that this is not as easy as it used to be. There are no C-41 labs near me, and Cibachrome is a thing of the past. So my question: What's the best (and least expensive) way to go from color film to large high-quality prints?

 

I tried to get into Cibachrome just when they were starting to go the way of the DODO bird. It was extremely hard to find chemicals and if you did, usually the retailer could not ship them to your house. You could only pick up the chemicals in-store. I did do some color development and color prints print for a few years using the C-41 and RA4 chemicals and really enjoyed it, even more than B&W. You can still find them here: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/13-Chemicals/Color-Chemicals , but the shipping is snail's pace to say the least.

 

The problem these days is that it's hard to find chemicals in ready made kits that you could just use once and dispose . You really have to know your Ounces, Gallons , Milliters and Liters to get the correct mix from the bigger industrial size chemicals !! Another problem is that these chemicals don't last forever, maybe a few months so if you do't use them you lose them. I tried Kodak, Unicolor and Tetenal, but my favorite was the Kodak chemicals which you can't get any more as far as I know ? Tetenal use to smell like rotten eggs if you let the kit sit on the shelf too long.

 

keeping the Chemicals at an exact temperature was really NOT that hard if you worked fast and efficiently, especially if you had one of those Temperature Baths like the JOBO's . I use to turn on my JOBO CPE2 set the temperasure to 85F and forget it. The baby-sitting is what got to me. You practically had to sit there with a stop-watch and watch the whole process from beginning to end ! To me, like other said, it was much easier to just get your film developed at the local drug store then scan them in.

 

However, if you wanted to print big 8X10 or larger, then using and enlarger was much better. The RA4 prints just came out snappier and sharper(IMHO). For the occasional print, using drums was tedious but not back-breaking, but if you wanted to do a lot of prints then a Color Processor was much better, plus you didn't have to sit in the dark all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternative for the boring cleaning and drying of the Jobo drums when doing RA-4 color processing: Nova vertical processor or when you want to make a lot of prints: Thermaphot roller machine.

I started with RA-4 low temperature in trays in the 90's. It was a mess and not very stable in temperature. For a few larger posters the Jobo CPA-2 with elevator which I have is OK. Better the heated Nova vertical paper processor. The best is the ACP252 which I have now for about 20 years. You have to standarize on a good C41 film and nowadays you have only available high temperaure RA-4 chemicals. Apart from a good color analyzer which has a densitometer too you can do an automatic optimizing of the filtering. For starting I would do it by hand, also to learn the way how to filter to get a neutral photo print. However for processing you need a stable temperature system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
To add to the discussion, I develop B&W and color (negatives, and now also slides) at home. B&W and C-41 are easily done without sending to a lab and I enjoy the process a lot. I scan using a Nikon Coolscan 5000. I used a different scanner before but the difference was like day and night. I do minimal edits to B&W but more heavy (color and contrast) corrections to C-41. I used a lot of different software and now settled on the new 'negadoctor' (yes, terrible name) capabilitis of Darktable. C-41+scanning will never give you perfect colors. The process was simply engineered with photographic paper as a key component in mind. Negadoctor has nice features to adjust the color mask differently for shadows and highlights and this helps a lot. As much as I love the analog process (for the sake of enjoying photography as an activity), printing is a different story. Printing B&W is great, printing color seems to be a task that needs very good control and experience. Recreating this in 2020 seems difficult, at least for an amateur like me. If I recall correctly, the types of papers and processes to adjust color contrast in prints are largely gone. Honestly, I have not even tried so far (but may do so in the future). Long story short, I love B&W darkroom prints but for color I simply use my Epson P600. As far as labs are concerned, I have not found a single lab (in the US) that does good prints right off your color negatives consistently. If there is a little bit variation in your photography and scenes, chances are that you will not like the prints. E.g., scans are typically made to be flat to allow for interpretation, prints, however, should not be flat. I would develop at home, invert with negadoctor or another tool, edit, and then send off to a lab or printing service or simply print at home. The P600 is certainly good enough for me. Overall, a modern C-41 workflow with good results (and digital prints) seems very common these days. Oh, btw, I am all for trying. In the end, we all want to keep film and analog processes alive. What counts is whether at the end there is more fun than frustration. Edited by KrisK_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...