RE: filmscanners: Scratched Negs & Home C-41 processing

["Eli Bowen" <elbow@microsoft.com>]

When it is so cheap to get color film developed by a lab (even a top
quality professional lab) it seems hard to justify the trouble and
expense of C-41 or E-6 processing at home, especially if a
formaldehyde-based stabilizer is used. Formaldehyde is a known
carcinogen with other bad health effects even at relatively low exposure
levels. 


>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         TimVictor@csi.com [mailto:TimVictor@csi.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:26 PM
> To:   'filmscanners@halftone.co.uk'
> Subject:      RE: filmscanners: Scratched Negs & Home C-41 processing
> 
> On Tuesday, January 23, Michael Wilkinson wrote:
> > With a Three and a quarter minute dev time and a tolerance of less
> than
> > a quarter of a degree
> > you have to be very careful to get perfect negs, even agitation is
> critical.
> 
> Fortunately we're talking about print film, where perfect negatives
> are less of an issue. The point of all that latitude in negative film
> is to have some room for error in the process. I understand why
> Kodak's
> recommendations for commercial labs would be extremely precise, but
> it's
> actually pretty hard to screw up badly enough that you can't get a
> nice
> scan out of it. Color temperatures and exposures are never perfect to
> begin with, and you're going to have color-correct anyway.
> 
> > I would suggest that for consistent quality you avoid hand
> processing or
> > buy a used one shot rotary discard processing machine.
> 
> That's quite a step up from a $20 Paterson plastic tank and a
> Rubbermaid
> storage bin for a water bath, isn't it. <grin>
> 
> Suggestion noted, and I were making any money taking pictures, I
> probably
> wouldn't be doing my own film. But I'm doing this for fun, and I think
> there are others on this list who also see this as a hobby. I'd read
> plenty of dire warnings before I started about how impossibly
> difficult
> color processing was. In practice it's been much easier than
> advertised
> to get acceptable results.
> 
> I don't mean to sound defensive about it. It can be a hassle getting
> set
> up and figuring out the routine, and I know that it wouldn't be worth
> the
> trouble for most photographers. But when I see blanket warnings of
> "don't
> try this at home", I feel like pointing out that it actually is
> possible.
> 
> I don't intend to take any processing business away from commercial
> labs--
> other than my own of course--but I'm happy with the results I'm
> getting
> and others might be too if they tried it.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Tim Victor
> TimVictor@csi.com