3 ms·

The home-developed Kodak Gold looks a lot worse than what you’d get from a lab though. It sure has it’s very unique style this way and might even be a deliberat

The home-developed Kodak Gold looks a lot worse than what you’d get from a lab though. It sure has it’s very unique style this way and might even be a deliberate choice, but that film is popular for it’s nice and warm color rendering, not for producing so many false color artifacts.

silvertab 4y ago
Weird, c41 is an extremely standardized process. Developing times, temperatures, results etc. are very consistent. I get the exact same results by developing it at home than when I get it done at a lab. B&W is a lot more subjective and most labs will charge you more to develop it because it has more variables and can't be as easily automated. Scanning and color reversal is where you'll probably see a difference for color negatives, but development, if done properly, should be very similar.
- 0_____0 4y ago
  How tight do you have to hold bath temperatures? I haven't developed C41 at home but have done B&W, and reading about home C41 I remember that it seemed trickier to get right.
  - armadsen 4y ago
    A sous vide device makes it easy to hold a water bath at a precise enough temperature that I get C41 results at home that are indistinguishable from my local lab, at least to my eyes.
  - silvertab 4y ago
    I use a sous-vide circulator to get the products ~1F above the recommended 102F for the shortest possible development time (3.5min) and never had any problems! The kit I use (cinestill) is a 2-bath process (Developer, and Blix) and not accounting for the time to get the products to 103F, developing a roll of C41 film takes less time than B&W and gives me more consistent results.
    - 0_____0 3y ago
      Ah that makes sense. I was doing B&W with basically a kettle and a glass thermometer, I had no electronic temperature control equipment. I think I would have found it extremely challenging to do C41 consistently without that.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
I'm thinking that some of this may be failure to compensate for the yellowish-to-reddish filter layer that's built into most classic color negative films to account for being printed with incandescent/halogen lamps. If that's ignored, the final image is going to come out blueish to cyanish.
- silvertab 4y ago
  Yup, that's very possible; when I do manual color inversion I usually fill a layer with the film base color, and use the "subtract" blend mode to account for it, else I get much "cooler" colors not unlike what is shown in the demo movie.
flipthefrog 4y ago
That was my first thought too, Kodak Gold is not supposed to look this bad. Converting color negatives is actually quite hard. You can get good results with software such as Negative Lab Pro (Adobe Lightroom plugin), but getting anywhere close to the quality that you get with a lab scanner (usually 20 years old Fuji Frontiers or Noritsu scanners) takes some serious skills. Also, when digitizing film with an DSLR, the light source is very important and has a huge effect on the colors

silvertab 4y ago

Weird, c41 is an extremely standardized process. Developing times, temperatures, results etc. are very consistent. I get the exact same results by developing it at home than when I get it done at a lab. B&W is a lot more subjective and most labs will charge you more to develop it because it has more variables and can't be as easily automated. Scanning and color reversal is where you'll probably see a difference for color negatives, but development, if done properly, should be very similar.

0_____0 4y ago
How tight do you have to hold bath temperatures? I haven't developed C41 at home but have done B&W, and reading about home C41 I remember that it seemed trickier to get right.
- armadsen 4y ago
  A sous vide device makes it easy to hold a water bath at a precise enough temperature that I get C41 results at home that are indistinguishable from my local lab, at least to my eyes.
- silvertab 4y ago
  I use a sous-vide circulator to get the products ~1F above the recommended 102F for the shortest possible development time (3.5min) and never had any problems! The kit I use (cinestill) is a 2-bath process (Developer, and Blix) and not accounting for the time to get the products to 103F, developing a roll of C41 film takes less time than B&W and gives me more consistent results.
  - 0_____0 3y ago
    Ah that makes sense. I was doing B&W with basically a kettle and a glass thermometer, I had no electronic temperature control equipment. I think I would have found it extremely challenging to do C41 consistently without that.

Turing_Machine 4y ago

I'm thinking that some of this may be failure to compensate for the yellowish-to-reddish filter layer that's built into most classic color negative films to account for being printed with incandescent/halogen lamps. If that's ignored, the final image is going to come out blueish to cyanish.

silvertab 4y ago
Yup, that's very possible; when I do manual color inversion I usually fill a layer with the film base color, and use the "subtract" blend mode to account for it, else I get much "cooler" colors not unlike what is shown in the demo movie.

flipthefrog 4y ago

That was my first thought too, Kodak Gold is not supposed to look this bad. Converting color negatives is actually quite hard. You can get good results with software such as Negative Lab Pro (Adobe Lightroom plugin), but getting anywhere close to the quality that you get with a lab scanner (usually 20 years old Fuji Frontiers or Noritsu scanners) takes some serious skills. Also, when digitizing film with an DSLR, the light source is very important and has a huge effect on the colors