John Francis wrote:
>
> One purported modification (for negative stock) is to make the base
> physically thinner, resulting in less of an overall orange cast.
>
John,
I've mentioned this before in another thread, the orange mask of a colour
negative film is developed into the emulsion, not dyed into the base.
Reducing the film base thickness would give a flimsier negative of exactly
the same colour as before.
Also, think about the name of the orange mask. The key word is "mask". It
is not a "filter" of uniform colour and density, but our imprecise human
eyes cannot appreciate more that the effect on the clear parts of the
negative. According to my education (but I'd love to read an opinion from
anyone directly involved in emulsion technology) the mask is proportionally
developed into the emulsion in response to the colour and density of the
image. The orange we see is how the mask reacts to zero exposure.
To those who grapple with the differing scanning performance of various
brands of colour negative, well what do you all expect?!! Colour negatives
have always printed differently to each other, to the same types from
different batches, and even to themselves at various ages after development.
Only now its not such an erratic job as it was with early C41 films (after
years of C22 which was a stable, mature but environmentally unsound product)
and when practically every brand used a different chemical process. Plus,
you get to work at a nice desk, in a nice bright room of your home or
office. No dermatitis, no irritated sinuses and lungs from chemical fumes,
no unremovable chemical stains on your clothes.
Desktop film scanning is a young technology, expect some challenges to your
skill.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
