Category: How To

Mixing Kodak Tanning Developer

Posted on Posted in dye transfer, How To, the LabTagged

adage: mix for 4, use for 3

NOTE- if you’re APUG, or Large Format Forum registered, you may not use this material. Please, leave this site now!

To make a set of mats, expose them and set aside the three mats in a safe-box. To develop, use the mixing directions, amounts as though you were souping 4 mats, but use that mixed developer in thirds. Take 1/3 and develop each mat in your developing tray. This assumes a very standardized procedure that has controlled balance and contrast. Clearly, if you are processing mats to different contrasts, then you cannot develop using the same mixed working solution.
Time is not a good adjustment to matrix contrast change. Tanning of the gelatin does not occur directly with development time. The oxidation of the tanning developer does not affect the matrix tanning as much as it would intuitively seem. The experienced darkroom tech coming to dye transfer cannot wholly bring their prior B&W experience to the matrix phase of dye transfer.

dye transfer

the matrix is the matrix — another world with other meanings

Sadly, none of this instruction will be useful to you these days, since none of the Kodak materials are useable. Any matrix film you could find is too old for proper dye transfers. They will have ‘age fog’ of the gelatin itself. Even if using the Efke film (sponsored by Jim Browning)it is so old that I wouldn’t use it as a reference to dye transfer from the age when fresh supplies were available in great quantity.

Even the most recent incarnation of Matrix films (Gecko, and Del Rio), which were being made when this post was originally made (2014), are out of production(2018 was the last date).

some links to formulas: Tanning Developers …& … PRIVATE page

Film–a different stochastic

Posted on Posted in How To

Film isn’t duplicated, even by dupe film,
which adds its own definition to the visual story; however, in a digital migration of picture making, we have sought to copy the “look” of film(s). Much of the success of small venture Instagram was its filter set. Of course, easy working for distribution of imagery is what had to be in place — that was a necessary function. The success factor was the feature need — those dream elements — components of a personal connection — if you will, a style. Those styles were the film look cliches. Film as a set of defects in optical recording.

All summaries are open to error by omission–true of any emulation by one process of another. Digital cannot be film, Doesn’t have to be, in my opinion. At some point in history film will be only an item of the past. During the transition time, digital is subjected to imitation role — not quite mime, but close enough in meme

The difference in factor, image structrue between processed film, and digital data is subjected to a LUT to impose an element of the past look onto the digital data. A table is made of values we want output for certain values — software loops through this, and outputs an altered rendering of the raw digital data. The LUT is necessary since an algorithmic answer isn’t available. Canon data isn’t even the same as Sony, as Ricoh, as … a LUT can be prepared to manage those differences, so it is.
I always thought that some items of a LUT could be calculated in place. A LUT could be a set of algorithms– a lookup procedure system — LUP [liLIPut was a tiny processing language I wrote to make developing LUTs and LUPs — never saw the light] —
The LUP may being used somewhere, that I don’t know. Still strikes me as a possible interim, however, I am much more interested in where digital gets, after it gets free of being a poor form of film.