COBBLER'S PAGE

It seems that as technology gathers pace in the communications field the production of pictures via the camera using silver based film is still a serious contender in the professional market when it comes to quality in the finished picture. The computer hardware and software to get anything approaching the quality of the film/print process costs a lot of money, beyond the pocket of even the most serious amateur. I have seen a lot of digital pictures produced on the latest type of papers and, at reasonable sizes, been impressed by the textural quality of the matt surface but not by the 'depth'of the images which, on the whole, look rather one dimensional, particularly with B&W.

The tones have compression which identify the picture as digitally produced. I look in vain for something that you can compare on equal terms at 16x20 size. Am I being cynical in thinking that standards have dropped and that we accept them? We are told repeatedly that things are better. XP1 film became XP2. In each case we were told this was the best. XP2+ is even better. How can you improve on the best? Coming nearer home to CRC members own work, how do you think the E6 reversal processing measures up? Have you really had a good look at your slides taken over the years? Can you see any improvement over what you were quite happy with say, ten years ago? Ignoring subject matter and your own expertise in the taking. Technically, are the colours better? Is there a notable difference in the grain? Are Kodak, Fuji or Agfa materials vastly superior to what they were? If we are to believe the publicity distributed by the manufacturers and repeated in the photographic press, our results now should be far superior to what they once were. After all we are on E6 now.

Kodak have seen no reason to change Kodakchrome over the years other than to make it faster. If we look at the alterations to the E6 process we find they were mainly made to conform to American anti-pollution laws and to protect patents on some of the chemicals used.

The Agfa system used to give good results both in slides and prints. The EP2 process has been superseded by the RA process. It is faster but are the results any better? How long before we read of a new 'improved' RA paper? As a home processor and darkroom printer I have had plenty of opportunity to compare results over a long period of time. I cannot honestly say that slides taken this year are any better than those taken 10/20 years ago. I am told they should be. Prints are the same. I have some excellent results taken with Agfa CNS film, printed on Agfa paper. They may have taken ages to process but the results are as good as anything we have now. You may feel I am suffering from the 'fings ain't what they used to be' syndrome but take a critical look at your collections. Recent additions may have been quicker to produce but are the results as good or better? Look in the shadows of your slides, do they have a slight green tinge? Many of them, mainly home-processed, will have though not enough to spoil the picture unless there is a lot of shadow.

A simple test is to underexpose 1/2 a stop at a time from the correct exposure to 2 stops under. If your densest black, when viewed through a light bulb, gets progressively green suspect the processing. A further experiment is to process a roll in your home brew/kit and send another roll to a reliable processor (like Peak Processing, Sheffield). Compare the base black or shadows through a bulb. Ideally the 'black' should be a neutral colour and dense. It is more than likely that both will have a cast. The one professionally processed will tend to neutral purple at its densest. The home brew/kit varys. If the first development was correct you should have good density which covers the shortcomings in the shadows as long as you re-exposure was spot on.

Are we being conned into accepting the insistence that improvements are being made, where in fact price competition and environmental laws are the real agenda?

We were told that resin-coated B & W papers contained the same amount of silver as fibre based papers but anyone using them would tell you the fibre based paper gave superior results. Why was that?

Agfa had to take out a chemical in their Record Rapide paper on environmental considerations. Customers using this material have not been happy with it since. Anyone getting a chance to look at some of the old papers like Bromesko, Gaevart, or Mimosa would realise just what we lost in the way of quality papers. There is a resurgence of fibre based papers coming from smaller companys which may go some way to redress the balance. Will they measure up to past quality? I certainly hope so.