Astia for cross processing

Hello,

In you all's experience, what transparency film (available in 4x5 size) has the most mild effect when cross processed?

I am thinking about Astia, but want to hear at least one ore two descriptions of it from APUG users before I drop the cash on a roll. (I found some stuff on Flicker, but you never know how it has been manipulated.) I am used to Provia. Its look is a bit too heavy for what I want on this project, however. It would be really great if I could really pop solid colors without adding too much contrast, while "graying" up the darker and less saturated areas. Perhaps skip bleach or partial skip bleach would be a better choice.

Experimentation is in order. I will likely shoot a roll and develop half of it in normal C-41 and half of it skip bleached (or maybe thirds, with the lat third being pushed development), but I just want a feel for what you all have got using Astia cross processed.

Thank you in advance.

P.S. I will be combining flash and ambient exposures...possibly longish bulb exposures followed by a pop of flash near the end of the exposure. Fuji states that this film maintains intended color and reciprocity out to one minute.

Anyone? Bueller?

My experience tells me that EPP is almost like a negative film in balance and is very well matched in the 3 curves when processed in C-41. That is all I can say. I have seen reports that some Fuji films do not cross process as well as Kodak films. IDK personally.

I can post a comparison of EPP and VC120, both at ISO 100 in 4x5 and processed side by side. It might take me a while to find it and convert it to low res if you really want to see it.

PE

Well, hell. Thanks for the info. I have 50 sheets of EPP right here. I have Astia loaded in my holders to try out, but maybe I will unload it.

Someone once told me that they "thought" that some problems with Fuji was due to the 4th layer in there for fluorescent lighting. I just got that in a note with no proof, but thinking it through there is some very fuzzy but believable logic in it. You see, it removes that fluorescent green, by adding some magenta, but in cross processing it adds green by removing magenta. That is weak, but that is what I saw in the examples shown.

PE

Perhaps the effect from the extra Fuji layer could be minimized with a CC filter.

The examples I have found have been very magenta or red, though a few examples have been greenish, and I have seen a few that looked very much like the look I want; neutral as far as color casts, but exaggerated contrast and saturation, and a little "grit" in the low midtones.

Perhaps exposure causes much more of an effect on color in cross processing.

Photo Engineer said:

Someone once told me that they "thought" that some problems with Fuji was due to the 4th layer in there for fluorescent lighting. I just got that in a note with no proof, but thinking it through there is some very fuzzy but believable logic in it. You see, it removes that fluorescent green, by adding some magenta, but in cross processing it adds green by removing magenta. That is weak, but that is what I saw in the examples shown.

PE

Click to expand...

Pe your are 100 percent correct in this.

2F/2F said:

Perhaps the effect from the extra Fuji layer could be minimized with a CC filter.

The examples I have found have been very magenta or red, though a few examples have been greenish, and I have seen a few that looked very much like the look I want; neutral as far as color casts, but exaggerated contrast and saturation, and a little "grit" in the low midtones.

Perhaps exposure causes much more of an effect on color in cross processing.

Click to expand...

My results have been very Magenta. i was wondering if using a green filter while shooting would help reduce it a bit...?

Photo Engineer said:

You see, it removes that fluorescent green, by adding some magenta, but in cross processing it adds green by removing magenta. That is weak, but that is what I saw in the examples shown

Click to expand...

Why would it do the opposite in cross processing? If that which is green in real life is rendered magenta on the print, that would be totally false color, and I don't see how anything other than the emulsion design itself could cause such an extreme example of false color; literally 180 degrees. It doesn't make sense to me that a layer that adds magenta to an E-6 positive (meaning that the layer itself is green colored until the film is reversed) would also add magenta to the negative (green to the print) if not reversed. It makes sense that the fourth layer would create green layer on a cross-processed E-6 film (since it was never reversed to make it magenta), and thus a magenta cast on the print. Where am I wrong in my thinking?

Oh, I meant the actual dye which in reversal would add magenta but in cross processing would remove magenta. As a result, the negative appears to shift magenta-green. However, the deeper effect is that it upsets the overall tone of the print through what I think or what appears to me to be increased crossover.

So, whereas the layer reacts normally in E6 it enhances a green-magenta crossover.

Nothing magic and it is just an opinion based on viewing some of the results.

PE

So, the net effect is that things that should be rendered green as a positive don't quite make it to green, even when color "correction" is performed?

I wonder; If the fourth layer was not there, if the magenta layer of the film would also exhibit signs of a crossover due simply to the cross process...or if it is the anti-green introduced by the fourth layer alone that causes the apparent crossover.

If there is a problem with green not quite making it to green even after color correction, perhaps this is why the advice to overexpose is so often given; to make color correction easier?

At any rate, I will know soon. I shot a Macbeth chart and a grey card with electronic flash, and will be processing this weekend. I used your suggestion, EPN, and Astia 100F. I shot one on each film at box speed, and one on each film at EI 25, to test the "overexpose two stops across the board" suggestions I have heard. I overexpose one stop on Provia (and pull 30 seconds from development) and it works better than box speed for me, but every film is different.

I cannot answer your questions directly as I have not made a direct comparison. I have seen results from others and follow as many cross prossessing posts as I can. Steve Frizza has done it as has J. D. Callow. Maybe they can help. Steve has indicated that my asessment is at least close if not right on. However, I add that I have seen some positive comments as well, so I hate to speak in absolutes about this.

PE

EPP is good xprocessed, EPN has less contrast and is therefore more manageable. Both can suffer from yellow/blue crossover (blue shadows, yellow highlights when the mids are nuetral). Arista has a yellow/green cast (the neg looks purple) that can be tamed somewhat with an on camera 40cc magenta filter, but the contrast is still tough to get a decent print from. Oddly enough Velvia in 4x5 is the easiest fuji film to print, but still requires a magenta filter. The only way I've ever gotten a magenta print from a Fuji xprocessed film was when I dialed out too much magenta to correct for the yellow/green.

FWIW 4x5 is tough to xprocsess successfully (get a printable neg) regardless of film.

I ran the experiments, and made the contacts for the Kodak.

Two sheets EPP. One normal and one overexposed by two stops:

After printing the grey card to within a few points of neutrality (hey; I'm lazy and cheap - so sue me!), the color over all is very close to normal. The contrast is a little jacked up, and the secondaries start losing their accuracy; notably loss of green in the colors that have green mixed in. For example, chartreuse patch on the chart became very close to plain-ol' yellow. The greyscale and primaries (RGB/CMY) all look very accurate, and all simply look like more saturated versions of the ones on the chart. When the grey card is printed to middle grey, the seven-step gray scale only shows tonal separation on the lower half of the scale. The two brightest patches are pure white, and the next brightest is only a very light grey. There is separation between the darkest patch and the next darkest patch, albeit not a great deal. Exposure f/5.6 at 24 sec. Filter pack 90Y/45M. The paper box (Supra Endura surface E) calls for a starting filtration of 55Y/65M, so this is not a huge correction (+35Y/-20M). I usually apply more Y correction than that off of the box recommendation when printing normal color neg. film, and often more M correction (though it is usually +M instead of -M). A correction of +35Y/-20M means that the film must go about 35 yellow and 20 green when crossed. So, the final word from the test: EPP has jaundice (though it is easily curable)!!!

In the over two example, when it is printed down so that the grey card looks like a grey card, the results are FAR more "normal" looking. In fact, they look *extremely* normal to me, especially in the aspect of contrast. Saturation is lower, and so is contrast. There is greater separation between the lower tones on the grey scale, and the second-to-brightest patch actually shows a tiny bit of grey tone. Exposure f.2.8 at 30 sec. Filter pack 90Y/45M. The grey card is more cyan than the normally exposed example, but not by a huge amount.

The Astia film came out with a heavy green mask on the film.

When the Astia was printed at the same filtration as the EPP, it looked as though the MacBeth chart and grey card were swimming in a glass of water dyed bright primary red. It looked like a photo taken with a primary red gel over the lights, or a #29 filter over the lens. Additionally, at the same exposure time used for the Kodak, the Astia images print darker. As with the Kodak, the shot at EI 25 is less contrasty and less saturated than the shot at EI 100. One thing that is definitely interesting is that the shot at EI 25 is not overexposed by as much as the Kodak shot at EI 25. The difference between EI 100 and EI 25 is greater with the Kodak. They also look lower in contrast and saturation than the Kodak, though I can't judge this yet. I have not had the chance to make the proofsheets corrected for the Astia yet. I was running out of time, so just banged off one "shotgun" attempt at the Fuji: f/2.8 at 60 seconds at 175Y/145M. It was an overestimation, and everything on the Fuji is heavily cyan now (though my exposure extrapolation was almost perfect). Fuji paper is also significantly colder than Kodak paper when they are both printed at the same filtration, so the Astia is definitely workable. If the Fuji cast is able to be tamed even on Kodak paper, then it can certainly be tamed on Fuji paper. I just need to get in and do it before I can report the results any further.

Even though this is 4x5, it looks like perfectly printable results will be obtained...as they always have been before when I have used 4x5 cross processed...and this has been almost every time I have cross processed. Why is it that it is hard to get printable results with 4x5?

I did not try the contacts using a blank orange mask in addition to the filter pack. Should I be doing this to more properly run this test?

2F/2F said:

I did not try the contacts using a blank orange mask in addition to the filter pack. Should I be doing this to more properly run this test?

Click to expand...

That might be a taste and expectation thing. 4x5 tends to reveal those things I don't like or haven't the chops to correct when enlarging xprocessed negs.

This was shot on 4x5 epp souped in c41 and other than some areas that need to to be burned in it is not too bad.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I'm interested in the qualities that different transparency films have when cross processed. I recently cross processed roll of expired Velvia 50 in c-14. It came out very purple/red, which rendered a very yellow/green print. I found it somewhat pleasing, but I generally prefer something warmer. I'd like to hear other peoples experiences, color and contrast-wise with different films.

Thanks,
George

Dear George,

i believe the best source for this is www.lomography.com and I am not joking! Lomographers around the world have cross-processed every colour slide film in production (and some long out of production, too) and the images on the website are tagged. The Lomo LCA - while it is surely not a wondercamera - does expose pretty accurately in normal conditions. It will be easy to get impressions of the effects the so-called "x-pro" has on different films.

From my own limited experience, it seems that cross-processed fuji slides make the craziest colours while films from Kodak "only" show high saturation and contrast without extreme colour shifts (Great for skies). It appears that Astia has a tendency to turn pink and/or red if shot in direct sunlight. I have just bought two Provia 400s for night and street photos which I will put through a rangefinder and cross-process as well.

Dear all,

I realise I am resurrecting a month-old thread but I hope that adding new information is a valid reason for doing so.

Greetings from Vienna,

Chris

EDIT: Come to think about it, I want to add two things: I am not affiliated with the company Lomography in any way. And I have not printed any of my cross-processed negatives, so I have no idea how helpful this info really is

I've never gone over to the lomography site, but I cannot imagine that a site built around a camera with next to no exposure controls is going to be the best source for information about film that can require a great amount of exposure control. George would do well to search the APUG site and or ask the question in a separate thread.

i am sorry you do you not agree with me, jd. I believe that especially a camera with a rather simple meter and autoexposure would give you a good possibility to compare films shot by different people under different conditions. Where else would you find so many shots from the same camera? Moreover, if you would have taken the time to look at the site you would have noticed that some of these lomographers have made it deep into "traditional" APUG territory, camera- and especially picture-wise. It has broadened their horizon as much as my own ventures into the world of cross-processing and toy camera snapping have broadened mine.

To return back to topic, some more info on Astia cross-processed: I looked at some more of my shots and I can confirm that most have turned very red or pink in areas that were directly lit by the sun. in shadow areas, they look dark and very contrasty. It might have to do with underexposure.