Cross Processing Slide Film

[asteroid_death]

My first foray into shooting slide film rendered interesting results. I couldn't find any local e6 shops so I settled for cross processing the roll of (expired) elite
chrome I shot at my local photo shop.

Now am I crazy or do these look like they aren't x-processed? I was expecting the typical heavy green/blue cast, but these have relatively natural colors. I used
vuescan to get the images but scanned them as print film (not slides). I didn't do any correction to the colors.

My question is, is e6 film really that unpredictable? What are the factors that contribute to the look of x-pro? Age? Chemicals?

If this is what I can get from slide film then I'm sold. I like the look of these pics way more than anything I've shot digitally or on print film. It really sucks that no
one seems to do e6 processing anymore, and even more that Kodak quit making the film, but I guess that's old news.

 

[trythis]

Doesnt look anything like xpro that I have gotten or seen.

Here is what I got from xpro using E100VS slide film:


This is the same film processed in E6



What film were you shooting with exactly?

 

[Dr Croubie]

Scanning negs is notoriously difficult, no matter what program you use.
The biggest thing is that the software will automatically try to set the 'correct' white balance based on the colours in the film. So whether you include the rebate (or even worse, sprocket holes) in the scan area will greatly affect the range of colours that it will scan and output.
If you include just the image with no borders or holes, the white balance comes fairly close to neutral, so whatever 'quirks' you may get from being expired or cross-processing are smoothed out and the result is what you've got, some fairly 'normal' looking pictures.
Of course, if you RA4 print them, you do the white-balancing yourself with CMY dials and end up with the same thing, give or take.

But hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? I reckon you've got some great shots there, of course it may not have been what you were going for. If you want weird and funky washed-out or just 'wrong' colours, try scanning them 'wrong' too. Or throw weird chemicals in your developer, or microwave the films first or something, that'll give you weird results too...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

What you've got is more of a lomography look. For E6, cross processing is not so much unpredictable, but the effects it introduces, some of which are not desirable e.g. a zealous increase in contrast and a fall-off in highlight control, in addition to gross palette shifts (e.g. the colour will bear no resemblance to known E6 emulsion characteristics). If it rows your boat, that's fine. I think though to also use straight E6 so you have an understanding of what is happenig to the film in the cross-process — put the straight E6 on a lightbox beside an E6-XPro and make comparisons of what has been gained and lost, and what was unexpected. This is a valuable learning experience.

 

[wildbill]

Doesnt look anything like xpro that I have gotten or seen.

Here is what I got from xpro using E100VS slide film:
View attachment 96901

This is the same film processed in E6

View attachment 96900

What film were you shooting with exactly?

Elite chrome made by kodak as stated in his post.

 

[trythis]

Missed that!

 

[flavio81]

I'd say those are GREAT results. I'll try that Elitechrome (i have some in stock). Was it the standard Elitechrome, or the "Extra Color" version?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The biggest thing is that the software will automatically try to set the 'correct' white balance based on the colours in the film. So whether you include the rebate (or even worse, sprocket holes) in the scan area will greatly affect the range of colours that it will scan and output. <snip> Of course, if you RA4 print them, you do the white-balancing yourself with CMY dials and end up with the same thing, give or take.

Exactly, the scanner software is trying to make the film look 'normal', and the true cross processed results will not be visible until optically printed using the RA-4 method.

You can also scan the files in as 'raw' positives without having the software convert the images to a positive. Then the files can be converted to positives using software with far more accuracy than the automatic settings in the scanner software. But that's for a different forum, isn't it?

 

[Hatchetman]

Plenty of places still do E6. You may have to mail it out.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Guys;

If you cross process E6, you scan the result as a negative to get a positive image. After all, cross processed E6 gives you a negative and that is what to expect. So, trythis has exactly what is to be expected if you scan with the wrong settings.

PE

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You need to scan the cross processed slide film as a negative, convert it to a positive using software, or print it using RA-4 paper and chemicals.

Doesnt look anything like xpro that I have gotten or seen.

Here is what I got from xpro using E100VS slide film:
View attachment 96901

This is the same film processed in E6

View attachment 96900

What film were you shooting with exactly?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Here is a corrected example.

PE

 

[trythis]

Thanks for the interpretation!

I did the corrections as well I was just presenting a worse case for the OP to see that his scanner was either doing a lot or his lab sent it out for E6 and didn't tell him. I (not having seen the Elite Chrome reference) was also exploring the idea that he may have been shooting Ektar 1000 or other C41 film and mistook it for an ektachrome of one sort of another due to name similarity.

 

[film_man]

Doesnt look anything like xpro that I have gotten or seen.

Here is what I got from xpro using E100VS slide film:
View attachment 96901

This is the same film processed in E6

View attachment 96900

What film were you shooting with exactly?

Eeeeerm..you do need to scan it as negative film since you just processed it as such!

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

My first foray into shooting slide film rendered interesting results. I couldn't find any local e6 shops so I settled for cross processing the roll of (expired) elite
chrome I shot at my local photo shop.

Now am I crazy or do these look like they aren't x-processed? I was expecting the typical heavy green/blue cast, but these have relatively natural colors. I used
vuescan to get the images but scanned them as print film (not slides). I didn't do any correction to the colors.

My question is, is e6 film really that unpredictable? What are the factors that contribute to the look of x-pro? Age? Chemicals?

If this is what I can get from slide film then I'm sold. I like the look of these pics way more than anything I've shot digitally or on print film. It really sucks that no
one seems to do e6 processing anymore, and even more that Kodak quit making the film, but I guess that's old news.

View attachment 96891 View attachment 96892 View attachment 96893 View attachment 96894

I can't offer any advice, or knowledge, however, I enjoy these photo's, especially the 2nd and 3rd! Lovely Pontiac by the way! If my father were alive to see these, he'd go on hours about the many awesome vehicle's he owned, and drove! I needed no reminder, I still recall the cherry blue 1964 Chevy Impala he owned when I was 9! Thanks for sharing!

 

[bvy]

Scanning is unpredictable and inconsistent. Regularly processed and scanned Kodak Profoto XL gave me weirder color casts than cross-processed and scanned Provia. Printing is much easier and repeatable. I try to balance the whites and let the rest speak for itself.

Cross-processed Provia/RA-4 print


Cross-processed Ektachrome/RA-4 print

 

[asteroid_death]

I can't offer any advice, or knowledge, however, I enjoy these photo's, especially the 2nd and 3rd! Lovely Pontiac by the way! If my father were alive to see these, he'd go on hours about the many awesome vehicle's he owned, and drove! I needed no reminder, I still recall the cherry blue 1964 Chevy Impala he owned when I was 9! Thanks for sharing!

Hey thanks for the compliment. I love old muscle cars!

I am still new to shooting film (1st camera was a canon dslr). I have not picked up that dslr in 2 years because the process of shooting film is SO much more enjoyable. I especially like trying to achieve different effects by shooting different stocks and stacking filters etc. Even when the roll doesn't come out how I expected I'm still pleased with the results. I love the inherently vintage look. I've found that when shooting film I get a lot of 'happy mistakes'. Taking pictures digitally isn't really enjoyable to me. You don't even really have to know anything about photography to shoot digitally. The cameras have so many 'auto' features; it takes the pleasure and anticipation right out of it. Also, the fact that people are spending thousands on dslrs and lenses, then hundreds more on vsco lightroom presets just to make their digital images look more 'film-like' is absolutely absurd. I think I've spent around $500 on my film equipment and I own 4 slrs, 6-8 lenses, 60 rolls of miscellaneous film, and I don't even know how many filters. Shooting digitally is definitely more expensive, and with the way this last roll of slide film came out, there's no question in my mind that it looks better than anything a dslr could produce. IMO.

As for the pics, my man at the camera shop said his e6 machine was 'acting up' but I think there's an off chance he did process these in e6 and just didn't tell me. I really don't know. He's an old conspiracy theorist with a penchant for trickery, so there's no telling. They certainly don't look x-pro'd to me, but like I said, I'm a bit of a novice. Thanks for all the replies btw.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have had EPP X'd and Portra run in the same process and they give very similar results when printed. I've posted them here on APUG.

PE

 

[Dr Croubie]

As for the pics, my man at the camera shop said his e6 machine was 'acting up' but I think there's an off chance he did process these in e6 and just didn't tell me. I really don't know. He's an old conspiracy theorist with a penchant for trickery, so there's no telling. They certainly don't look x-pro'd to me, but like I said, I'm a bit of a novice. Thanks for all the replies btw.

You mean you're not sure if the lab processed them in normal E6 or cross-processed them in C41?
That's easy, hold the filmstrip up to the light.
Is it a positive image? E6.
Is it a negative image? Cross-processed in C41.

It's the chemicals that decide whether it's pos or neg, not the stock.

 

[asteroid_death]

You mean you're not sure if the lab processed them in normal E6 or cross-processed them in C41?
That's easy, hold the filmstrip up to the light.
Is it a positive image? E6.
Is it a negative image? Cross-processed in C41.

It's the chemicals that decide whether it's pos or neg, not the stock.

The images are negs, so yes it was run in C41.

 

[Truzi]

Nice 'Lark. I had a '70 Skylark convertible (had to get rid of it 5 years ago); I miss that car.

 

[trythis]

Eeeeerm..you do need to scan it as negative film since you just processed it as such!

Not that anyone cares: Again, I scanned them as both, neg and as transparency so I could compare the effect of inverting within photo editing software vs scanning as a neg. I only posted this here as the horrible dark transparency scan as an example of what a Xpro slide or neg looks like as seen by the eye, not as a processed neg.

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

As long as you keep those fantastic vehicle running, er, coming, I would not mind if you cross dressed or cross processed! I just kid, I can't tell anyone how to process, it isn't my place!

 

[kiss-o-matic]

Late here, but those are great pics. More than the colors, I like the low-contrast look.

For you guys that have RA-4 prints -- are you doing them yourselves? I have x-pro'd a few rolls of my own film. The scanning process is a nightmare though. I've used different film stocks and gotten results all over the place. I guess my favorites are either Elite Chrome, or at least what my scanner thinks they should look like. I've found that even scanning raw positive and then inverting gives wonky results.

I've done a *tad* of dark room printing in B&W. Wondering if it's worth the hassle to try the color...even though I don't exactly shoot a lot.

 

[bvy]

I think it's worth the hassle. There are a lot of myths about color printing -- the chemicals don't last, the drums have to be bone dry, temperature control requires a fish tank, etc. It's just not as finicky as all that. Coming from black and white, the learning curve is steeper and the materials requires a bit more planning and prep, but once you have the process down, it's pretty much a streamlined thing. Getting the filtration right for a given frame or film is the hardest part.

I run everything in drums at 94F. Some people use trays which I'll never understand -- but they'll never understand why I use drums. Find a process that works for you and stick with it.