Developing Old E-4 Slides on 126

[amberisvibin]

Hello!
I have received a few cartridges of Focal branded 126 colour slide film.
I found an old ad, the box looks like the 126/20 Color slide film:

Does anyone know how I would go about developing this? I believe its E4, due to the expiry date of '76. With a little research, I'm pretty sure it's 3M/Ferrania film.
I've seen a lot of recommendations of Rodinal or HC-110 stand processing, with different anti-fog additives, but I'm not really sure how to proceed.
Can anyone help me out here?
(Also have a cartridge of Verichrome Pan, no idea on the expiry date.)

 

[Donald Qualls]

The Verichrome Pan is easy-peasy, though you may find so much fog after 40+ years that a 126 camera (other than the fully adjustable sort, which were fairly uncommon) won't be able to make an image that you can see. I'd recommend HC-110 over Rodinal, because of its lower fog (though I'm not certain new HC-110 has this quality like the old syrup did).

For E-4 film, developing in color is probably out, but if you develop as B&W negatives, you'll likely find the silver filter layer will make the negatives dense enough to be, once again, hard to see the images (not to mention the same issue with age fog as the VP). B&W reversal is probably the preferred method here, though you'll tend to get faint images (again, fog). If these E-4 cartridges are unexposed films, I'd suggest just putting them on a shelf to look at.

If you're trying to save "found film" images, it might be possible to make up an E-4 color developer, but you'd have to have a stabilizer with formaldehyde/formalin to make the dyes show full color -- and again, age fog would make the images thin. In this case, B&W reversal is still probably the better way to go; you're likely to at least get images your scanner can pull up.

 

[amberisvibin]

The Verichrome Pan is easy-peasy, though you may find so much fog after 40+ years that a 126 camera (other than the fully adjustable sort, which were fairly uncommon) won't be able to make an image that you can see. I'd recommend HC-110 over Rodinal, because of its lower fog (though I'm not certain new HC-110 has this quality like the old syrup did).

For E-4 film, developing in color is probably out, but if you develop as B&W negatives, you'll likely find the silver filter layer will make the negatives dense enough to be, once again, hard to see the images (not to mention the same issue with age fog as the VP). B&W reversal is probably the preferred method here, though you'll tend to get faint images (again, fog). If these E-4 cartridges are unexposed films, I'd suggest just putting them on a shelf to look at.

If you're trying to save "found film" images, it might be possible to make up an E-4 color developer, but you'd have to have a stabilizer with formaldehyde/formalin to make the dyes show full color -- and again, age fog would make the images thin. In this case, B&W reversal is still probably the better way to go; you're likely to at least get images your scanner can pull up.

Okay, thank you. I've heard that HC-110 is better for fog. Do you know anything about anti-fog additives?
They are unexposed. I am probably going to keep one of them in the box to look at, but I'd like to at least try shooting them.
I have an "automatic diaphragm" Kodak Instamatic 304. I cant really tell if it actually changes the exposure, or whether the selenium meter works at all.
B&W reversal seems to be the best route, but I've heard of people having problems with leftover dyes.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You can check the meter and aperture operation on that 304 pretty easily -- open the back, point the camera at a bright sky, and look through the lens as you fire the shutter. You'll get a rapid impression of the shape and size of the aperture. Now cover the meter window and do it again. You should see a significant change in size/shape.

With a 304, you can also slow the shutter from 1/100 to 1/40 by mounting a dead flashcube.

The problem is that there's no way to slow everything down by 4 stops to account for the effective speed loss for 40+ year old film. I don't know of anyone who has processed E-4 film in B&W chemistry, so I'm guessing on that part. I know C-22 films usually weren't printable in developers like HC-110 or D-76, even when fresh. Too much junk left in the film,

 

[amberisvibin]

You can check the meter and aperture operation on that 304 pretty easily -- open the back, point the camera at a bright sky, and look through the lens as you fire the shutter. You'll get a rapid impression of the shape and size of the aperture. Now cover the meter window and do it again. You should see a significant change in size/shape.

With a 304, you can also slow the shutter from 1/100 to 1/40 by mounting a dead flashcube.

The problem is that there's no way to slow everything down by 4 stops to account for the effective speed loss for 40+ year old film. I don't know of anyone who has processed E-4 film in B&W chemistry, so I'm guessing on that part. I know C-22 films usually weren't printable in developers like HC-110 or D-76, even when fresh. Too much junk left in the film,

Okay, thank you. Might as well try, at least once. It may be a good idea to try a bleaching step.

 

[MattKing]

The box (and maybe the cartridge label) should confirm the process on the slide film.

 

[amberisvibin]

The box (and maybe the cartridge label) should confirm the process on the slide film.

I looked all over it, all it said was "Color Slide Film"
I assume it has something to do with the generic kmart brand.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I looked all over it, all it said was "Color Slide Film"
I assume it has something to do with the generic kmart brand.

And the fact it predated having two slide processes to worry about -- I think E-4 is probably safe. According to Wikipedia, E-6 was offered in 1975, but only professional films used it at that time. Consumer E-6 didn't appear until 1977.

 

[amberisvibin]

And the fact it predated having two slide processes to worry about -- I think E-4 is probably safe. According to Wikipedia, E-6 was offered in 1975, but only professional films used it at that time. Consumer E-6 didn't appear until 1977.

Oh wow, thats handy. I wonder if you can develop E-4 in E-6 chems.

 

[MattKing]

Oh wow, thats handy. I wonder if you can develop E-4 in E-6 chems.

Be careful about temperature if you try. IIRC, E4 used a lower temperature.
An Expiry Date in 1976 would indicate a manufacturing date at least a couple of years earlier.

 

[nosmok]

IIRC you can't, can't remember where the processes diverged, though I know E6 had a light activated bleach while E4 was chemical. There is some information out there about developing E4 in C22 chemistry, I read it when I had E4 film to try and develop (didn't do it). As you probably know, E4 chemistry is nasty stuff.

(ETA: Matt is right about the temp differences as well.)

 

[amberisvibin]

Be careful about temperature if you try. IIRC, E4 used a lower temperature.
An Expiry Date in 1976 would indicate a manufacturing date at least a couple of years earlier.

Yeah yeah, I remember hearing horror stories of the emulsion melting off.

 

[amberisvibin]

IIRC you can't, can't remember where the processes diverged, though I know E6 had a light activated bleach while E4 was chemical. There is some information out there about developing E4 in C22 chemistry, I read it when I had E4 film to try and develop (didn't do it). As you probably know, E4 chemistry is nasty stuff.

(ETA: Matt is right about the temp differences as well.)

Yeah, E-4 is not pleasant. I'll have to look into C22.

 

[Donald Qualls]

C-22 is probably the one I recall requiring a formaldehyde stabilizer to get the dyes to colorize. Without it, the dyes stay in "leuco" form which is very pale, nearly white.

I'd have to do some digging to be sure, but I want to say E-4 used the same color developer as C-22 -- CD-2? -- and modern CD-3 or CD-4 won't produce accurate colors; at best, even with a formaldehyde final rinse, you'll get a cross-processed look.

 

[nosmok]

This should help: this is the post I found discussing this stuff, many years ago when I had some E4 film. E4 discussion starts down the page a bit:

https://craftbangboom.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/in-which-i-develop-e4-film-and-other-excitement/

 

[amberisvibin]

C-22 is probably the one I recall requiring a formaldehyde stabilizer to get the dyes to colorize. Without it, the dyes stay in "leuco" form which is very pale, nearly white.

I'd have to do some digging to be sure, but I want to say E-4 used the same color developer as C-22 -- CD-2? -- and modern CD-3 or CD-4 won't produce accurate colors; at best, even with a formaldehyde final rinse, you'll get a cross-processed look.

Okay, I'll check it out.

 

[amberisvibin]

This should help: this is the post I found discussing this stuff, many years ago when I had some E4 film. E4 discussion starts down the page a bit:

https://craftbangboom.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/in-which-i-develop-e4-film-and-other-excitement/

I literally just found this and was about to talk about it here lol.
I may have to try it, but theres no way I'm paying for a base motor agitator. Maybe I can DIY my own.
Also I have no idea where to get C-22 chems either.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, if the chemistry is okay at 72F, and you don't mind using enough to actually cover the film reel (in a Paterson like that, 290 ml for a 35mm reel), there's no good reason you couldn't process with conventional inversion. I've seen roller bases made from four non-steering casters on a board, if you really want one (you turn it with your hand) -- but it really isn't necessary.

 

[nosmok]

With patience (and not overfilling the tubes or tanks), you can just roll them back and forth on the counter-- works for me in B-W. I sprang for a motor base but can't remember if I've even used it yet.

 

[amberisvibin]

Well, if the chemistry is okay at 72F, and you don't mind using enough to actually cover the film reel (in a Paterson like that, 290 ml for a 35mm reel), there's no good reason you couldn't process with conventional inversion. I've seen roller bases made from four non-steering casters on a board, if you really want one (you turn it with your hand) -- but it really isn't necessary.

Ah, okay. Still would need to source C-22 chems. B&W is probably more likely to produce anything anyways.
And theres always Film Rescue, but that's expensive.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The article linked had him processing the old C-22 and E-4 film in C-41 chemistry -- or I misread it to understand it that way.

 

[amberisvibin]

The article linked had him processing the old C-22 and E-4 film in C-41 chemistry -- or I misread it to understand it that way.

Oh, I'm an idiot lol. Hmm, I should probably do normal C-41 before I try that.
This is interesting stuff.

 

[nosmok]

Just follow the times and exposure that he mentions-- MAYBE add another half-stop of exposure (it is ten years later after all, but reversal doesn't like overexposure much) and see what happens.

 

[Donald Qualls]

C-41 is easy. You need a water bath to keep everything the right temperature, and a C-41 kit -- modern ones have two baths plus a final rinse, though a stop bath isn't a bad thing to add. You may still want to get some formaldehyde -- the stabilizer you make with that plus C-41 final rinse will keep well and can be used until long after the C-41 chemicals are exhausted. Do use that only with strong ventilation; formaldehyde is bad for humans.

 

[amberisvibin]

Just follow the times and exposure that he mentions-- MAYBE add another half-stop of exposure (it is ten years later after all, but reversal doesn't like overexposure much) and see what happens.

I'll give it a shot.