do-it-yourself E6 and C41

sodarum · Sep 11, 2014

I'm still in the dark...sorry for my ignorance. All I know about tank agitation is that you either shake the tank or turn it upside down, or rotate the reel. Those aren't exactly technical terms, but I'm not sure how this relates to the term going up and down.

Photo Engineer · Sep 11, 2014

The most down agitation is stand processing = no agitation at all.

The most up agitation is constant agitation.

All others are in-between.

PE

sodarum · Sep 11, 2014

Ok, I see now, thanks. So what happens when you agitate more than what is perscribed in the instructions for the chemicals?

Photo Engineer · Sep 11, 2014

Over agitation can entirely obliterate adjacency effects, by distributing the chemistry so fast it has no chance to do anything.

It can do other things as well, and its use in reversal processing can do bad things as well.

PE

grantflanagan · Sep 12, 2014

Hi guys,

I've developed using tetenal kits in the past, my question is, if I want to extend my chemicals, and time is of no issue, can I cut my chemicals 1:1 with water and increase (double?) development time? I will be using a jobo so it's already pretty economical, but I really want to extend my savings, I shoot a lot of 35mm rerolled motion picture films.

Thanks

Grant

Photo Engineer · Sep 12, 2014

Grant, the answer is NO! Color is not like B&W.

PE

Jaf-Photo · Sep 12, 2014

Paterson tanks are possibly the easiest to use.

You need a system for maintaining a stable temperature. A double bath or beer cooler are the simplest options.

Use chem kits, such as digibase C41 and Tetenal E6.

E6 is harder than C41 so practice on C41 first.

Good luck!

sodarum · Sep 13, 2014

Another one:

Since the first developer is a B/W developer, is there a way to use other B/W developers instead of a dedicated E6 first developer? I'm guessing the answer is no for whatever reason, otherwise E6 would have the flexibility of B/W negative processing and we'd all hear about it by now...but just asking. What would happen if one used HD B/W developers like Pyrocat HD?

Photo Engineer · Sep 13, 2014

Well, yes, you can use just about any B&W dev. for the FD in E6. Process conditions are your best guess thought. And, the E6 developer is one of the best HD developers around if you do the right things with it.

Now, I am not going any further on this subject! It is up to you to figure out how to do it. After all, if I give you the answer, well, that is kind of like intruding into your project. Go, do, show us!

PE

Roger Cole · Sep 14, 2014

Well my first thought would be to wonder if a different FD could reduce the contrast of Provia to something more akin to Astia without messing up the color. We might not NEED Astia if we could do that. I mean, we might not care that they aren't bringing it back, if you see what I mean.

Rudeofus · Sep 14, 2014

Roger, I don't think it's contrast that makes these two films different. See the data sheets here and here, their contrast is almost identical. I think the biggest differences between these two films lie in their color palette and saturation, and you won't be able to change these easily with a different FD.

Rudeofus · Sep 14, 2014

sodarum said:
Since the first developer is a B/W developer, is there a way to use other B/W developers instead of a dedicated E6 first developer? I'm guessing the answer is no for whatever reason, otherwise E6 would have the flexibility of B/W negative processing and we'd all hear about it by now...but just asking. What would happen if one used HD B/W developers like Pyrocat HD?

Allow me to "intrude into your project": the biggest obstacle to using random B&W developers as FD is the fact that you need to keep three color layers in lock step. These three color layers are on top of each other, so diffusion and developer speed are big issues. The E6 process has been formulated in such a way that one set of process steps ensures, if done properly, good results with every emulsion which calls itself E6. Change something in that process, and you are completely on your own.

Roger Cole · Sep 14, 2014

Rudeofus said:
Roger, I don't think it's contrast that makes these two films different. See the data sheets here and here, their contrast is almost identical. I think the biggest differences between these two films lie in their color palette and saturation, and you won't be able to change these easily with a different FD.

Well bollocks, to borrow a word from our friends across the pond. It certainly gives the IMPRESSION of a big contrast difference.

sodarum · Sep 14, 2014

Thanks for the answers. It would be great to experiment with different developers.

@Roger

Hmm...interesting idea about simulating Astia. But if a certain film has less latitude, you can never "invent" information beyond the Dmin even if you lower it's contrast, so you'd just darken it's whites. Same goes for shadows.

sodarum · Sep 14, 2014

Thanks for the answers. It would be great to experiment with different developers.

@Roger

Hmm...interesting idea about simulating Astia. But if a certain film has less latitude, you can never "invent" information beyond the Dmin even if you lower it's contrast, so you'd just darken it's whites. Same goes for shadows.

Edit: Sorry I was thinking in "negative". You'd pull down it's Dmax instead, which would give you weak blacks.

sodarum · Sep 18, 2014

Once again, I wish to express my gratitude to all who have participated in this thread. I have finally developed my first ever roll of film; 120 Provia 100F in Tetenal 3 bath kit. The results are spectacular. In fact, even though I did follow all the instructions I was kind of sloppy. I forgot to agitate from the start when I added the FD so I think about 30s passed without any agitation. I was late with the stop wash for the FD a bit etc. But everything turned out fine. It's difficult to judge hue because my subject were city streets at dusk. But judging subjectively I don't see any color problems. If there's a shift it's very small. I don't see contrast problems due to silver retention either. Color saturation is very good. I wish I had a decent film scanner to post the results here, but my limited dynamic range flatbed scanner won't do justice to these images.

A couple of questions; maybe it's a bit late to ask this, but what precautions should one take when dealing with E6 chemicals; is skin-contact and inhalation a problem?

By the way; I expected a stronger smell. I expected that strong smell you can smell around minilab machines (what's that smell anyways? Obviously it isn't any of these chemicals in the E6 kit...the closes thing is the blix part 2 (the transperent part of blix)

Photo Engineer · Sep 18, 2014

That smell is Ammonia (AFAIK).

You may want to rinse your film in Kodak or Fuji final rinse for better image stability.

PE

sodarum · Sep 19, 2014

I rinsed it with Tetenal stab in the end

sodarum · Sep 23, 2014

I just finished my experiment with using a different FD for E6. I used Tetenal Neofin Blue. I had to guess the development time by extending the temperature-timing curve (from data supplied by tetenal) all the way into 38 degrees, and I missed it by about a stop which is fine, but the film turned out green. And I don't mean greenish. 100% pure green, even the exposed leader (which was outside of the can) is green. I'm trying to figure out why is that. My first thought was that since this is a surface developer, only the top layer got developed. But the problem is that the top layer is yellow (isn't it?), so wouldn't the film turn out blue instead (with magenta and cyan densities combined to form a blue filter for light)? Any theories? The film is Ektachrome 64T (from a good batch that usually develops fine).

Photo Engineer · Sep 23, 2014

I have no idea, but the reversal may not have worked right or the solvent effects in the FD did not work right. After all, this is a reversal FD and they all use solvents.

PE

Rudeofus · Sep 24, 2014

A surface developer is one that develops latent image centers only on the surface of silver halide grains. The term says nothing about which layer of the emulsion gets developed.

About that "green" cast: are you 100% sure it is green and not cyan by any chance? If your developer simply didn't make it to the bottom layer (lack of diffusion, you underdeveloped anyway ...), that layer may have remained mostly untouched during FD, which means it developed fully in the CD step.

sodarum · Sep 24, 2014

Hi, nope not cyan for sure. Pure green. Upon closer inspection I noticed that there are hints of yellow and cyan in there. Red traffic lights are kind of yellow, and a blue neon sign is kind of cyan but non-primary color is totally green. Seems to me like the magenta layer is missing completely.

sodarum · Sep 24, 2014

Like I said, this is BW film developer designed for work around 20 C. It was an expoeriment. It's not a dedicated E6 FD. I figured something would go wrong. I'm just trying to learn something from this. I'm trying to figure out what happened exactly.

sodarum · Sep 24, 2014

Here is some more data:

I scanned an image from the film and examined the layers in photoshop. In RGB mode, my red layer is inverted (negative) but very dark. Green looks ok, and blue seems ok too but very dark (though I get a hint of inversion too). In CMYK it's much more clear: only cyan layer is ok, yellow and magenta are negatives. It seems like the CD flashed and developed only the magenta layer. Any theories?

Photo Engineer · Sep 24, 2014

I repeat: Either the reversal step was incomplete or there was not enough (or any) solvent in the FD. It could also be a severe case of underdevelopment. But, I repeat again that most B&W developers are good FDs for color products, as long as the right ingredients / time / temp are used.

PE

do-it-yourself E6 and C41

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency