E-6 Color Slide Film - 3 Stop Push

[Pioneer]

I need some times for developing Fujia Provia 400X that has been exposed at EI-3200. I don't use this film an awful lot but when I do I am usually pushing it.

I have some times to develop slide film pushed 2 stops that seem to work pretty well. But the times do not look linear from standard processing through 1 stop and then 2 stop so I am not sure how far to "push" it.

Thanks for any help you can give.

 

[halfaman]

You can adjust to a curve all the published data of E-6 in Excel and then extrapolate to the desired sensitivity. Parabolic (polinomic grade 2) and potential curves have a very good fit (R2 0,9983 and 0,9986) with Fuji Hunt Pro6 data (here, page 13).

According to this the time for EI-3200 would be 14:45 minutes.

 

[AgX]

And even at that source the given extension of developing time is not consistant for all types of film.

 

[halfaman]

You are right, I didn't notice the differences in the last two colums. So my previous answer is not accurate.

 

[AgX]

"Parabolic (polinomic grade 2) and potential curves have a very good fit (R2 0,9983 and 0,9986)"

Maby you could explain your approach a bit.

 

[thuggins]

Tetenal recommends a 25% increase in first developer time per stop. For freshly mixed chemicals (6:15 first dev time) that works out to 12.2 minutes. That certainly would seem to be a reasonable starting point.

I've often shot Provia 400 at 1600, and it turns out beautifully. I don't believe I've ever gone to 3200, but see no reason that one more stop would present major issues.

 

[Pioneer]

Excellent information, particularly the Fuji E-6 Tech Bulletin. This alone will give me lots of things to chew on and experiment with.

First, I am a raw novice at this E-6 developing process and started with the basic 1 Quart Arista kit from Freestyle so my current process is pretty primitive. I really started this to determine if I could reduce some costs while still enjoying color slide film. I have used up this kit so I will need new chemicals to continue. The price was certainly reasonable but there may be better kit options out there.

I think the initial results are positive though certainly not perfect. Of course, as always, there are a number of variables at play. To start, all of my slide film is expired. For example, the Velvia 50 I am working with expired in 2012, my Provia X expired in 2015, so I think it is a pretty good bet that I will not be getting the best results no matter how good I get with developing. However, that being said, the three rolls of Velvia 50 I developed yesterday turned out relatively well.

In general I am being pretty conservative relative to the capacity of my chemical. The kit recommends developing 8 rolls of 135/36 or 120. When all was said and done I developed 6 rolls of 135/35 and 4 rolls of 120, so a tad more then what was recommended but I don't think it was excessive.

As an overall observation so far everything that was developed was darker then I would have expected, but this is almost certainly caused by the age of the film. In most cases those films exposed normally, one stop push or two stops push turned out decently with no outrageous problems or color shifts. So far I am encouraged so I think I'll shoot some more of my expired film, buy another kit, and give it another go.

I will probably just pick up another Arista kit from Freestyle unless someone can recommend something else.

BTW, thank everyone of you for the information you have provided so far.

 

[Pioneer]

In case anyone is interested I am using an old Jobo CPE2 Plus machine. Though the rotation died a couple of years ago the temperature control is very good and it has been a lifesaver for my color negative work.

So far my times for the First Developer have been 6.5 minutes for straight exposure, 8 minutes for a 1 stop push and 10.5 minutes for a 2 stop push. This appears to be in line with Fuji's table in their Tech Bulletin. For those three films I pushed to 3200 I tried 14 minutes but that didn't seem to be wonderfully successful. Of course the film is outdated by at least 4 years and was actually exposed at least 6 months ago.

I'll try to get a few scans of the slides posted so everyone can see my results and give me your opinions if you care to.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Excellent information, particularly the Fuji E-6 Tech Bulletin. This alone will give me lots of things to chew on and experiment with.

First, I am a raw novice at this E-6 developing process and started with the basic 1 Quart Arista kit from Freestyle so my current process is pretty primitive. I really started this to determine if I could reduce some costs while still enjoying color slide film. I have used up this kit so I will need new chemicals to continue. The price was certainly reasonable but there may be better kit options out there.

I think the initial results are positive though certainly not perfect. Of course, as always, there are a number of variables at play. To start, all of my slide film is expired. For example, the Velvia 50 I am working with expired in 2012, my Provia X expired in 2015, so I think it is a pretty good bet that I will not be getting the best results no matter how good I get with developing. However, that being said, the three rolls of Velvia 50 I developed yesterday turned out relatively well.

In general I am being pretty conservative relative to the capacity of my chemical. The kit recommends developing 8 rolls of 135/36 or 120. When all was said and done I developed 6 rolls of 135/35 and 4 rolls of 120, so a tad more then what was recommended but I don't think it was excessive.

As an overall observation so far everything that was developed was darker then I would have expected, but this is almost certainly caused by the age of the film. In most cases those films exposed normally, one stop push or two stops push turned out decently with no outrageous problems or color shifts. So far I am encouraged so I think I'll shoot some more of my expired film, buy another kit, and give it another go.

I will probably just pick up another Arista kit from Freestyle unless someone can recommend something else.

BTW, thank everyone of you for the information you have provided so far.

I use the Arista chems on a jobo. I run the first developer for 6.5 minutes with the solution at 40.5C going into the tank with the tank doing a prewet in the bath for 3:15, then a 60 second pre-wet at 38C. From there it’s a stop bath, the wash, then bath 2 for 4.5 minutes, then wash, then blix. I usually blix for 10 minutes, then wash.

I mix my chemistry fresh for each batch and don’t reuse it with excellent results. The Arista kits recently went up in price for the gallon kits I use, so I picked up 2: tetenal kits freestyle had on clearance for my own film, but will keep using the Arista kits for customer work.

 

[halfaman]

"Parabolic (polinomic grade 2) and potential curves have a very good fit (R2 0,9983 and 0,9986)"

Maby you could explain your approach a bit.

Excell can fit several curves to a set of data as an option in dispersion graphics. The program gives you the best fit equation for each type of curve and its correlation index (R2).

 

[AgX]

Thank you! I thought it was not clear to everybody what you were hinting at.
https://bit.ly/359usyq

 

[thuggins]

As an overall observation so far everything that was developed was darker then I would have expected, but this is almost certainly caused by the age of the film.

You are putting too much stock in the fact that the films are "old". None of the dates you mention are that far out of date; I've developed older films with no issue (assuming they were cold stored).

 

[Pioneer]

You are putting too much stock in the fact that the films are "old". None of the dates you mention are that far out of date; I've developed older films with no issue (assuming they were cold stored).

You are probably right. I have used a lot of films that were much older than these are but they were not slide films. I just kind of assumed that slide films were much more sensitive to aging than other films were.

The meters I'm using are pretty trustworthy but I've been using them in a matrix setting. Next time out I'll meter off the highlights with a spotmeter and see how that works out.

 

[Pioneer]

This is an example of what I mean by the slide being darker than I anticipated.

A well lit basketball arena shot with the ZM Biogon 35/2. Metered with my little Voigtlander VC Meter which is usually pretty accurate.

This is Fuji Provia 400X pushed two stops and developed with my Jobo CPE2 Plus for 10.5 minutes using the Arista Rapid E-6 kit. The water bath temp was 105 degrees F.

The film sat undeveloped almost exactly seven months, but that shouldn't have any effect. The colors look good so I think the development time and the temp are probably good.

I'll post an outdoor shot from my Velvia 50 when I get a chance.

 

[Pioneer]

Another. Again, well-lit arena. Different lens, this is a Color Skopar 35 but it has always given me good service. Metering was through the camera, a Zeiss Ikon.

Provia 400X pushed 3 stops and then developed on the Jobo CPE-2 for 14 minutes at 105 degrees F. Results are far worse than the previous example.

 

[Rudeofus]

Your slides are not "dark", they are severely underexposed, which should not come as a surprise. The first image shows strong contrast, which is also expected. But the second image looks like it has almost normal contrast, despite your claim that it was pushed three stops. How come ?

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks Rudeofus regarding the exposure comments. Believe me, I appreciate all the help I can get.

As explained I was exposing ISO 400 film at EI 1600 on the first image so that is quite a bit of underexposure to start with. Since I am assuming that you are saying that this image is even more underexposed than expected with that exposure index I will have to continue to work on my exposure skills for sure. Slide exposure is certainly a different proposition although even my Delta 3200 exposures have a lot of contrast in these situations.

I have a night time football game coming up in a week so I'll try this again and see if I can get better exposure results at EI-3200.

However I am still unsure about my developing times so additional suggestions in this area would also be helpful. Ten to eleven minutes on a two stop push does appear to be in the ballpark but I don't think fourteen minutes is adequate for a 3 stop push.

As for the unusual contrast result in the 2nd image, I have no idea how that came about. The meter on the camera was certainly set for 3200 so that is a 3-stop push. This was actually one of the few on that roll that even turned out and it is a bit hard to see detail in it, even on the light box. However, all the images that did come out look pretty much the same as the one shown here with very slight differences.

 

[Rudeofus]

There's a non-trivial chance, that at EI 3200 and with a slightly aged ISO 400 film you get into the toe region with your main subject matter, and contrast may well be weaker in this region. Also, E-6 is already a high contrast process, and pushing a few stops could get you into the γmax region where contrast no longer rises with extra development.

You exposure seems to be where is should be. I am quite sure you'd rather shoot at EI800 if light levels would permit it. If you point your light meter at darker areas, you do essentially this: you think you do EI 3200, but you get the exact same exposure as someone setting EI 800 and pointing the light meter to brighter parts. It's the number of photons hitting your film which determines results, not the EI setting on your light meter.

My personal recommendation would be thinking about using some flash. I know, flashes were "oh my god prohibited!!!" some years ago, but thanks to omnipresent P&S cameras and smart phones people sort of got used to them. If you look at the first image, that male team, the well lit parts look blown out, while their faces are pitch dark. Shooting at EI400 and a fill flash would have given you nicer results than this ambient light shot. The second image has decent light in the center, but those women posed off center are in the dark. A decent flash and EI 800 would have gotten you better exposure and nicer light.

 

[Pioneer]

I do suspect that a lot of my metering needs improvement. Years ago I used to meter my highlights and my shadows with a spotmeter and make my exposure adjustments of of those readings but I have been a bit lazy with that lately. Most of the black and white films I have been working with are pretty forgiving but I am quickly learning that slide film is a little less tolerant.

I have considered using flash in the past, and with that one image of the basketball players and their coach, it would have been a great aid to the image. Most of the time I am a bit too far from the action in those situations so I don't think that the types of flash that I normally pack wouldn't provide enough additional light to be useful.

I am certainly not against flash but I worry about blinding people. I remember hating it whenever my Mom pulled out those old blue flash bulbs when I was a kid. However, with that said, I think I will start doing some tests with flash to see what happens particularly in these low light situations.

Thanks again.

 

[Rudeofus]

In a German photo forum a medical doctor was asked about the effect of flash on a baby's eyes. The answer was "as long as you don't hold it directly into his/her eyes you're fine. Even if you are careful, a baby will look into the sun a few times, and none of them suffer eye damage. Direct sunlight is a lot brighter and it's continuous. Many SLR users obsess about flash and eyes, when most people took their P&S cameras and happily flashed from close range without even thinking twice.

Regarding flash power: even if you use a measly GN 20 flash, at EI800 this turns into GN 56, which should easily brighten up the scene even at F/8.

PS: When metering for slide film, meter the most relevant parts of the image, which in these images are clearly the athlete's faces. Everything else will fall into place regardless of what you meter. The only way for you to change light distribution is with flash. Once you have flash, you control two light sources - ambient and flash. This gives you two relevant image areas to optimize independently.

 

[koraks]

Maybe it's kind of obvious, but if you're pushing slide film (which already has a very limited contrast range as we all know) by as much as 2-3 stops, isn't it sensible to expect rather poor results?

In both of the example images, the black point is not actually at the dmax of the slides, but quite some distance off, which compensates a bit for the lack of contrast in the original, but it does create a washed out look. Add to that the apparent fluorescent lighting in the second example (see the green color rendition), existing problems are exacerbated. More extensive 'push' development may fix contrast to some extent, although there tends to be a limit beyond which additional development just doesn't do much anymore. With 2-3 stops push, you're possibly well within that zone.

The point is, you can drive a screw into a board using a hammer, but it's an awkward experience with usually less than satisfactory results. Different jobs require different tools, and sometimes, you just can't really fit the tool to a job it's not intended for.

 

[richyd]

I read some time ago that when pushing E6 film you should rate the film 1/3 less than the push stop. Eg for 400 pushed one stop rate film at 640. This is what I have done when I have very rarely pushed. In fact a while ago I got pack of Ektachrome E200 and it had a table of recommended E.I for each push stop. In this table the E.I for 3 stop push is 2/3 down. Extrapolating from that table for 400 base film for a 3 stop push you would rate the film at 2000.

 

[Pioneer]

Maybe it's kind of obvious, but if you're pushing slide film (which already has a very limited contrast range as we all know) by as much as 2-3 stops, isn't it sensible to expect rather poor results?

In both of the example images, the black point ...

Thanks Koraks. I do use an awful lot of film of all types without pushing or pulling, and I do enjoy the results.

Sometimes though it is just fun to see what can be done. I do rely a lot on what I read in books and articles, as well as the advice I get from this forum, but there are times when I just have to go out and try it myself. Once I figure out how much abuse Fuji's slide film will handle I may see if Kodak's new slide film will take a 3-stop push. Just for the fun of it.

Believe me, if I am shooting something I cannot screw up I stay with the tried and true. But maybe I'll also learn some new techniques I can add to that tried and true list.

But probably not...

 

[thuggins]

Maybe it's kind of obvious, but if you're pushing slide film (which already has a very limited contrast range as we all know) by as much as 2-3 stops, isn't it sensible to expect rather poor results?.

In a word, "No". I've pushed various slide films two stops and have always been very pleased with the results..

The shot of the players just looks like a tough lighting situation. I would agree that it is just under exposed, and the meter was not able to properly resolve the variations in brightness. The folks on the bleacher look more evenly lit, so perhaps it is just a matter of extending the first developer time.