E-6 Formulas

magic823 · Aug 10, 2005

Someone had a wonderful link to a webpage that gave the formulas for C-41 chemistry. It got me thinking, does anyone know of one for the E-6 chemistry? With the slow demise of slide film availablity *can't believe they canceled Velvia 50* I'd like to keep the option open to cold storage what film I can, and mix my own chemistry if the kits get hard to come by.

Thanks,
Steve

Nick Zentena · Aug 10, 2005

What's it called. The Britsh Photo annual has formulas in the back. You can pick up an old copy for not much money. Plus nice pictures to. If nobody remembers the correct name I'll find my copy.

srs5694 · Aug 10, 2005

Here's one page with some E-6 formulas:

http://opie.net/orphy/photo/dr/wkft-e6.html

Note that there's no reversal bath; the procedure calls for exposure to light instead. Also, I've not used these formulas; I've just bookmarked it for future reference.

On another note, I hadn't heard about Velvia 50 being discontinued. Is that in all formats or just some? Although I don't use all that much of it, if 35mm Velvia 50 is going the way of the dodo, I'll have to stock up...

magic823 · Aug 10, 2005

Here's the quote from the Fuji site

The current Fujichrome Velvia 100F continues to be available. It is anticipated that Fujichrome Velvia 50 will remain on the market into calendar year 2006.

Which is marketing speak for "we quit making it, but there enough in the warehouse to last till next year." I hope to pick up a bunch of 4x5 and 120 before then.

roteague · Aug 10, 2005

srs5694 said:
On another note, I hadn't heard about Velvia 50 being discontinued. Is that in all formats or just some? Although I don't use all that much of it, if 35mm Velvia 50 is going the way of the dodo, I'll have to stock up...

Velvia 50 has been replaced with Velvia 100, which isn't surprising; the old Velvia formula is over 20 years old, so it was time to update the emulsion. The jury is still out on how good this new emulsion is, the 100F flopped badly. I've got some of the new Velvia 100, but haven't processed it yet. Here is an article on Velvia 100 that might interest you: http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/velvia100.htm

FWIW, there is another version of Velvia that is currently only being sold in Japan.

Photo Engineer · Aug 10, 2005

The E6 formulas in the reference above are incorrect. They may yield useable results but I am sure that they will not work up to specs with all E6 films.

The first developer is wrong, the color developer is wrong, the use of the stop bath is wrong, and the bleach is a ferricyanide bleach which the current dyes are not tested with. The fixer is a sodium based fix which may lead to retained silver halide, and the stabilzer does not contain the latest proprietary ingredients designed for the newest family of dyes.

What to expect? Degraded color, sharpness and grain. It may be with every film or only with selected films. I have no idea. Dye stability will probably be substandard. E6 films are designed to fit the process, but if a process is designed to fit the film, it may only work with that film, and if it is not tested with the appropriate resolution charts and dye stability tests, these other factors may be unknowns to the formula designers.

All they know is that the picture with this film in this process looks pretty!

Well, if that is good enough for you, then enjoy.

PE

Aggie · Aug 10, 2005

an apugger who lives in Los Alamos New Mexico sent me a few years back the formulas for both E-6 and C-41. Let me (hope I remember) slog through my old emails and pull them out. I will ask him if it is all right to post them on this forum.

magic823 · Aug 10, 2005

Aggie said:
an apugger who lives in Los Alamos New Mexico sent me a few years back the formulas for both E-6 and C-41. Let me (hope I remember) slog through my old emails and pull them out. I will ask him if it is all right to post them on this forum.

Thanks, I'll probably never use it, but I'd like to have the option.

Steve

magic823 · Aug 24, 2005

Aggie said:
an apugger who lives in Los Alamos New Mexico sent me a few years back the formulas for both E-6 and C-41. Let me (hope I remember) slog through my old emails and pull them out. I will ask him if it is all right to post them on this forum.

Aggie, did you find the formulas?

Thanks,
Steve

Ian Grant · Aug 24, 2005

No the formulae are not wrong, they are just different thats all, and they do work just as well. Old dunk dip machines worked in this way when E6 first came in, sure companies like Photocolor simplified the steps to 4 many years ago, and others followed in their footsteps.

However E6 films are very closely related to C41 and both can be used with Ferricyanide bleaches and also Sodium Thiosulphate fixers.

Ian

Photo Engineer said:
The first developer is wrong, the color developer is wrong, the use of the stop bath is wrong, and the bleach is a ferricyanide bleach which the current dyes are not tested with. The fixer is a sodium based fix which may lead to retained silver halide, and the stabilzer does not contain the latest proprietary ingredients designed for the newest family of dyes.

PE

Photo Engineer · Aug 24, 2005

Ian, the color developer and first developer are critical for correct color reproduction and image structure. I doubt if those publishing the formulas tested each and every film for RMSG and interimage.

In fact, the films are tested against the developer, not the other way around. It is not possible for an incorrect developer formula will give proper results with all E6 films. Maybe, by optimization, one or two will work close to spec, but not all.

E6 films are not closely related to C41 films. The C41 films use DIR and DIAR couplers to get interimage and enhance sharpness and masking couplers for color correction. The C41 couplers are designed to work best with paper (not by viewing with the eye) and are designed to work best with CD4. The E6 dyes have a spectral cut to suit the human eye and work best with CD3. The E6 emulsions are designed to work best in high solvent developers for optimum imaging and are designed to be developed to completion, whereas C41 films are not.

There are many more differences in the sensitization levels of the emulsions, the silver quantity used, halide ratio, etc. It is a long list.

The bottom line is that the formulas are only close approximations for E6, and will give only close approximations to specifications when used with most E6 films. The problem is that unless you do numeric or side by side comparisons, you cannot be sure of your results, only that they are 'satisfactory to you'.

Only Kodak or Fuji-Hunt chemistry passes muster on all counts.

PE

srs5694 · Aug 25, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
The bottom line is that the formulas are only close approximations for E6, and will give only close approximations to specifications when used with most E6 films. The problem is that unless you do numeric or side by side comparisons, you cannot be sure of your results, only that they are 'satisfactory to you'.

The "satisfactory to you" test is the only one that's important to a typical hobbyist, though. The elaborate tests to get everything quantitatively "correct" are important for a commercial product, but home-brew formulas are, by definition, not commercial products. Being "correct" (which I read to mean "identical to Kodak's formula") is just irrelevant for the people who'd be likely to use color chemistry formulas posted on the Internet or published in a hobbyist magazine.

That said, your earlier comment about dye stability is cause for concern. That's something that's not easily evaluated by a photographer until it's too late.

Gerald Koch · Aug 25, 2005

I can't see that dye stability should be of much concern if one uses CD-3 and does not substitute one of the other color developers. The dyes produced would be identical to those produced by the official E-6 process. If one is concerned then use Kodak's stabilizer bath rather than a home brew one. What is important is the final pH of the emulsion and neutralization of any remaining leucodyes.

I would assume that because of patent restrictions that the various films and formulas would be different. Yet Fuji film produces excellent results with the Kodak process and Kodak film in Fuji's. For example, Agfa films do not use dyes incorporated in resin beads like Kodak but rather use dyes with long side chains to prevent dye migration between color layers in the emulsion. Thus the Agfa films do not have the characteristic milky appearance that the Kodak films have before they dry. Despite different dyes the Agfa films develop correctly in E-6 chemistry.

Photo Engineer · Aug 25, 2005

Gerald, there is more to stability than the stabilzer in E6. It also involves silver removal and the pre-bleach chemistry as well as sulfite content in the process and pH which relates to retained developing agent.

The dyes in all commercial films today are so-called 'kodacolor' dyes dispersed in some medium in gelatin. Agfa uses a method much like Kodak, now that the bulk of the Kodak dispersion patents have expired. The generic dye structures are cyan - phenolic, magenta - pyrazolone and yellow - acetoacetate in all films regardless of manufacturer. The specifics relate to how they are incorporated, what is in the film to enhance dye stability, and what dye hue was chosen among other factors.

Yes, Agfa and Fuji can go through Kodak chemistry and vice versa, but I have no idea what this does to the dye stability each of these companies expects by design of their products. I have seen some pretty bad disasters, even when things go right. After all, my properly processed Ektachromes from 20 years ago look pretty bad, but some are just fine.

I just made a post about mixing C41 chemistry. I'll reiterate part of it here adapted for E6. The developer pH values in E6 should be within about +/- 0.1 units at 20 deg C with a calibrated pH meter. Some ingredients must be controlled to within +/- 0.1 g/l or even +/- 1 mg/l to control color reproduction.

I think hand mixing is elegant, but not worth the trouble when the potential for losing good pictures is the alternatiive, even if it is just a hobby. I spent a whole day photographing waterfalls and cliffs at a park with a friend this weekend. I would hate to see any of that hard work lost, hobby or not.

PE

Ian Grant · Aug 25, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
1 The dyes in all commercial films today are so-called 'kodacolor' dyes dispersed in some medium in gelatin. Agfa uses a method much like Kodak,

2 my properly processed Ektachromes from 20 years ago look pretty bad, but some are just fine.

3 Some ingredients must be controlled to within +/- 0.1 g/l or even +/- 1 mg/l to control color reproduction.

4 I think hand mixing is elegant, but not worth the trouble when the potential for losing good pictures is the alternatiive, even if it is just a hobby. I spent a whole day photographing waterfalls and cliffs at a park with a friend this weekend. I would hate to see any of that hard work lost, hobby or not.

PE

OK lets get a few facts straight:

1 So called "Kodacolor" dyes actually are derived from Agfa innovations in Germany and their pre-war Ansco subsiduary in the US. Material (reserach papers etc) was passed to Kodak when the US Government took over Ansco in 1941, and at the end of hostilities an Allied working party published a highly detailed report into all Agfa's materials, formulae, methods of manufacture etc.

2 None of my properly stored E3/4 or E6 transparencies have deteriorated, and they go back 30+ years. These include lab processed, home processed in either Barfen (UK Co - long gone) or Photocolor Chrome 6, and also solutions I've made up myself.

3 + or - 0.1g is not exactly difficult and as said elsewhere a stock solution which can be diluted is better for smaller quantities.

4 Mixing your own developers, etc is actually very easy and rewarding, and by careful methology and making up reasonable batch sizes it's extrememly easy to get good consistent results. I never dreamt of using a fresh batch of my own chemicals until I'd run a qick test.

So to conclude would you please speak from actual first hand experience, and not from what you've gleaned from reading.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Aug 25, 2005

Ian, this was all from first hand experience gained by working on the C41 process and film family.

You have some of this backwards.

1. So called Kodacolor couplers have no relationship to Agfa couplers. Agfa couplers were sulfonic acid derivatives similar to soaps that were dissolved in the gelatin as sodium salts, but Kodacolor couplers, invented by Hanson and Vittum were non-polar organic compounds only soluable in organic solvents. They were dispersed as droplets in gelatin. The companies that used them included Agfa, Konishiroku, Ferrania, and Fuji. When the Kodak patents expired, or through gradual licencing agreements, all companies shifted to one form of the non-polar couplers or another. Some are dispersed directly in the gelatin, others in solvents, and others are chemically attached to the gelatin through an organic reaction. There are no "Agfa" type sulfonic acid couplers used in film today. Some polymers mixed with gelatin may, in the present day, contain sulfonic acids in the backbone of the polymer. This is not related to the Agfa work.

2. Some of my older, properly processed and stored E3 and E4 transparencies are fading. If you read discussions on the internet you will see that others say the same about many early Ektachromes.

3. I agree, but I was pointing out more that the formula was not accurate in the first place.

4. If the formulas are correct, I agree. Using HQ instead of HQ-SO3Na can cause problems. It is subtle, but the films were not designed for the higher activity of the HQ itself.

Again, I speak with practical research experience, not reading books or hypothesis. I've actually mixed these solutions myself believe it or not using the actual Kodak formulas. I have really run variations on some of the ingredients to investigate the effects of developer exhaustion, sulfite exhaustion, hydroxylamine exaustion, and alkali exhaustion. To do this, I had to run concentration series of each and observe their effects on the films involved.

PE

magic823 · Aug 25, 2005

Again my interest in starting this thread was not to mix as a hobby (although I love to do that), but to have the formula available to me when and if E-6 kits become unavailable. I can freeze film, but I'm not sure of the shelf life of the chem kits.

Photo Engineer · Aug 25, 2005

Magic, if the film is still produced, the kit will be produced. Kits will be produced until the end of expiration of the last roll produced. Film production will continue for quite some time.

You have no worries for quite a few years, I'm sure. Someone will still be making color film and color kits. There is no need for panic. (I'm sure you are not, but I wanted to reassure you anyhow)

PE

magic823 · Aug 25, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Magic, if the film is still produced, the kit will be produced. Kits will be produced until the end of expiration of the last roll produced. Film production will continue for quite some time.

You have no worries for quite a few years, I'm sure. Someone will still be making color film and color kits. There is no need for panic. (I'm sure you are not, but I wanted to reassure you anyhow)

PE

Still won't mind having the formulas, especially since I bought a Wing-Lynch processor tonight.

Now I have to plan a trip to LV to pick it up. I'll probably have my Brother-in-law pick it up and store it till I can make a Seattle-LV trip.

Hummm. Zion's....... Now this sounds even better now that I think of it.

Steve

Donsta · Aug 25, 2005

Have no fear about Velvia 50 being phased out - RVP 100 rocks - almost identical palette, an extra stop of speed, finer grain, less "pepper" in scans and MUCH better reciprocity. RVP100 is simply much improved RVP. I have been shooting it in 120 for about 18 months (my wife picked up a stash in Japan). Unlike Kodak, Fuji seem to have a better idea about changing a good thing...

E-6 Formulas

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency