E6 cost has finally killed it for me

[Patrick Robert James]

A water bath using my kitchen sink provides enough water mass where it's really simple to maintain.

Exactly what I do. It is easy to maintain temperature when you have a ton of water doing it for you. Stainless steel tanks help too. And I just use the water in the sink for rinsing between steps since it is already at the correct temperature. Easy peasy.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don;t print much, rather I scan and post on the web or show on my computer or UHDTV. Since I bracket (I shoot MF) I find it's easier to see which of each set is exposed the best. That's hard to do with negative film. I also find slide film easier to scan and correct colors. Mainly I use Velvia 50.

 

[jim10219]

Get a sous vide if your wanting to do home E6 processing. Then dump your chemical bottles and tanks into a large water bath with the sous vide controlling the temperature. That's the cheap way, and it works pretty well. Once the temperature settles, that should keep everything within a degree or two of where you need it, which is enough to get a usable slide. Of course you'll still have the problem of using up all of your chemistry before it goes bad. But if my 3D camera has taught me anything, it's that you can store an exposed roll of film for a year and if it's stored properly, will still develop fine. So it might be wise to just wait until you have enough exposed rolls and time to deplete your chemicals all at once.

 

[removed account4]

I'm more surprised they make color print film. A color slide, especially medium format and larger, on a lightbox is a viewing experience that really can't be duplicated. Anyone I have ever shown a large slide to is impressed. As far as the cost, I try to compare it to let's say playing golf. I'm pretty sure shooting a roll of slide film is still cheaper that shooting a round of golf most places and if I enjoy it, then I should just go do it and not obsess over how much a frame it costs.

You have a point, its nice to look at it on a light table ..
OP I think you need a home equity line of credit ! You need to buy a LARGE chest freezer and a food sealer, some tanks and reels and a nice jobo or water jacket and see if your local ger+film provider can hook you up with a bunch of Edwal Kits ( https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...ome-film-developing-kit-for-color-slide-film/ )
.. date an dseal your film with the food sealer, rotate your stock, and enjoy yourself !

Who knows, if you get used to and enjoy processing your own E6 maybe you can start a cottage industry, undercut your local lab, and payback your line of credit with your profits

Don't forget to have fun !
John

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If you want to keep shooting slide film you need to be on the lookout for deals. I comb eBay for short dated and recently dated films -- recently picked up 15 rolls of Velvia and Provia 120 for $5.50 / a roll. B&H last year sold off a ton of short dated 35mm stock, also for $5 a roll. The trick is to be prepared to buy when it's a good deal, even if you don't think you need more film (and this is why I had to take up re-selling camera gear...)

Processing at Citizen's Photo in Portland, where I mail all my color film to is $6.50. I always save up film until I have about a dozen rolls and shipping costs about $5 each way. So, I mostly save it for special occasions. But all in, about $12 a roll won't kill me. And there's nothing like medium format slides. If shooting slide film cost me $30 a roll, I wouldn't do it either. But there are things you can do to keep costs down.

 

[faberryman]

I stopped shooting slide film not because of cost but because I didn't like the look of scanned slides. There is no practical way of non-digitally printing a transparency.

 

[RPC]

There is absolutely NOTHING that can come even close to a well processed transparency when it is projected.

Color negative film printed on print film and projected can actually rival transparency film. CN film records a higher dynamic range than transparency film and when printed on print film, the dynamic range is preserved (as opposed to print paper). Color quality is preserved due to masking. It is how movies have traditionally been made, and for those reasons. Unfortunately, print film for negative still film is no longer made.

 

[RPC]

I'm more surprised they make color print film. A color slide, especially medium format and larger, on a lightbox is a viewing experience that really can't be duplicated. Anyone I have ever shown a large slide to is impressed.

Negative film is capable of recording and reproducing a higher quality image overall than slide film. Negative film has higher dynamic range, and printing/copying capability than slide film due to lower contrast and masking. and is the preferred medium for darkroom color printers and some scanners. Slides are designed for projection or direct viewing, and are great for that, negatives for printing. Each has its advantages, and therefore there is demand for both.

 

[BMbikerider]

Negative film is capable of recording and reproducing a higher quality image overall than slide film. Negative film has higher dynamic range, and printing/copying capability than slide film due to lower contrast and masking. and is the preferred medium for darkroom color printers and some scanners. Slides are designed for projection or direct viewing, and are great for that, negatives for printing. Each has its advantages, and therefore there is demand for both.

That's fine but you do loose a lot of quality when printing RA4. Believe me I know, I have been doing it for too long. (30 years +) It isn't the film, it is the paper that lets the sequence down. I have not used E6 film for a long time but that is like a lot of others is down to cost of the film. I would use it again like a shot if it were a lot cheaper.

 

[RPC]

I too have printed RA-4 for years and the quality is technically better than any prints made from transparency film. Although the colors often popped a bit more, I found prints from slides too contrasty with less accurate colors, without resorting to masking or other techniques, when appropriate printing materials were available. CN was much easier to print for darkroom workers who desired prints. Printing onto print film has much higher quality, though.

 

[thuggins]

I'm more surprised they make color print film. A color slide, especially medium format and larger, on a lightbox is a viewing experience that really can't be duplicated. Anyone I have ever shown a large slide to is impressed. As far as the cost, I try to compare it to let's say playing golf. I'm pretty sure shooting a roll of slide film is still cheaper that shooting a round of golf most places and if I enjoy it, then I should just go do it and not obsess over how much a frame it costs.

This is really the crux of it. You get something of value for what you spend. All hobbies have some cost associated with them and photography (especially E6) is one of the most economical.

Film today is very cheap compared to what it was in the past. In looking thru photo mags from the 1950's, color film was the equivalent of about $20/roll. That didn't include processing or prints, which were very expensive at the time. It is apparent that people considered it a good value, even at that price. 120 film PLUS processing with the Tetenal kit is about $10/roll. For 35mm it is well under $18/roll. That is less than 50 cents for for an original, one of a kind work of art that you created. There aren't many activities that you can indulge in for an entire day of enjoyment for less that 20 bucks.

With E6 you have the finished product once the BLIX is done. There is no need, time and expense for printing or other operations. You hold the film to the light and see it in all its glory. As for developing, you'd have to try really hard to screw up the process. The hardest part is loading the film on the reel. The temperature is easily controlled with a water bath. Even by the Tetenal instructions, it is not that critical. The give 100F +/-.5 or 38C +/-.3. That's a range or 1.5 degrees F, and it is tolerant even beyond that. I used to use an infrared thermometer that reads about a degree and a half higher that the immersion thermometers and that still never caused a problem.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Shoot digital". I like that idea. Don't they shoot horses when they break a leg? But if you don't like the cost of 35mm color film, shoot it in 8x10 for awhile. That will cure you of complaining about 35mm pricing. I'm more concerned about the diminishing selection of E6 films. If E100 comes out in more sizes, that would be great. But I've already moved on to color neg film and RA4 printing - and YES, you can get extraordinarily good results if you'll undergo the necessary learning curve. The ole days of bland chromogenic prints were in the rear-view mirror a hundred miles back.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I too have printed RA-4 for years and the quality is technically better than any prints made from transparency film.

Cibachromes are absolutely gorgeous. I have a few hanging around my house and RA-4 prints don't even come close. Unfortunately, those materials don't exist anymore.

 

[RPC]

Cibachromes are absolutely gorgeous. I have a few hanging around my house and RA-4 prints don't even come close. Unfortunately, those materials don't exist anymore.

That is subjective. As I said earlier, prints from color negatives are technically better than prints from slides and the reasons have been discussed before. I have printed both and have clearly seen the superiority of negs many times over with my own eyes. Yes, colors may pop but that does not equate quality. On the other hand they could look very good with masking and other techniques.

 

[Ces1um]

@Steve Roberts I stopped shooting slide because I couldn't get it processed within my province. It had to be sent away and the turnaround time was months. It just wasn't worth it for me in the end. I did buy a digital camera and I do love it, but it doesn't inspire me to be creative like a film camera does. It does offer so many more tools though and a modern motor driven zoom lens is a truly wonderful thing. I tend to use it for nature/wildlife photography. Otherwise I'm using c41. One thing that is for certain (and I wonder if people will dispute me on this) is that black and white film has no equal in the digital world. In body black and white processing in my experience just isn't the same. I can get better results using a computer and converting it to greyscale- but again grey scale isn't black and white.

I do think your predicament is how we lose more and more film shooters per year. It's death by a thousand cuts.

If I were you, I'd buy the digital camera and use it for a specific reason, just like you have film cameras that you use for specific types of shots.

 

[rayonline_nz]

I am slowing using up my slide film also. A roll of 35mm Kodak E100 cost equiv of £16 and then £13 or $16USD for processing here in New Zealand.

What I have done is import film from B/H or Freestyle in the USA and pay $10US for freight and then send it back to the USA in batches of 10+ rolls for processing. The 2-way post is probably $50-60US. E6 chemistry are not available here and the USA does not post it out of the USA (ORM-D). For the at least the last 10yrs all the labs here no longer do slide mounting, when they used to do it it was 60c USD per slide times 36 frames for each roll. We have no pro labs here anymore that does dip dunk, there is one maybe 600 miles away. The local pro lab we had was sold away and the first thing they did was get rid of the film processing unit, they only wanted their lambda printing machine. Maybe for some time we didn't have any E6 processing here, because that lab got rid of it and the other lab here only did C41 and B/W and only due to a earthquake at a different city they bought their E6 machine.

Germany does but it is very expensive and they do 3 monthly shipments a year. I am currently down to 2 partial rolls of Provia and 1 Provia and 1 Velvia left in medium format. I was given a bulk roll of expired Fuji MS 100 but might test a roll out and then sell it ...

I've struggled with slide film because I like to shoot in low light with a tripod. Due to the limited dynamic range the night time cityscapes doesn't look at nice. How did professionals shoot night scenes, did they use slide film? Ie skyscrapers with a deep twilight blue sky and the traffic car streak lines.

 

[Ariston]

Hi All,


Home E6 processing - yes, one to look into. The temperature accuracy is what's scared me off, though with b/w reversal I had no trouble achieving +/- half a deg C.

Steve

Steve, I haven't done this yet, but I bought one of those sous vide cookers in preparation for developing E6. Like you, I can't afford to have E6 processed, but I've never shot it, and I want to. I got one of those cookers for around $30, and confirmed with two separate thermometers that it maintains the bath temperature very well. I will try processing it at home, which is quite affordable for me.

I hope you can work out a solution, because I hate to see anyone stop using film. For selfish reasons. But I understand your quandry, and you have to do what works for you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I specialized in Cibachrome. But now I can optically make color neg prints on Fuji Supergloss that tend to be even better, certainly easier, but every bit as rich and detailed. Even better color. As usual, the devil is in the details. I also print them from internegatives made from older chromes, but that's a lot more complicated to do. Much better color than inkjet.

 

[StepheKoontz]

One thing that is for certain (and I wonder if people will dispute me on this) is that black and white film has no equal in the digital world. In body black and white processing in my experience just isn't the same. I can get better results using a computer and converting it to greyscale- but again grey scale isn't black and white.

100% agree, you really can't represent how B&W film records light with a Digital camera. Especially when you output film onto onto B&W paper. I'm not saying people haven't done some interesting work in B&W digitally, it's just not the same.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I specialized in Cibachrome. But now I can optically make color neg prints on Fuji Supergloss that tend to be even better, certainly easier, but every bit as rich and detailed. Even better color.

I was talking about the metallic look finish they have. For certain subjects, like for example fall leaves, they just look amazing.

 

[RPC]

Reds on Cibachrome were often over the top. So much so that detail was often lost. The enhanced saturation could be striking but not exactly accurate. The lack of masking in slides didn't help with any of the colors. A photo doesn't have to be accurate to be pleasing, but it is nice to have accuracy when you want it. That was far more difficult with Ciba than with negative prints.

 

[John51]

I specialized in Cibachrome. But now I can optically make color neg prints on Fuji Supergloss that tend to be even better, certainly easier, but every bit as rich and detailed. Even better color. As usual, the devil is in the details. I also print them from internegatives made from older chromes, but that's a lot more complicated to do. Much better color than inkjet.

Is Fuji Supergloss the same as Fujiflex Crystal Archive in the UK? That is said to rival Cibachrome.

 

[Lee Rust]

In general, my photography is for personal photo-journalism, rather than art or profession. I have mostly shot 35mm color reversal film for direct viewing of each complete filmstrip in a transparent sleeve...printing out only the most interesting or important frames. For me, looking at the sequences of colorful images is a vivid and enjoyable way to remember... like a mini-movie. Even the imperfect frames are part of the story.

As a lifelong Kodak customer, it was a big disappointment when Kodachrome and then Ektachrome were discontinued and processing became scarce and expensive. I moved to digital for most color pictures and tried Fujifilm too but the re-introduction of Ektachrome was very welcome. Now I use half-frame 35mm cameras for my color reversal film, which doubles the number of images on each roll and actually enhances the cinematic viewing experience with the portrait-style frame orientation.

 

[GarageBoy]

I am slowing using up my slide film also. A roll of 35mm Kodak E100 cost equiv of £16 and then £13 or $16USD for processing here in New Zealand.

What I have done is import film from B/H or Freestyle in the USA and pay $10US for freight and then send it back to the USA in batches of 10+ rolls for processing. The 2-way post is probably $50-60US. E6 chemistry are not available here and the USA does not post it out of the USA (ORM-D). For the at least the last 10yrs all the labs here no longer do slide mounting, when they used to do it it was 60c USD per slide times 36 frames for each roll. We have no pro labs here anymore that does dip dunk, there is one maybe 600 miles away. The local pro lab we had was sold away and the first thing they did was get rid of the film processing unit, they only wanted their lambda printing machine. Maybe for some time we didn't have any E6 processing here, because that lab got rid of it and the other lab here only did C41 and B/W and only due to a earthquake at a different city they bought their E6 machine.

Germany does but it is very expensive and they do 3 monthly shipments a year. I am currently down to 2 partial rolls of Provia and 1 Provia and 1 Velvia left in medium format. I was given a bulk roll of expired Fuji MS 100 but might test a roll out and then sell it ...

I've struggled with slide film because I like to shoot in low light with a tripod. Due to the limited dynamic range the night time cityscapes doesn't look at nice. How did professionals shoot night scenes, did they use slide film? Ie skyscrapers with a deep twilight blue sky and the traffic car streak lines.

Graduated ND filters

 

[kingbuzzie]

I got back into photography because of E6. I went to film school right on the cusp of digital transition. I learned on film for the most part & miss it sometimes. Projecting slides is about as close as I can get now (with the exception of super 8) to motion picture film. Not exactly 24 slides a second but it'll do. Everyone is right about the price. I cringe every time I throw a wasted e6 sh$t in the trash.