Ektar 100 Film Base Color

[Adrian Bacon]

@Photo Engineer i should have some time this weekend to run one of the 135 rolls through my 135 scanner with vuescan using my old post workflow since that's the more tried and true way I've done with previous rolls. I'll post a few frames here. Would people prefer to see the raw non-inverted scan, or the post processed one, or both?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Both would be very good.

Thanks.

PE

 

[Berri]

I thought this happens with exhausted blix.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

OK. Turns out, one of the frames from one of the 135 rolls (in this case the same roll from post #11) has an x-rite color checker chart in it, which makes evaluating this a little easier. I'm not set up to do analog prints, so this was scanned in with my basic vuescan-based workflow on a Pacific Image PrimeFilmXE scanner. I'll not go into minutae about it, but suffice it to say that that workflow isn't that much different from the many documented best practices for vuescan. If anybody wants to download the tiff files for close inspection in PS, they're in this zip file here. It's about 800MB.

A couple of things to note right off the bat... It's a lot denser than normal. For most other Ektar 135 rolls, I typically run the input gain on the scanner at 1.5 +- 0.125, on this roll, I jacked it up to 2.45 to get the red channel up to the same just about clipping level, so there's that. Other than that, this is the result of a quickie couple of scans and a basic curves layer in PS on one of the images (you can look at the curves in the zip file if you're interested). I was in a bit of a hurry, so the film didn't get a good cleaning beforehand, and I only spent a couple of minutes on the last image just to see if I could get it in the ball-park.

First a positive scan of the raw film base

Then a raw positive scan of the image

And then the post processed version

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I thought this happens with exhausted blix.

If a Blix was used, sure. This particular case is with official Kodak chemicals, so, it's just a case of having a denser than expected negative. That may or may not be an issue if doing analog prints, but for scanning, having a denser negative is definitely not a practice that I want to be doing, as it leads to more scanner gain (and more noise in the output), and depending on how dense the negative is, a lot less discrete tone values in your highlight areas, which can lead to tone banding and other issues once you invert the image. For scanning, to a point, less dense is better.

 

[Photo Engineer]

These images look pretty good.

PE

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Yep. It is quite a bit denser than I'd prefer, but totally usable.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Looks like simple overdevelopment.

PE

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Looks like simple overdevelopment.

PE

Now that there's been some discussion and I've scanned a roll in and looked at it, that's what I'm thinking too. I don't think my current temperature controller has fine enough control for real Kodak chemicals since they're clearly more active than what I've been using up till now and my old practice clearly is making negatives that are denser that what I'd prefer given that I'm hybrid. It's +- 1 degree F. I've found one on amazon that does 0.1 degree accuracy, and it's on it's way to me, so that should significantly tighten that up, though I'll have to do some testing.

Thanks for looking and helping out.

A

 

[Photo Engineer]

I don't think this is a bleach or blix problem, but it might be. It is fog and low contrast.

PE

 

[peter k.]

This thread is the subject of temperature, and its measuring device, but alas, is also subject to the actual personal process that each of us do our do in developing, so this may well be a dumb question!
In post #1

5. every 15 seconds do 1 full inversion and put tank back in bath

Do not have as much color processing experience as the OP, and most likely others reading this thread, but just used Flexicolor again, which was first used and mixed originally in Oct 2016. Because of my lack of color development experience with this developers, and others, I do not feel I have enough experienced in telling if they are under developed or not. But these last two rolls of 35mm, and those rolls of 120 & 35mm done before, which where not Ektar 100, seem to be excellent, and have been very pleased with the results of this developer.
Yet, neither back in October, or ten day ago, was the small dev tank placed back into bath after each agitation cycle!

So the temp at end of developing time, most likely was more off than the op's, but the results seem to be just fine!
How many of you, who use Flexicolor, .. place their small developing tank back in the bath after each phase of their agitation?
If not many, could the OP's use of the bath between agitation, cause the over development?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I always do. I have kids, so I keep my chemistry locked up out in the garage and also have a small space by the washer/dryer set up to do development. In my case, my process is very much subject to the temperature of the garage, which is not climate controlled and vented to the outside, so if it's cold outside, it's cold in the garage.

If you do your development indoors, you'll still lose temperature, just not as fast, so it's generally a good practice to put your tank back in the tempering bath between agitation cycles. In my case I suspect my temperature was too hot, combined with real kodak chemicals, which resulted in overdevelopment.

With that being said, technically, looking at the scans, I'd be hard pressed to complain. The only real problem is the negative is denser than what it probably should be.

PE doesn't think that's from the bleach, and I'm using SM tank bleach, so I doubt it's the bleach as well, though I haven't done anything specific to rule it out other than trust that it's fine straight out of the packaging.

 

[chassis]

The tank returns to the tempering bath after each agitation, in my process.

 

[peter k.]

Yes, but how much is gained in temp stability? If one is agitating every 15 sec! The tank takes basically a quick dip, and then is out again.
Of course, as sated in my #36, we all have our methods, so what works for one may not work for the other.

 

[bvy]

Yes, but how much is gained in temp stability? If one is agitating every 15 sec! The tank takes basically a quick dip, and then is out again.
Of course, as sated in my #36, we all have our methods, so what works for one may not work for the other.

My agitation is two quick inversions that take about two seconds. The remaining 13 seconds of each agitation cycle are spent back in the tempering bath.

 

[peter k.]

Velll ... bvy, ur de one that got me into using Flexicolor, sooooo, .... Yes Boss next time we do the do with color, will give that a try and see if we can tell any difference.
Alas one of the wonderful things with c-41.. there is a great latitude in exposure.. but perhaps not as much in developing.
Will have to examine more closely the signs for over or underdevelopment with color. Haven't really paid to much attention to the subject, as it seems we only shoot a couple of rolls of color in fall and spring.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Yes, but how much is gained in temp stability? If one is agitating every 15 sec! The tank takes basically a quick dip, and then is out again.
Of course, as sated in my #36, we all have our methods, so what works for one may not work for the other.

This has been pointed out quite a bit, but bears repeating: whatever you do, do it consistently. If you consistently don't put the tank back in the bath and get results that work for you, then you're fine. If your results are off, then you look at where your deviating from documented best practice and change that one thing to see if it affects the outcome enough. Sometimes you have to change two or more things to get enough effect, but it's difficult to nail that stuff down if you don't have a consistent baseline to start from.