Ektar 100, solarised red channel.

[Daire Quinlan]

Hi all, I'm wondering if anyone here has experienced this, or has any remedies. I get this effect on practically all rolls of Ektar 100 I shoot, sometimes quite subtle, sometimes quite pronounced. The red channel gets this almost solarised look in the shadow areas, with pronounced edges. I'm guessing here that it has something to do with my processing, but I've never seen it on any of the other C-41 film that I regularly do at home. I've included a colour shot below, and then just the extracted red channel so you can see it. The raw scan from the scanner shows the effect aswell, these have obviously been inverted. Yes the shot is underexposed, but it's the best example on this roll ...

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

I develop using the Fuji Hunt 5L kit and, as pointed out above, I've only ever seen this with Ektar.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This looks like the Sabattier effect, gotten in color when one layer is fogged during development. Could you have fogged the cyan layer with a dim red safelight? Also, how do the other layers look in a B&W comparison?

An afterthougt is that this might show up if the lights are turned on too quickly when the film goes into the blix. Development can take place in the bottom layer in the shadow areas.

PE

 

[Daire Quinlan]

The other layers look fine by comparison. I don't know how it could have been fogged, It's loaded into a tank in complete darkness, and developed completely in the tank, there's certainly no chance of it being fogged during development. It's the same process and the same tank as I use to do all my 35mm, and no other c-41 films seem to suffer the same thing. I've alternated ektar and other (normally porta) films over the last year, I've only ever seen the problem with ektar.

I've never seen anyone else complain about this either which makes me think it's something to do with my development process that ektar is sensitive to and other c-41 emulsions aren't. I can , I'll admit, be a little bit ... lax ... sometimes with my times and temperatures ...

 

[nickandre]

Plastic tank? Which kind?

 

[Daire Quinlan]

Plastic tank? Which kind?

Jobo, some antediluvian kind before they came up with their system numbers. A veteran of many a roll of c-41 and B&W without any problems.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I just processed some Ektar 100 along with Portra VC in the same SS tank. Both turned out quite good!

I repeat that this is not Solarization which affects highlights not shadows, but rather a Sabattier effect imposed on the cyan (bottom) layer by some outside effect. If you insist that your workflow is ok, you might want to contact Kodak with the problem. It is possible that they did something that was improper, but the Sabattier effect (or effects such as we see in your photo) usually result from process problems while Solarization results from in-camera overexposure problems.

PE

 

[Daire Quinlan]

Yeah I've little doubt that it has something to do with my process. My workflow is a little sloppy, but it's consistently sloppy, so I'd expect to see this with other films as well as ektar.

I've seen this on and off since the first roll I shot, and since then I've also processed a bunch of rolls of some noname fujicolor 200, a couple of rolls of reala, a few rolls of portra 800, and quite a few rolls of various B&W films. Only ever seen this specific problem with Ektar.

Could it be chemically fogged during development ? Could there be something in the Fuji Hunt C-41 chemicals that might be affecting it ?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Try rebleaching, washing, fixing washing and then use the final rinse. It might be retained silver in the bottom layer which has begun printing out.

PE

 

[nickandre]

I've heard that black plastic tanks can be slightly transparent to certain wavelengths of light (red) but this doesn't make sense if you haven't seen it with other (especially faster) films. Try PE's suggestion, then break out a dark cloth and a 300 watt bulb and see if you can see through the tank.

 

[Daire Quinlan]

I've heard that black plastic tanks can be slightly transparent to certain wavelengths of light (red) but this doesn't make sense if you haven't seen it with other (especially faster) films. Try PE's suggestion, then break out a dark cloth and a 300 watt bulb and see if you can see through the tank.

Yeah if that were the case I reckon I certainly would have seen it with the 800 at least, or some fogging on some of the faster rolls of B&W. It's a Jobo though as well, I think they specifically allay peoples concerns in that regard, safe for IR and anything else up around that end of the spectrum. I'll re-bleach and re-fix when I get a chance and check see.

 

[Daire Quinlan]

I've had a chance at last to try the above (re-bleaching followed by a re-fix), no dice. Didn't make any difference at all to the image. In retrospect any retained silver probably would have shown up in all three channels, right ? And the IR channel doesn't show any sign (I save out initially as a RGBI straight from the scanner).

I've just developed another roll of ektar, did up another batch of fresh chems, and the problem is there just as it has been with all the other rolls. This roll I actually gave 10 minutes to the bleach and fix just to be sure (to be sure). In between these two rolls of Ektar I've developed a roll of no-name fujicolor 200, in the same tank and chemicals as the original roll of ektar that I took that scan from above, and there's nary a trace of this issue.

So now I'm puzzled. Would Kodak actually be responsive on this if I fired them off a mail ?

D.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak would be responsive.

As to silver being the cause, it could if the bleaching did not properly reach the bottom (red) layer. Color films have many layers and the processing is highly diffusion dependent therefore giving rise to different effects in different layers.

PE

 

[fschifano]

I've heard that black plastic tanks can be slightly transparent to certain wavelengths of light (red) but this doesn't make sense if you haven't seen it with other (especially faster) films. Try PE's suggestion, then break out a dark cloth and a 300 watt bulb and see if you can see through the tank.

I've heard those stories too, and I'm not buying it. If it were true, then just about every roll of B&W film I've ever developed would have some sort of problem from it. Hasn't happened yet, and I doubt it ever will.

 

[K.Stewart]

I noticed something funny in the shadows of some underexposed ektar while I was printing today, but I couldn't put my finger on it. The negs were pretty thin though - I haven't noticed anything like that in normal or overexposed stuff.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Kodak is very helpful, in fact you may want to get ahold of Chuck Lang if you are in the US...He has helped me a great deal with things like this.

 

[Daire Quinlan]

I noticed something funny in the shadows of some underexposed ektar while I was printing today, but I couldn't put my finger on it. The negs were pretty thin though - I haven't noticed anything like that in normal or overexposed stuff.

Yeah that's the one constant here, in that most if not all the shots where this turns up were underexposed, but not really notably so. The example I give in thread was pretty bad, I'd say a couple of stops under, as I'd metered on the lit portion of my wifes stomach. It doesn't really account for those wierd reversal and edge effects though.