Getting to the bottom of Cinestill E6 Dev kit

[notoriousLT]

So it seems everyone's consensus is that this kit is just ok or just completely unusable. I'm wondering if anyone's ever gotten actual good result with it and why(what did you do differently to get good results if you can)? I'm especially curious about their T6 Tungsten developer which sounds prefect for my studio use to save me some stops, but don't see much of anything on it outside of their official site.

I will be getting one of each to test and I'm gonna get a Bellini kit to compare them against (which seems to be the one I'll be using mainly anyways), also will taking a 35 roll and just cutting parts off after exposure to test be alright? Might try using just their developer with a different full kit too, just to see results.

 

[mshchem]

Never tried anything other than Fuji, Kodak and the 3 bath Tetenal chemistry.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've got a package of their E-6 standard color developer but haven't mixed it up yet; my idea was to save a bunch of money by using Xtol or Dektol as first dev, develop in their self-reversing color dev, and then follow with C-41 bleach and fixer (and hope the pH is close enough to correct to get accurate color). I hadn't heard about bad results from the full Cinestill kit, though.

 

[sillo]

Interested also. Once they claimed their kit can increase dynamic range I became very skeptical and all the feedback I've heard has been pretty bad.

 

[notoriousLT]

I should have all the materials I need by this weekend, so hopefully I can post results by next week!

 

[Donald Qualls]

claimed their kit can increase dynamic range

What I gathered from their original announcement of this was that they used a lower contrast first developer for the higher dynamic range. This would be like using D-23 as a replacement for Dektol and claiming it has a higher dynamic range -- it might, depending on your definition...

 

[notoriousLT]

So to bring back a dead thread in case anybody is still interested or has anything to add, I have been able to do some shoots and test some cinestill e6 kits.

 

[afriman]

What are your findings?

 

[notoriousLT]

I use a field camera, and mole richardson 2k tungsten lights rated at 3200k. This was my results using their T6 kit and pushing them one stop

 

[notoriousLT]

And this was another session with the same scenario. So I've been able to get consistent usable result with the t6 cinestill kit. The T6 kit is effective in cooling down an image, the extreme blues I get in some of them show the effect. I mainly have been shooting a stop under or over and pushing the film in development. I think the chemicals turn the tungsten lighting a bit too cool when there is hard direct lighting, but I will need experiment more to recreate it to see if there's any consistency to it.

 

[notoriousLT]

Also reusing the 1st bath developer has been fine so far according to their number of film you can reuse it for as they claim, and adding some extra time in development after each use of course.

 

[notoriousLT]

Now that I have more time, I will test their dynamic and daylight eventually as well, and try to push the limits they claim. But so far their T6 has worked really well for me.

 

[AnselMortensen]

From my lab days, running Kodak E6 chems, adding sodium hydroxide (alkali) to the color developer was used to keep the blue/yellow axis in check.
Based on that, my suspicion is that the Cinestill "T6" color developer is quite acidic to obtain blue results.

 

[notoriousLT]

From my lab days, running Kodak E6 chems, adding sodium hydroxide (alkali) to the color developer was used to keep the blue/yellow axis in check.
Based on that, my suspicion is that the Cinestill "T6" color developer is quite acidic to obtain blue results.

Yeah you're 100% right, looking at the ingredients the T6 has Sodium hydroxide

​

 

[koraks]

Yeah you're 100% right, looking at the ingredients the T6 has Sodium hydroxide

That's not very surprising. In any high-pH buffered system that's sold in a concentrated package, sodium hydroxide is a likely candidate to be present. Its presence doesn't say much about how close to textbook-pH the working strength developer will be. Either way, the idea that this is achieved with pH drift (especially to the low side, although not actually acidic as the developer wouldn't work at all in such a state) is certainly not far-fetched.

The slides look like there's massive inhibition of yellow dye formation going on. If this were an RA4 paper process, it would be a sign that there is a very serious problem with developer activity. I understand the artistic potential of this approach, although I personally am not too fond of the penalty that has to be paid, which is the lack of a good black anywhere in the image. The psychological/aesthetic effect of shooting this with color gels or adjustable color temperature lights on properly developed film will be much stronger, as it will allow for a solid black reference that makes the cool tones pop out more, and overall contrast will be stronger.

To each their own, I guess.

 

[notoriousLT]

That's not very surprising. In any high-pH buffered system that's sold in a concentrated package, sodium hydroxide is a likely candidate to be present. Its presence doesn't say much about how close to textbook-pH the working strength developer will be. Either way, the idea that this is achieved with pH drift (especially to the low side, although not actually acidic as the developer wouldn't work at all in such a state) is certainly not far-fetched.

The slides look like there's massive inhibition of yellow dye formation going on. If this were an RA4 paper process, it would be a sign that there is a very serious problem with developer activity. I understand the artistic potential of this approach, although I personally am not too fond of the penalty that has to be paid, which is the lack of a good black anywhere in the image. The psychological/aesthetic effect of shooting this with color gels or adjustable color temperature lights on properly developed film will be much stronger, as it will allow for a solid black reference that makes the cool tones pop out more, and overall contrast will be stronger.

To each their own, I guess.

Interesting because I think there is some good black on a lot of these slides (I have more just not posted, but I can post them if we wanna break em down). I guess I should ask what you feel makes good black as well? I will definitely test and compare the slides with a regular E6 kit (Bellini) and a gel/filter to cool the light. I prefer sticking to Mole Richardson type lights, just because it is easier and less expensive to get that type of power for Large Format. Also I am a fan of the color temperature so having the T6 kit act more as an artistic developer is definitely accurate, because I do still want some of that color in my image just not as strong as it would be, so it is going to suffer penalties hopefully I can test and compare so we can find them out exactly!

 

[koraks]

I guess I should ask what you feel makes good black as well?

Black = neutral, high density. In a chrome, this means pretty darn high density, higher than log 2.7 or so. Both slides with the man in the hat look problematic in this sense, to me. But that's just personal; what counts is if the result is to your own liking!

In general, I'd say flexibility in lighting is easier than in chemistry. Chemistry is fickle and there's not much you can fix after the deed is done. When shooting LF chromes, I'd personally be tempted to use digital for test shots, dial everything in to my liking, and then shoot first time right on slides. Given the cost of the materials, I'd be hesitant to take a gamble. Again, a highly personal thing.

 

[notoriousLT]

Black = neutral, high density. In a chrome, this means pretty darn high density, higher than log 2.7 or so. Both slides with the man in the hat look problematic in this sense, to me. But that's just personal; what counts is if the result is to your own liking!

In general, I'd say flexibility in lighting is easier than in chemistry. Chemistry is fickle and there's not much you can fix after the deed is done. When shooting LF chromes, I'd personally be tempted to use digital for test shots, dial everything in to my liking, and then shoot first time right on slides. Given the cost of the materials, I'd be hesitant to take a gamble. Again, a highly personal thing.

Yeah most have a good black I’d say, those ones that don’t is something I’m looking into because it has some consistency with hard direct light, there are others that prove it true and somewhat false, but I’ll get to the bottom of it I hope. Cause I don’t like that blue shift it does to the blacks either

I’m the same way, it’s always best to start the session off with some digital shots, easy way to check my lighting and settings, then just go from there.

 

[koraks]

those ones that don’t is something I’m looking into because it has some consistency with hard direct light

First thing that comes to mind is flare. But...the edge of the film seems a similar blue instead of true black. So it's really a chemical/processing thing.

 

[notoriousLT]

First thing that comes to mind is flare. But...the edge of the film seems a similar blue instead of true black. So it's really a chemical/processing thing.

Hmm great observation! I’ll need to investigate that blue shift more because it’s seems to be more extreme on only a couple of slides rather than the majority

 

[koraks]

Might be something as simple as a timing issue or a temperature drift. I'm sure you'll figure it out; have a close look at your process and see where there might be variance that's unaccounted for.

 

[Oz Etkin]

I've developed several rolls of Ektachrome with the Cinestill E6 kits and have struggled to get good results when following the included instructions.

All my film developed with the D9 developer came out looking about 2 stops underexposed. When developed with the D6 developer, the photos still looked about a stop underexposed. I followed the directions exactly in both cases.

I experimented with using Sprint Standard as a first developer and got better results, although with slightly thin and red-tinted blacks.

I finally decided to develop a roll of film using the D6 stock solution for 6 minutes at 100°F/38C. I made some test exposures at box speed as well as one stop under. The frames exposed at box speed were the best results I've gotten yet from slide film, with correct looking exposure, contrast and colors. The frame exposed at one stop under box speed was very dark. The blacks in this roll were very dense and close to neutral, maybe a bit blue but from what I gather that is normal for Ektachrome.

 

[notoriousLT]

I've developed several rolls of Ektachrome with the Cinestill E6 kits and have struggled to get good results when following the included instructions.

All my film developed with the D9 developer came out looking about 2 stops underexposed. When developed with the D6 developer, the photos still looked about a stop underexposed. I followed the directions exactly in both cases.

I experimented with using Sprint Standard as a first developer and got better results, although with slightly thin and red-tinted blacks.

I finally decided to develop a roll of film using the D6 stock solution for 6 minutes at 100°F/38C. I made some test exposures at box speed as well as one stop under. The frames exposed at box speed were the best results I've gotten yet from slide film, with correct looking exposure, contrast and colors. The frame exposed at one stop under box speed was very dark. The blacks in this roll were very dense and close to neutral, maybe a bit blue but from what I gather that is normal for Ektachrome.

Noted. I should be able to get some more rolls and test both those developers in a couple weeks. I’ll let you know my results

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I have Cinestill Dynamic Chrome. Yes, it retains highlights very much, it's of lower contrast. Makes slides rather dull and perceived sharpness is lost. Slides are dark, don't like it.
Tried 2 films and best results were with 1 stop overexposure, overall - not impressed.



Won't waste any additional film in, E-6 at a lab will do it properly




Scans look OK, but that lack of punch and sharpness in projection is there.




Usable, but nothing to write home about.


But I've seen it do magic in soft portraiture - it rocks there!

 

[Alain Deloc]

From my lab days, running Kodak E6 chems, adding sodium hydroxide (alkali) to the color developer was used to keep the blue/yellow axis in check.
Based on that, my suspicion is that the Cinestill "T6" color developer is quite acidic to obtain blue results.

Jumping into discussion out of nowhere from what I have learned from Stefan Lange, a guy who reverse engineered the E6 formulas here https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/e6-homebrew-chromebrew-warnig-longer-than-assumend.32721/ (starting from patent formulas of Fuji and Derek Watkins) the yellow-blue axis is controlled by the amount of potassium iodide while the magenta-green axis is controlled by the color developer pH [higher -> more green, lower -> more magenta]. Indeed, the pH can be raised with sodium hydroxide and lowered with acetic acid, but that's just for magenta-green. I think the yellow tint is acquired by changing the iodide content