Getting to the bottom of Cinestill E6 Dev kit

[notoriousLT]

I've seen so many poor E-6 scans from Cinestill E-6 kit that I would strongly suggest to use ANY other E-6 kit (3 or 6 bath) that is not from Cinestill, compare the results and then decide if you still want to waste trust your expensive E-6 film with Cinestill E-6.

meh, the entire reason I made this thread is for open discussion and experimentations with cinestill e6 and comparisons to other e6 kits and types of slide films. While you're entitled to your opinion, I still believe there are ways to get consistent successful results and cinestill chemicals offer the opportunity for some creative freedom while developing, not to say there aren't better kits(ofc cinestill's would probably be bottom of a e6 kit tier list), I just want to fully explore all options and try to help others that can benefit from our trial and error. Being able to compare e6 kits and films is crucial imo, so while I'm sure many would agree with you its not conducive to the discussion.

 

[brbo]

Being able to compare e6 kits and films is crucial imo, so while I'm sure many would agree with you its not conducive to the discussion.

Literally what I suggested. Compare Cinestill to an E-6 kit that is well regarded to get you proper development (Fuji, Tetenal, Bellini, Jobo.. (although, maybe only the latter two might still be available, at least in Europe)).

I did say that I'm only commenting based on the scans that we see floating around, so it might not be the development stage that is off after all.

 

[notoriousLT]

Literally what I suggested. Compare Cinestill to an E-6 kit that is well regarded to get you proper development (Fuji, Tetenal, Bellini, Jobo.. (although, maybe only the latter two might still be available, at least in Europe)).

I did say that I'm only commenting based on the scans that we see floating around, so it might not be the development stage that is off after all.

Right but you just saying it sucks isn't saying anything other than the obvious. So how does that help anyone?

 

[brbo]

Right but you just saying it sucks isn't saying anything other than the obvious. So how does that help anyone?

When I switched my RA-4 chemistry (Kodak to Fuji) I did side-by-side tests. That showed me that I did need to adjust my filtration to get the same results. But I WAS able to get the results close enough to consider the new chemistry a viable replacement. And I also had a reference point in my previous prints that I could reprint in new chemistry. I do the same with different papers. I home-developed a couple of hundred E-6 films (some in Fuji and some in Tetenal) and always got great results so I never needed to troubleshoot either.

I now undersand you want to dial in a process without any reference points. I don't know why you consider that to be the best way and insist on dismissing getting a baseline with some other kit and then adjusting development parameters of Cinestill kit (if necessary at all), but I get the hint and will now shut up.

 

[notoriousLT]

I now undersand you want to dial in a process without any reference points. I don't know why you consider that to be the best way and insist on dismissing getting a baseline with some other kit and then adjusting development parameters of Cinestill kit (if necessary at all), but I get the hint and will now shut up.

It’s clear you only want to hear your own voice and value only your own opinion. Maybe if you actually started off suggesting certain methods or offered your own personal anecdote in the first place you’d actually be helpful, but no instead you only suggested that the cinestill kit is trash then to act that only you understand proper testing techniques and that we wouldn’t work with a baseline of multiple other e6 kits that have been tested and researched for multiple years now, So I’ll leave it at that, Ty for your input.

 

[koraks]

Gentlemen, please.

 

[thuggins]

I ran the second roll at 11min 30sec in the first dev. This is 25% longer than the minimum time Cinestill recommends. Based on other chemistry this should provide 1 stop of further development. The film turned out just as expected; the trannies are spot on. The dymanic range is very impressive. Look at the shots under the viaduct. The bright concrete sidewalk and the very dark underside of the viaduct are all well rendered, while the slides retain great contrast. Provia is very good with dynamic range anyway, so I can't know if this is the chemistry or the film. There are some turbulence marks around the sprocket holes and something weird happened to the sky happened in one frame. Both of these happen on occassion so I won't blame this specific chemistry.

My opinion (based on two tries) is that this chemistry is completely usable. The real problem is that Cinestill is trying to oversell this as being able to create different "effects", which are actually just over and under development. They should have stuck with recommending 11-1/2 minutes for the first developer with instructions for pushing and pulling, like other manufacturers. My only other gripe would be the excessive first developer time. This is nearly twice as long as other chemistries. I've got a rotator, so time isn't much of an issue for me. But if you're doing manual inversions it would become a pain.

 

[thuggins]

Forgot this.

 

[koraks]

Well, that still looks very blue/cyan to my eye!
This is not necessarily very surprising since extended development will likely favor (relatively speaking) the lower, cyan layer of the emulsion stack, tilting the color balance in that direction.

 

[thuggins]

Well, that still looks very blue/cyan to my eye!
This is not necessarily very surprising since extended development will likely favor (relatively speaking) the lower, cyan layer of the emulsion stack, tilting the color balance in that direction.

It's Provia! It looks like Provia.

 

[koraks]

Well, it doesn't look like the Provia I shot 20 years ago. But maybe let's leave it, since we've touched upon that already.

 

[notoriousLT]

I ran the second roll at 11min 30sec in the first dev. This is 25% longer than the minimum time Cinestill recommends. Based on other chemistry this should provide 1 stop of further development. The film turned out just as expected; the trannies are spot on. The dymanic range is very impressive. Look at the shots under the viaduct. The bright concrete sidewalk and the very dark underside of the viaduct are all well rendered, while the slides retain great contrast. Provia is very good with dynamic range anyway, so I can't know if this is the chemistry or the film. There are some turbulence marks around the sprocket holes and something weird happened to the sky happened in one frame. Both of these happen on occassion so I won't blame this specific chemistry.

My opinion (based on two tries) is that this chemistry is completely usable. The real problem is that Cinestill is trying to oversell this as being able to create different "effects", which are actually just over and under development. They should have stuck with recommending 11-1/2 minutes for the first developer with instructions for pushing and pulling, like other manufacturers. My only other gripe would be the excessive first developer time. This is nearly twice as long as other chemistries. I've got a rotator, so time isn't much of an issue for me. But if you're doing manual inversions it would become a pain.

Quite the difference! The colors look way better than the first time and the shadows definitely show some good range. Yeah it seems like their timing is one of the biggest issues so I'll mark that time down for the Dynamic and see what I can come up with (I'll try to grab some provia too), I do manual inversions so I'm sure it'll help the carpal tunnel set in lol

 

[notoriousLT]

Well, that still looks very blue/cyan to my eye!
This is not necessarily very surprising since extended development will likely favor (relatively speaking) the lower, cyan layer of the emulsion stack, tilting the color balance in that direction.

No no you're definitely right, Provia at least from what I've always seen and always known has had the magenta type tint to it (not to say those slides aren't provia Im sure they are), no matter the kit. So these are definitely more blue/cyan. I don't think it being expired from 2019 would cause this, Cinestill claim this with their Dynamic dev (containing Sodium Sulfite and Hydroquinone),

• Preserved highlight and shadow detail with rich tones for a more cinematic look
• Renders slightly warm tones in daylight, shade, or with electronic flash
• Optimized for scanning

So I'm not sure if that would cause this color shift along with the extended development time, but it would explain Ivon's red shadows at Train tracks

 

[Prest_400]

Well, it doesn't look like the Provia I shot 20 years ago. But maybe let's leave it, since we've touched upon that already.

No no you're definitely right, Provia at least from what I've always seen and always known has had the magenta type tint to it, no matter the kit. So these are definitely more blue/cyan. I don't think it being expired from 2019 would cause this.

An out of the blue almost offtopic experience which is markedly anecdotal. I developed some 2020 expired (but frozen) Provia in 120 on a Bellini kit together with some other photo club members.
I got a colder and general color cast.
It was messy on my side and I suspect that I got contamination despite being careful; plus the first batch was underdeveloped as I forgot to keep the tank submerged.
Suspect it was the bottles. Yes, glass and well cleaned but a narrow mouth requiring funnels. Previously I used the wider plastic Jobo style ones that are much quicker to pour in/out.

But I was suprised about how much more lively my 2019 batch of Provia developed in a Tetenal 3 bath kit. Then it was fresh but some also shortly expired froze.

Not much of a contribution, but I am of the opinion that given E6's expense nowadays, it id worth not to cut corners with the devs/processing.
My next planned E6 batch is during a trip. I might be able to get it lab developed anyways -- even if it's of the smaller new age labs that run Bellini in a Jobo

 

[notoriousLT]

I got a colder and general color cast.
But I was suprised about how much more lively my 2019 batch of Provia developed in a Tetenal 3 bath kit. Then it was fresh but some also shortly expired froze.

Ahh interesting then there's definitely more to this, it must extended to other kits and maybe how they're balanced/dev time for each.

Not much of a contribution, but I am of the opinion that given E6's expense nowadays, it id worth not to cut corners with the devs/processing.
My next planned E6 batch is during a trip. I might be able to get it lab developed anyways -- even if it's of the smaller new age labs that run Bellini in a Jobo

Multi quote Reply

100%, I think the cinestill kit is still experimental and not refined at all compared to other kits so for film that matters or if you don't have means or wanna kill your wallet on experimental bs avoid it and place trust in the more reliable kits. I find the most sensitive and highest chances of user errors (for me personally) to be with E6 home development while others can be a bit more forgiving, so if you have a local lab to do it go for it! And yeah film prices is a whole can of worms we all wish was cheaper lol hopefully soon (we can dream )!

 

[Prest_400]

Ahh interesting then there's definitely more to this, it must extended to other kits and maybe how they're balanced/dev time for each.


100%, I think the cinestill kit is still experimental and not refined at all compared to other kits so for film that matters or if you don't have means or wanna kill your wallet on experimental bs avoid it and place trust in the more reliable kits. I find the most sensitive and highest chances of user errors (for me personally) to be with E6 home development while others can be a bit more forgiving, so if you have a local lab to do it go for it! And yeah film prices is a whole can of worms we all wish was cheaper lol hopefully soon (we can dream )!

Honestly it did quench the confidence I had before with E6! We did a couple runs with Tetenal a couple years ago and it was very good. Ironically, I thought 6 bath being the complete process would be much better; No fault on Bellini as they almost are the only ones (with Jobo) sustaining E6.
In some thread PE did mention the Chemistry of Kodak and Fuji's E6 and mentioning not knowing if other manufacturers had certain components. In the Jobo E6 thread there was the discussion of differences in Dev times, I think it does not help at all that a standardised process becomes unstandardised depending on the manufacturer.

The local lab I mention is in a trip destination, so hits 2 birds with a stone solving X ray exposures on return.

A funny quote I can't now find is of some forumer mentioning many labs are "Hipsters running a Jobo without control strips" I think it's a hilarious way to describe it. I do see that the Dip and dunk labs are not so visible nowadays.

 

[notoriousLT]

In some thread PE did mention the Chemistry of Kodak and Fuji's E6 and mentioning not knowing if other manufacturers had certain components. In the Jobo E6 thread there was the discussion of differences in Dev times, I think it does not help at all that a standardised process becomes unstandardised depending on the manufacturer.

The local lab I mention is in a trip destination, so hits 2 birds with a stone solving X ray exposures on return.

A funny quote I can't now find is of some forumer mentioning many labs are "Hipsters running a Jobo without control strips" I think it's a hilarious way to describe it. I do see that the Dip and dunk labs are not so visible nowadays.

Oh I think I know the PE thread you're talking about! should have it bookmarked somewhere, and I'll check that Jobo one out too. Hahaha I'll have to remember that quote, hopefully the local lab treats your film well, it's always great to see your shots during a trip

 

[Prest_400]

Oh I think I know the PE thread you're talking about! should have it bookmarked somewhere, and I'll check that Jobo one out too. Hahaha I'll have to remember that quote, hopefully the local lab treats your film well, it's always great to see your shots during a trip

Did not pay so much attention to your Opening post. Interesting about the Tungsten correction and that really there isn't any Tungsten film anymore, Filtration is the "to go" solution. Had it been so simple as to change part of the chemistry it might have done in the heyday.

E-6 Formulas

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...

www.photrio.com

It's amazing how in these forums one can go back 20 years ago and pull a very interesting discussion with technical insights. One realises the wealth of knowledge lost and how PE contributed because of his own passion. It would be very interesting to know his (or a contemporary colleague) opinions of the current market of E6 chemistry ie, Jobo and Bellini chemistry. For the simplified 3 bath kits he does have an extensive comment around, specially the shortcomings of blixes. The quotes are 2005 so.
I am with his opinion on avoiding losing images, despite being a hobby. Another topic he writes about is the Dye compatibility or so. Personally I had a quasi obsession with archival qualities when I began shooting film, and this is not much discussed (Koraks does in the Lucky Color thread). Fuji and Kodak developed to Spec should have fantastic archival quality, IIRC E6 films hitting a century without significant fading. Mess around with different chemistry and who knows what.
Looking forward to see Kodak's E6 6 bath kit Soon(tm) on market, well, it's distributor will be Cinestill

And the pH and ingredient/mix control are the answer to weird color casts.

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

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

 

[thuggins]

Pretty much everything Mr. PE said about three bath E6 kits was demonstrably wrong. By his own admission he had never tried the process or even examined the results. His "experience" at Kodak dated from the 1960's when the E4 process was a new. He originally claimed that combining the reversal with the color developer could "never" work. When people laughed at that he switched to claiming blix could "never" work. Blix failure would be immediately obvious as clumps of remaining silver on the film. Considering that billions of frames have been developed using blix over the last several decades and no one has apparently seen clumps of silver left on their film, we can safely say the proof is in the pudding (I have followed this forum from the beginning and never seen a post regarding retained silver. I have experimented with trying to cause retained silver and was never able to cause it under any reasonable circumstances.).

I won't speak ill of the dead, but folks need to stop repeating nonsense.

 

[notoriousLT]

And the pH and ingredient/mix control are the answer to weird color casts.

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.

Hmm seems like I'll have to play around with dilution ratios and dev time/stab time to replicate some of the color casts that may only be affecting certain film types then, I'm pretty sure the only film Cinestill claims their chemicals to be optimized for is Ektachrome iirc.

It's amazing how in these forums one can go back 20 years ago and pull a very interesting discussion with technical insights. One realises the wealth of knowledge lost and how PE contributed because of his own passion. It would be very interesting to know his (or a contemporary colleague) opinions of the current market of E6 chemistry ie, Jobo and Bellini chemistry. For the simplified 3 bath kits he does have an extensive comment around, specially the shortcomings of blixes. The quotes are 2005 so.
I am with his opinion on avoiding losing images, despite being a hobby. Another topic he writes about is the Dye compatibility or so. Personally I had a quasi obsession with archival qualities when I began shooting film, and this is not much discussed (Koraks does in the Lucky Color thread). Fuji and Kodak developed to Spec should have fantastic archival quality, IIRC E6 films hitting a century without significant fading. Mess around with different chemistry and who knows what.
Looking forward to see Kodak's E6 6 bath kit Soon(tm) on market, well, it's distributor will be Cinestill

Thanks for linking this! Yeah PE was truly a well of knowledge , I definitely would be interested in their commentary surrounding modern chemicals knowing and seeing what we know now. As a seasoned Dark Souls player, you eventually need a bit of masochism to get you through the day haha so a couple sacrifice shots for me is always ok, but definitely the goal is to minimize that at all cost. I am excited too for Kodaks E6 kit coming, it'll be nice to have a standard again and be able to see E6 rise up again in popularity!! Since ik a lot of labs have moved away from E6. I think you raise a good point on the actual archival qualities of the film, so it'll be interesting to see if any significant changes to the film comes down the road.

 

[notoriousLT]

Pretty much everything Mr. PE said about three bath E6 kits was demonstrably wrong. By his own admission he had never tried the process or even examined the results. His "experience" at Kodak dated from the 1960's when the E4 process was a new. He originally claimed that combining the reversal with the color developer could "never" work. When people laughed at that he switched to claiming blix could "never" work. Blix failure would be immediately obvious as clumps of remaining silver on the film. Considering that billions of frames have been developed using blix over the last several decades and no one has apparently seen clumps of silver left on their film, we can safely say the proof is in the pudding (I have followed this forum from the beginning and never seen a post regarding retained silver. I have experimented with trying to cause retained silver and was never able to cause it under any reasonable circumstances.).

I won't speak ill of the dead, but folks need to stop repeating nonsense.

He was definitely a vocal supporter and purist when it came to Kodak's chemicals and science no doubt about that, so there is always a bias in certain areas for him. Thankfully him being so passionate and dedicated offered the community a lot of information and conversation to push the knowledge further. But ofc there are many drawbacks to that, as being so one sided you often times miss what other newer inventions or information can bring to the table, having that flaw made him definitely make some bold assumptions and claims. We're all human though so science and time makes a fool of us all, I think it would be very interesting to hear what he has to say and what he would offer now considering he was wrong and there is a wider world of opportunities in this area, its always good thing to not take some ones opinion as God because like you said nobody is seeing silver clumps.

 

[koraks]

nobody is seeing silver clumps.

You wouldn't be seeing "clumps". What you'd see is slightly increased density (and contrast) and granularity, slightly lower saturation, and likely a slight color shift over time as the silver reacts with sulfur in the environment into silver sulfide.

In reading this forum, I've seen many people indicate they experience no problem with the 3-bath kits. I've never seen actual testing for retained silver, other than "the slides look OK to me".

I'd be very hesitant to resolutely push PE's comments on blix aside, given that he was intimately involved in the R&D behind modern RA4 color blixes at Eastman Kodak.

 

[notoriousLT]

You wouldn't be seeing "clumps". What you'd see is slightly increased density (and contrast) and granularity, slightly lower saturation, and likely a slight color shift over time as the silver reacts with sulfur in the environment into silver sulfide.

In reading this forum, I've seen many people indicate they experience no problem with the 3-bath kits. I've never seen actual testing for retained silver, other than "the slides look OK to me".

I'd be very hesitant to resolutely push PE's comments on blix aside, given that he was intimately involved in the R&D behind modern RA4 color blixes at Eastman Kodak.

Mmm good point, it seems like most blix testing has been based on "ok enough" rather than actual comparisons. And couldn't agree more, I think PE's reservations surrounding blix offer some careful thought and consideration especially considering his direct connection to Kodak. I know I have some thread of his going in depth into 3 bath vs 6 bath process and Kodak's attempts to bring a blix to market but never finding an acceptable blix product iirc. I'll have to find that post again for future reference: found it https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/blix-question-for-photo-engineer-and-others.33129/ and another decent reference thread https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/e-6-blix.154286/

 

[koraks]

Kodak's attempts to bring a blix to market but never finding an acceptable blix product iirc.

That's right, and for me, that's always been a clear sign that something is going on with blixes for film. Neither C41, ECN2 nor E6 use a blix in major lab settings and the big brands (Kodak and Fuji, most notably) never marketed such a product. Surely, if it has been feasible, they would have done it. RA4 uses a blix, and it's replenished/reconditioned in large labs, making it a fast, economical and apparently technically acceptable solution. For some reason, this proved to not be possible for film. The most plausible explanation is in the silver content and the nature of silver halides in film as opposed to color paper. In color paper, it's mostly silver chloride and a little silver bromide, and the overall silver content is also fairly limited (at least in comparison with E6). Film uses also silver iodide, which is notoriously hard on fixers/blixes and I suspect that this plays a role in making a film blix not feasible at least for a commercial setting. Whether or not this can be circumvented in home use by using a blix with a low capacity and relatively long blix times, I don't know. PE was always adamant that even this didn't help entirely - but I've never seen firm numbers or hard data on the matter.

 

[notoriousLT]

That's right, and for me, that's always been a clear sign that something is going on with blixes for film.

Yeah looks like there's plenty of testing and experimentations that still need to happen especially with other films, hopefully I can try to scratch at it and maybe find a cross process that works with both. Going down the rabbit hole I actually found what I believe is Cinestill's response to this issue directly, https://cinestillfilm.com/blogs/news/no-compromises-cs6-3-bath-process-vs-e-6-6-bath-processing