How to (consistently) make positive E-6 transparencies with C-41 chemicals

Cholentpot said:

I have a culturally inappropriate Cleveland Indians cap that is falling apart. I was waiting for a world series to update it but it seems like that's not happening and they're retiring the Chief so I may need to work on a t-BAB hat.

Also, obsolete is in.

Click to expand...

You can still get the cap with Chief Wahoo on it. It should be available for a couple of years more, but the players aren’t wearing them for some time, I guess. Chief is gone from the uniform this year.

Reminds me I need to buy that cap for my collection.

Photo Engineer said:

Go ahead and use TBAB. It is quite toxic. Kodak abandoned it for that reason and also because it is less stable than the current reversal bath which is not noted for stability itself.

PE

Click to expand...

Is this the stuff that came in a little brown glass bottle in the E4 kits? It was so toxic EK had you add hot water to the bottle to avoid breathing the dust.
I loved that part!

fdonadio said:

Cool. It would be nice to have the old one, but I would be happy to have the new one, signed by Mr. Ron Mowrey, of course.

Click to expand...

This can be arranged when you visit Rochester.

PE

fdonadio said:

You can still get the cap with Chief Wahoo on it. It should be available for a couple of years more, but the players aren’t wearing them for some time, I guess. Chief is gone from the uniform this year.

Reminds me I need to buy that cap for my collection.

Click to expand...

I found a 2016 World Series hat with Wahoo on it on sale 3/4ths off this summer so it's waiting it's turn.

I'd take a yellow D-76 branded hat too.

I decided I'd test this process at a pro lab using C-41 film and C-41 processing.. So, I did first developer of HC-110 as usual and then fogged it. Then I just taped it to an empty 35mm cartridge and rewound it. Took it to the lab and requested just development. $6 is a bit rich for just C-41 development, but they do get it done within 24 hours.

Anyway, the result is nicely developed but quite critically under bleached. I scanned it, then put it back into bleach, fix, and stab. Results afterward looks much better and more "normal" (for whatever that means in this process). I was afraid this would end up being like Portra 400 which always has weird uneven development.. but Portra 160 appears to fair pretty well in this process. It is strange though that sending it through the lab resulted in not enough bleach time though. C-41 film, whether negative or positive, would have a consistent bleach time I would've imagined. It could be possible their machine was out of calibration, but some Ultramax 400 I had done at the same time worked fine (standard C-41 negative).

Anyway, have the rebleached film drying now, but have this cool "error" picture that looks almost like a graphic art thing in the meantime

earlz said:

Anyway, have the rebleached film drying now, but have this cool "error" picture that looks almost like a graphic art thing in the meantime.

Click to expand...

Crazy but lovely crossover!

Photo Engineer said:

This can be arranged when you visit Rochester.

PE

Click to expand...

Great! I hope I can pay you a visit soon.

earlz said:

... It is strange though that sending it through the lab resulted in not enough bleach time though. C-41 film, whether negative or positive, would have a consistent bleach time I would've imagined. It could be possible their machine was out of calibration, but some Ultramax 400 I had done at the same time worked fine (standard C-41 negative)...

Click to expand...

No, you are just asking to remove all of the silver of the film at the same bleaching time. Normally, a C41 negative has a much smaller quantity of silver to convert back to silver halide after the colour developer, like the Ultramax 400 film that came out fine.

Anon Ymous said:

No, you are just asking to remove all of the silver of the film at the same bleaching time. Normally, a C41 negative has a much smaller quantity of silver to convert back to silver halide after the colour developer, like the Ultramax 400 film that came out fine.

Click to expand...

Other than the rebate edge though, it wouldn't require removing more silver than processing unexposed C-41 would... and unexposed film comes back clear and clean, not with left over silver from insufficient bleaching.

earlz said:

Other than the rebate edge though, it wouldn't require removing more silver than processing unexposed C-41 would... and unexposed film comes back clear and clean, not with left over silver from insufficient bleaching.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I also don't know if I explained what I wanted to say clearly. Anyway, let me elaborate.

In normal C41 processing, the colour developer creates the negative colour image and a bw image with it, superimposed. This bw image is made of metallic silver and needs to be bleached back to silver halide. The fixer can then remove all silver halides from the film and make it clear.

In your case, you first developed the the film in a bw developer and only got a bw image, made of metallic silver. The film was then fully exposed and inserted in a cassette. After the C41 developer at the lab, pretty much all of the silver halides in the film were converted to metallic silver. The bleach at the lab had to convert far more silver to halide form, more than double the amount. This puts far more load to the bleach, and bleaching time wasn't adjusted anyway. So, it's not really strange that the film was underbleached, what might have been within spec in a normal case (even if barely) could become problematic because of your processing.

Ah, I had it backwards. So in the case of a roll of mostly fogged film, it might not be fully bleached and still be compliant to the C-41 process standards?

earlz said:

Ah, I had it backwards. So in the case of a roll of mostly fogged film, it might not be fully bleached and still be compliant to the C-41 process standards?

Click to expand...

What I'm basically saying is, if you deviate that much from the standard C41 process, add another step etc, then all bets are off.

So I had a go at using HC-110 B instead of A and I'm afraid my fears are true, the developer will exhaust unless you keep the tank half empty of film, and completely full of developer. The results are pretty good though. I didn't try the great benchmark standard of Provia (ie, the film that looks almost natural with it), but Velvia 50 turned out significantly less contrasty and with the usual color cast and crossing as HC-110 B, when over exposed by a stop, though it looks even better at 1.5 stops. I was actually able to take a picture of both some trees in a landscape as well as the sky. With HC-110 A, it's way too contrasty to pull that off; either the sky is white or the trees are black. Also, grain seems significantly more fine. In full resolution (40MP), I can just barely begin to make out the grain, where as it's typically obvious. I need to confirm the developer exhaustion theory with a series of grueling and tedious tests of more and more time in HC-110 B.. but according to everything I've seen for B/W films at least, HC-110 A vs B should have exactly double the amount of development time for the same speed... and in this case, double the time is 1.5 times slower than it should be.. well, actually I did over develop it according to that. I did 15 minutes, and the time for E-6 should've been 13 minutes using that rule.. so it's even slower. It did develop some C-41 film decently enough, though I can't say for certain how well it works since I'm pretty sure the roll of C-41 was massively under exposed (I was shooting Pro Image 100 at night!? Can't remember why, it was 6 months ago.. I'm pretty sure this pushed the film to 400 or 800 ISO somehow, but still kept the grain of 100 ISO)

Velvia 50 shot at 25:



Pro Image 100 shot at ?? probably equivalent to 400 or 800 ISO. Bright lit Japan streets shot at f/2.8 and 1/40 if I remember right (half-frame)

PE, I'm really curious if you remember this thread and have any further details https://www.flickr.com/groups/21137561@N00/discuss/72157629681961278/

I'm super curious if there is any connection between how those old film stocks solarized themselves when expired and how X-Pro Reversal and Portra 400 causes similar looking effects. I'm wondering if maybe I should be significantly more conservative during the fogging step of Portra 400. I honestly like the look of the stuff in this process, very vibrant and rich (unlike Portra 400 normally, especially when shot at 100).. but this unpredictable solarization effect in the shadows makes it hard to rely on for anything other than test rolls

Earlz, I never saw those "solarized" images, but now, having seen them and doing a closer study, I think there is more going on that just fog. They do not look right to me, and I wonder if there is anything odd about the process. Sorry, but I know no more about them than you do at this time.

PE

huh was just interested. The story of some film from the 1920s (B/W of course) being developed normally and coming out as reversal is probably one of the most interesting things I saw in that thread (or linked to it?)

Anyway, for my own solarization-ish problems, it appears that Portra 400 is plainly very sensitive to being solarized. I developed a roll tonight, fogged for only about 45s about 2ft away from my ~75-100W equivalent light pad and it came out with normal dark shadows rather than weird orange shadows! I did all other rolls (Superia 1600, Superia 400, Colorplus 200) the same way and all came out well fogged and with no solarization issues. I'm really hoping the Superia 1600 comes out less grainy, but still waiting for it to dry to examine closer. ColorPlus looks extremely similar to ProImage 100: somewhat dark dmin, deep red mask any thing that isn't blown, hiding all other colors (can be fixed in scanning, but colors not visible to the eye), and weirdly high contrast in the highlights. I think they're both for budget markets and are older emulsions, so maybe that makes sense?

Eugen Mezei said:

So this process is suitable only for scanning and postprocessing, not for projection?

Click to expand...

I'd say with most films it's only suitable for scanning due to color casts. I have gotten nearly pristine slides from Provia 100F with no color cast, but it's very hard to reproduce. Basically requires an absolutely perfect C-41 developer that is just mixed and hasn't been oxidized at all. I found the powder kit C-41 developers actually work better and more consistently for this than Fuji Hunt X-Press chemicals, but the separate bleach and fix chemicals are really worth it for consistency and keeping things long lasting. When I run out of C-41 developer from my X-Press kit I'll probably end up ordering separate bleach and fix chemicals and using the powder developer and discarding the blix or using it one-shot.

So basically for projectable slides, you need:

1. Suitable film stock. Probably Velvia 100, Provia 100F, or frozen Ektachrome 160 should be usable. Velvia 50 is definitely not suitable nor is CR200/X-Pro 200. Shooting at a slightly slower speed, like 1/3rd stop over exposed tends to render more vibrant colors, though highlights can get blown.
2. Absolutely fresh and unused C-41 developer. Mix it and use it immediately when it reaches the proper temperature. I recommend processing 4 rolls (or however many is possible) and then setting the developer aside for normal C-41 film processing or X-Pro Reversal with C-41 films.
3. Precision in timing, temperature, etc.
4. Separate bleach and fix seems to work better and with less risk of under bleaching.. though if under bleached it's very easy to fix and reblix.

I've been discovering that color casts can potentially be reduced by using a lower dilution first developer and shooting at 1 stop or 2 stops below box speed. With most slide films that's getting down to 25 or 50 ISO though which is usually not ideal for me. I got pretty good looking slides using Velvia 100 shot at 25 and using HC-110 B for 12m30s... but at lower dilutions it seems the developer exhausts, so not sure how safe of a process that is. It also causes a decrease in contrast and increase in exposure latitude

edit: in general, Provia 100F is the most suitable for projection. Even using lightly used or older C-41 developer produces slides with only a slight cast that might be suitable for projection, especially if a warming filter is used when shooting.. though heavier used developer produces an exponentially stronger cast.

Tried some of the new Ektachrome E100 today with ideal conditions (ie, fresh C-41 developer). I processed some Provia 100F in 120 and 35mm at the same time. Both provia rolls came out pretty much perfect, vibrant colors, minimal if any cast. However, the Ektachrome did not fair as well. It came out with super vibrant and saturated colors (beyond that of even Velvia!) but also with a very strong green cast in the mid tones. It does reach full clear and full black, but light gray is mostly correct and dark gray is around a 30% green saturation. Will scan later and edit this post... but looks like there is some color detail potentially lost the cast is so extreme. On the plus side though, not sure if it's the interaction of the process and film or just the new emulsion, but it looks like it has a bit more latitude than other slide films. It was possible to capture some really contrasty scenes without the highlights clearing, and color chart results look decent at ISOs of +2 and down to -1. -2 the highlights clear a lot, but there is still a considerable amount of detail.

Here are the results from Ektachrome E100.

Uncorrected (only set white/black point)


Corrected (set gray point to bottom darkest gray)


And a more practical corrected picture that maybe looks cool


And a 100% crop (and 200% enlarged) to show grain. The DSLR scan was 40MP raw, but probably around 32MP after cropping negative holder out etc.. it clearly will show grain on negative material, but has problems with super fine grain slide film like this and Ektachrome


Color chart tests were taken in bright 11am Colorado sunlight. Bench picture taken in snowy deep overcast weather

So, my conclusion: Awful color cast makes E100 totally unsuitable for projection. After color correction, green colors really suffer and are not near as vibrant, but most other colors resemble Ektar with fairly high saturation. Exposure latitude in this process is really great, though I haven't processed any with normal E-6 to compare.

How come on this whole site the first person to post samples of the new Ektachrome is the one guy doing funky processing?

Cholentpot said:

How come on this whole site the first person to post samples of the new Ektachrome is the one guy doing funky processing?

Click to expand...

LOL it's the only way I can get this done in a few hours since I don't keep any E-6 chemicals. A lab near me does E-6, but that requires 3 day turnaround time.

Been a while since I did much with this process as far as new film stocks etc. I shot some Cinestill 800T and some Lomography color negative 800 and wanted to try it in this process, but see what the results would be like. I also wanted to try to get to a 1600 base speed for both films. Since I'm using tungsten balanced film, I did both test runs with both daylight and tungsten balanced lights. Also, since I'm working with stocks that are hard to find right now, I used a Pen D3 as the test camera, this means the results are half-frame. More grain is expected. First development was 9m30s in the normal HC-110 A as according to my blog post etc. C-41 developer had been used a bit, so I extended color development to 4 minutes. Bleach and fix both at 7m30s.

The brackets are adjusted for best color and shot at 400, 800, 1600, and 3200.

First, the more interesting stock, Cinestill 800T. Results: very poor, especially in daylight balanced. Despite extended development time, seemed to be a bit less than 800. This is of course color vision stock rated at 500, so this is somewhat expected.. but not for this long of a development time. It also has a general shadow "fog" similar to Portra 400 and 160. I think this is proof that film stocks using Vision 3 tech are incompatible with this process, at least if you don't want inconsistent weird foggy shadows.

Tungsten balanced:






Daylight brackets:







Next stock. Lomography Color Negative 800. No idea what the film stock of this is. There's some rumors that the actual emulsion might be different between 35mm and 120 even. Regardless, it resembles to me a high speed Kodak Gold in this process. Kodak Gold is one stock giving fairly natural results (after color correction) with minimal uncorrectable color crossing. So, this film looks very good in this process. Also, despite being pushed and half-frame, these scans look to have grain comparable to consumer 400 and 200 stocks, definitely a lot finer grain than Superia 1600. Extended development time did seem to get the natural speed to around 1600, but according to previous results with 400 stock film this should've pushed the film 2 stops, to 3200. Extended development might be needed for box speed results at 800. Probably indicates that the film is really a slower emulsion than marketed and relies on exposure latitude to get to the 800 speed. Could potentially be 500 or 640 speed. Colors are very good, significantly better in tungsten light than daylight, despite being daylight balanced. Exposure also seems to be a bit boosted a bit in tungsten balanced, keeping more shadow detail.

Daylight:






Tungsten:

(continued in next post)

Tungsten brackets for lomo cn 800:







I think I might actually use this process to make CN800 my choice for urban night photography since it handles tungsten so well without halos or excessive grain and with decent enough exposure latitude.

Anyone have any ideas why tungsten works better in this process?

earlz said:

I think I might actually use this process to make CN800 my choice for urban night photography since it handles tungsten so well without halos or excessive grain and with decent enough exposure latitude.

Anyone have any ideas why tungsten works better in this process?

Click to expand...

What´s worked best for me, so far, is my bare enlarger bulb. Phillips Photocrescent 105W 220V opal bulb. 3 mins reversal exposure. Film dries as of writing this comment - I will add a properly scanned image as soon as its available. For the time being, here´s a cellphone snap of the drying film (Fujichrome CDU II 70mm film)

This morning I did a new test run of this process with some modifications. I've heard many good things about Dektol and had a batch mixed up, so I tried it. Along with this, I also wanted to try a homemade chemical fogging method, rather than needing to expose the film to light. I tried this with brackets on (new) Ektachrome 100 and Provia 100F.

Procedure: (all temperatures except fogging at 38.6C/101.5F in sous vide bath)

* Dektol 1+3. 6 minutes total, 30s initial agitation, 4x per 30s after
* Water rinse
* Fog bath made from 5.5g of "Iron Out" powder and 1L of water. Temperature was around 45C (hot to touch, but not too hot to hold), 5 minutes total with 30s initial agitation and 4x agitation per 30s after
* Water rinse
* C-41 develop for 4 minutes. I used the "kit" agitation method, 10s initial agitation, 4x per 30s after (Kodak instructions are 2x per 15s with 30s initial, but I've had bad results with it)
* Water rinse
* C-41 Bleach, 8 minutes
* Water rinse
* C-41 fix, 6.5 minutes
* Rinse and stabilize

This looked very good to my eye when I first pulled it out, but then proceeded to get a magenta purple haze as it dried. When I scanned it I realized the results are quite suboptimal. First, using Dektol 1+3 looks somewhat too low contrast (dingy highlights) and was around 1.5 stops below box speed. What is exciting however is that the Ektachrome came out without awful casts. Previous tests using HC-110, Ektachrome always came out with a thick green cast. The colors also look fairly decent and with high saturation, with minor "brown" crossing in dark grey. I intend to try Dektol 1+2 for 8m next to see if I can get a boost in contrast and speed.

Another problem in this is that the chemical reversal bath was not sufficient. I'm not sure if it needed more Iron Out, or if more time was needed. The Ektachrome looks maybe 90% fogged (ie, very dark blacks with slight brown cast), but the Provia is probably only 60% fogged. (Dark, but not very dark, blacks with strong purple cast) I will probably try to use 10g of Iron Out next time and 6m30s (iirc the same as official E-6 fogging time).. as well as being more careful with temp and trying to keep things to a consistent 38.6C for easy repeatability.

Brackets have not been processed at all other than setting the white balance setting in RAW to be accurate to how it looks to my eye (camera's daylight rendered it more blue than it actually looked). Order is ISO 100, ISO 200, ISO 50, ISO 25. Also, a ton of glare was present on the color card, didn't realize it'd mask things that strongly on film, but apparently is another thing I should not do when making test strips. Note also that I scanned for "best looking", not a consistent level of exposure.

Ektachrome 100:





Provia 100F:





Note: If wanting to repeat this yourself, make the Iron Out mixture just before usage. Everything I've read about this is that the solution does not keep at all, maybe not even long enough to be brought up to exactly 38.6C in a sous vide bath. Temperature shouldn't need precision, but I've read that too much fogging with this can cause solarization. I've not seen anyone ever trying to use this as a substitute for the E-6 reversal bath, nor at temperatures above 70F, so this is uncharted territory.