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

[grainyvision]

There are ways to get better results from this process.

PE

Define "better", especially when working with C-41 film in this process. The only real better I'd say for that is reducing the orange mask (which appears to be impossible without removing the emulsion), increasing exposure latitude, or figuring out what it is about Portra 400 that results in uneven looking processing. Of course for E-6 slides, it'd be nice to have a bit less contrast and to eliminate the color cast that typically occurs. From some testing, it looks like the agitation and exact temperature of the first developer matters more than the color developer for reducing color cast, though aged color developer will never result in cast-less film. It also seems like fresh color developer is more important than unused/light used color developer for avoiding casts.

For my latest testing, I mixed 5L of Fuji X-Press C-41 chemicals. I really love the separate bleach and fixer, this process is especially bad at exhausting blix, making time extensions necessary after even 1 or 2 batches. However, the developer seems to work worse for this process when compared to the cheap powder kits. When it was super fresh it resulted in minimal color casts, but an uncomfortable increase in contrast and gawdy looking saturation on Velvia (Provia had increased contrast, but no other effect). Unfortunately there was an error in my storage method of the developer after decanting, and so the developer has been aging pretty rapidly since it was exposed to some air over a week. It's no longer really suitable for E-6 processing if I want perfection, but with C-41 film it seems to work well enough (both positive and negative process).

 

[fdonadio]

Of course for E-6 slides, it'd be nice to have a bit less contrast and to eliminate the color cast that typically occurs.

I believe (but I am not totally certain) that these problems are caused by:

1. Contrast: very energic first developer, which is standard for E-6 processing;

2. Color shifts: different developing agents between C-41 and E-6 (CD-3 and CD-4).

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, if you are processing C41 films in a reversal C41 process, you can never get rid of the orange mask, but you can reduce crossover and you can improve contrast. If it is an E6 film in a reversal C41, you can improve color and reduce crossover as well as improve contrast.

About 1/2 is done in the FD, but the rest is done in the CD. Color, for example, is contaminated in most reversal processes by the need to clean out Dmin while getting Dmax, and therefore the CD uses fogging agents and competing colorless couplers. Also, the FD contains a silver halide solvent.

Look at the VNF1 process formulas published on-line by Kodak.

PE

 

[grainyvision]

Well, if you are processing C41 films in a reversal C41 process, you can never get rid of the orange mask, but you can reduce crossover and you can improve contrast. If it is an E6 film in a reversal C41, you can improve color and reduce crossover as well as improve contrast.

About 1/2 is done in the FD, but the rest is done in the CD. Color, for example, is contaminated in most reversal processes by the need to clean out Dmin while getting Dmax, and therefore the CD uses fogging agents and competing colorless couplers. Also, the FD contains a silver halide solvent.

Look at the VNF1 process formulas published on-line by Kodak.

PE

It seems that HC-110 has some kind of silver halide solvent, but probably not at the strength you're talking about. Also, is this why it's necessary in E-6 (and VFN1) to NOT rinse the film after the chemical fogging step? How did E-4 and earlier processes work without a fogging agent?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rinsing has nothing to do with either the fogging or the CD. E4 did have a fogging agent (t-Bab or t-Butyl Amine Borane), but it was considered to be too toxic. The new one is somewhat unstable, but not very toxic (Stannous Chloride).

The proof that a rinse is unimportant either way is the fact that reversal in all of these processes can be done by bright light.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

Look at the VNF1 process formulas published on-line by Kodak.

I have just looked at them. The first developer uses phenidone and hydroquinone and has some thiocyanate. Do you mean this would be a good first developer for the process described by the OP?

Also, would you advise against using D-97?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm just saying that the VNF FD and CDs are better starting places than anything else.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

I'm just saying that the VNF FD and CDs are better starting places than anything else.

PE

Cool, thanks. The VNF-1 first developer is pretty easy to mix.

Now, the color developer uses CD-2, which doesn’t seem to be good for E-6 film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

My copy of VNF formulas does not include CD2, but rather CD3. It is basically E4 chemistry and E4 is E6 with Benzyl Alcohol.

E4 uses t-Bab for reversal and E6 uses Stannous Chloride.... ETC.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

My copy of VNF formulas does not include CD2, but rather CD3.

As always, you’re right. Here’s the proof:

https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles/motion/h24_11.pdf#page24

 

[Cholentpot]

And now I'm lost.

Can I get a hat with t-Bab written on it?

 

[Photo Engineer]

t-BAB (t-Butyl Amine Borane) is obsolete so your hat would be as well.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

t-BAB (t-Butyl Amine Borane) is obsolete so your hat would be as well.

PE

Haven’t you heard retro is cool again?

 

[fdonadio]

Can I get a hat with t-Bab written on it?

Count me in!

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[fdonadio]

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

Ron, I believe @Cholentpot and me just found “t-BAB” a nice thing to have written on a hat. It sounds cool (just say “tee-bab” our loud).

I even dare say most hipsters would pay $50 for a cap with “t-BAB” embroidered on the front.

Edit: I do have stannous chloride, but no t-BAB.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have actually said t-BAB many times as in "please hand me that bottle of t-BAB over there". I even have (had) a bottle of it here somewhere, but it probably has gone bad.

I'm being on the safe side saying "please don't mess with this stuff". I don't want to encourage anyone.

PE

 

[falotico]

t-BAB (t-Butyl Amine Borane) is obsolete so your hat would be as well.

PE

I was a fool to get that Davy Crocket, coon-skin cap with T-BAB embrodered on it. Sure looked good with bell-bottoms, though.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have 3 caps, one is a GEH 18% Gray hat, one is a Moose Drool Beer hat and the last is my 15th TRS hat. No t-BAB hat.



PE

 

[falotico]

I have 3 caps, one is a GEH 18% Gray hat, one is a Moose Drool Beer hat and the last is my 15th TRS hat. No t-BAB hat.



PE

Ron, you are quite the fashion plate!

 

[fdonadio]

GEH 18% Gray hat

Are these still available?

 

[Cholentpot]

I have 3 caps, one is a GEH 18% Gray hat, one is a Moose Drool Beer hat and the last is my 15th TRS hat. No t-BAB hat.



PE

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.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ron, you are quite the fashion plate!

Thanks. I also have a Tilley hat.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Are these still available?

Yes, but now they say GEM, I think. Last time I looked, they were in the turnover in names from GEH to GEM.

I also have a GEH T-shirt and sweatshirt.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

Yes, but now they say GEM, I think. Last time I looked, they were in the turnover in names from GEH to GEM.

I also have a GEH T-shirt and sweatshirt.

PE

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.