I tried Aerocolor C-41 Reversal: Very Odd Results

[loccdor]

After success in using C-41 reversal on Phoenix as shown in the thread here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/slide-with-harman-phoenix-200.212735/#post-2883004

I tried to do the same steps with Aerocolor (Flic Film Elektra 100). The roll was a little short, I only got 35 frames in my Canon Elan 7E which normally does 36 with plenty of film to spare.

The process is:

HC-110 1+19 6.5 minutes 38C
Expose to fluorescent tube 2 minutes on each side of reel for reversal while submerged in water
C-41 developer 3 minutes 38C
C-41 blix 5 minutes 38C

All the chemicals are relatively fresh and recently tested.

I shot it with mirror lockup on a tripod with a +/- 1 stop bracket, so at ISO 8, 16, and 32. The shots at 32 came out the most detailed. But they're also positively wacky. What is going on here? See below. It appears that the darker areas successfully reversed, but the lighter ones stayed negative, and there is a strong edge effect between them.

Straight out of camera with no color or contrast changes (ISO 32):

With black point set and a little green added, the midtones look realistic:

But the sky and ice highlights turn green and appear to still be negative.

The bracketed shots at other ISOs have a different cutoff for when the edge effect starts. The one at ISO 16 has the dam a similar green as the sky, and the one at ISO 8 loses detail in the dam and sky completely (all green and no clouds visible).

The film base is brownish, not clear. Why such different results than with Phoenix? What should I do to improve it?

 

[loccdor]

Edge effect close up:

 

[Meinrad]

hmm, maybe too much overexposed with some solarization ?
as i wrote in the other thread i tried iso 100 at 8 min developping.

 

[MattKing]

It may not be what you intended.
But the result is quite spectacular in its own right!

 

[koraks]

some solarization

This looks more like a sabattier effect that occurred during processing. The varying cutoff point and sharp cutoff are in line with this.

 

[loccdor]

Thank you. It does seem like increasing the ISO would remedy this because it happens in the highlights and there is still plenty of detail in the midtones. Although I'm still not sure why it happened: too much or too little light exposure during the reversal? And why is the base not clear, I thought that was a feature of this film, how is my processing affecting that?

Here's another example.

iPhone image of scene for reference:

SOOC:

Curves adjusted:

 

[koraks]

I'd start by doing some test strips with only the first developer and some bracketing + different exposure times to see how much of the silver that's there you're getting at with the FD. Compare with a fully fogged and developed-to-completion strip so you know what the maximum silver density the film can produce. Then pick exposure & development that just hits (close to) dmax with the FD and work out the rest of the process.
For re-exposure I'd try chemical fogging if at all possible (e.g tin chloride) or alternatively use something other than fluorescent with its wonky spectrum. Even a modern white LED bulb will arguably be better.

 

[lamerko]

Is it possible that the re-exposure was done while the first developer was still active?

 

[loccdor]

Is it possible that the re-exposure was done while the first developer was still active?

I don't think so, there were 3 agitated water washes after the first developer.

 

[chromemax]

During inversion try to expose with an halogen lamp, fluorescente tube may have too much UV.

 

[glbeas]

Looks a bit like the bleach step was incomplete. I assume you checked that as well?

 

[koraks]

fluorescente tube may have too much UV.

What detrimental effect would that have?

 

[loccdor]

Looks a bit like the bleach step was incomplete. I assume you checked that as well?

Would blixing it again fix that if that was the cause?

 

[Yezishu]

I'm excited to see your C41 reversal tests! Because I also have some Aerocolor 2460 film on hand.

By the way, does anyone here know which ISO setting would be best if I plan to send the 2460 film to a commercial E-6 processing lab? Some people suggested me about using 160 ISO or 100 ISO with an 85A filter, but I'm not quite sure. Thank you for any advice.

 

[Yezishu]

Recently, I shot a roll of Aerocolor 2460 using with 85C filter, TTL metering at ISO 100, and had it processed at a standard E6 lab. The results were not too bad; the film base has a slight pink, and the images exhibit a subtle blue-purple cast, but the slides are still pleasing to my eye. I believe this can somehow serve as a reference for the novel C41 reversal process, with only some color shifts between them.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Recently, I shot a roll of Aerocolor 2460 using a Redden 85C filter, with TTL metering at ISO 100, and had it processed at a standard E6 lab. The results were not too bad; the film base has a slight pink, and the images exhibit a subtle blue-purple cast, but the slides are still pleasing to my eye. I believe this can somehow serve as a reference for the novel C41 reversal process, with only some color shifts between them.

Cool.
It's best when the film is developed by a competent film lab instead at home...

 

[Yezishu]

Cool.
It's best when the film is developed by a competent film lab instead at home...

Thanks and it is just a reference here.
For films like 2460 that were not initially designed for standard E6 processing, I believe there is great prospect in DIY processing, such as adjusting the color shifts through the conditions of the first and second development. In another thread, the DIY process can yield the best result ever on Phoenix 200, where standard E6 process are unable to achieve even with many fliters.....

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Thanks and it is just a reference here.
For films like 2460 that were not initially designed for standard E6 processing, I believe there is great prospect in DIY processing, such as adjusting the color shifts through the conditions of the first and second development. In another thread, the DIY process can yield the best result ever on Phoenix 200, where standard E6 process are unable to achieve even with many fliters.....

I feel that adding variables to a process (C41 and E6 is not better in this way) that is difficult to master to have very good reproducible results using only home hobby equipment is like adding problems to problems.
Since films cost an arm and a leg nowadays what I was talking about is that I feel it's best to let a reputable lab doing the processing, also cross-processing, and enjoying the results.
The other way round could bring such a frustration that I cannot enjoy anymore taking photographs...
I think your results are fantastic.

 

[koraks]

Since films cost an arm and a leg nowadays what I was talking about is that I feel it's best to let a reputable lab doing the processing, also cross-processing, and enjoying the results.

There's no lab on the plant that runs a consistent process to cross process something like Aerocolor (or Phoenix) to presentable slides because such a process does not even exist. It's like building a rocket-propelled car and then pointing out one should really take it to a BMW dealership to get it serviced at regular intervals. It doesn't compute. It's experimental stuff, so if you hand this to a lab, you're just going to get whatever comes out if they chuck it into their regular E6 line with the normal E6 film, regardless of what you're looking for. For optimal results from an experimental concept like this, an experimental approach is needed. Labs don't offer this.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

There's no lab on the plant that runs a consistent process to cross process something like Aerocolor (or Phoenix) to presentable slides because such a process does not even exist.

Well, user @Yezishu wrote that "Recently, I shot a roll of Aerocolor 2460 using with 85C filter, TTL metering at ISO 100, and had it processed at a standard E6 lab."

As it seems there is a lab on the planet that processes a consistent cross-processed Aerocolor 2460. Despite the cool tone the slides are very well developed and for me they are good. I don't look for perfection, to be honest I hate perfection.
If I wanted a real proper E6 slide I'd use a real E6 film intended to be run in a proper mantained E6 line, which excludes home chemistry.

 

[koraks]

I don't look for perfection, to be honest I hate perfection.

But color film should be taken to a reputable lab!!!! LOL

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

But color film should be taken to a reputable lab!!!! LOL

Wtf are you laughing at?
Yes, film cost an arm and a leg and it's a crime to waste them.
Color film should be handed to a reputable lab, yes, I stand by that.
I hate perfection? Yes. I'm statisfied with what the kind of material can give me, unlike some people who whine because they haven't managed to achieve perfection in home development or bathroom printing.
The examples @Yezishu posted are what keep me satisfied and frankly I don't even care HOW they are obtained.
The examples @loccdor posted are just a waste of precious film, chemistry and time imho.

 

[Yezishu]

There's no lab on the plant that runs a consistent process to cross process something like Aerocolor (or Phoenix) to presentable slides because such a process does not even exist. It's like building a rocket-propelled car and then pointing out one should really take it to a BMW dealership to get it serviced at regular intervals. It doesn't compute. It's experimental stuff, so if you hand this to a lab, you're just going to get whatever comes out if they chuck it into their regular E6 line with the normal E6 film, regardless of what you're looking for. For optimal results from an experimental concept like this, an experimental approach is needed. Labs don't offer this.

Completely agree. With the standard E6 process, there's not much we can do. Filters might correct some color shifts, and different ISOs can be tested, but we still can't fix the color shifts due to exposure, like highlights turning blue and shadows turning yellow. We can't complain to Kodak since these films are designed for AN6/C41.

Only pioneers of experimental processes like loccdor and arturo_rs may lead us to better results. Loccdor used a much lower ISO, which is different from what I had found and asked before. Perhaps reversal results at ISO 80–160 might be better?