It's a shame we cannot convert Ektar into a transparency

[Helge]

The thing that might make it appear to look like KC when reversed in E6 is probably it’s propensity to develop a cyan cast in that chemistry. That counteracts the orange mask without completely nullifying it.
IE. KC had an apparent brownish, orangish cast.
But in other regards it’s not at all like KC.

Makes you wonder though, was the warming filter apparent in KC implemented with the same intent as the orange mask in colour negative?
That is, to help remove some of the uneven and overlapping response of the sensitizing dyes?

Edit: I realize that it’s reversal film and most things are opposite and weird, but an orange or equivalent mask or dye would work during the re-exposure stages of KC to correct colours.
Has anyone decrypted the KC patent?

 

[138S]

Because it is the only currently available film with a similar look and feel to Kodachrome.
Discuss.

It is possible and quite easy, cost is $7.5 per slide, 8k quality

https://www.johnsalimphotographic.co.uk/filmrecording.html (service temporarily unavailable, hope it will work soon, still other services are aout there)




As hybrid is in the middle we can easily adjust Ektar to Kodachrome look better, still a perfect match would be difficult. 3D LUT Creator would be a suitable tool for the color edition to match the best possible.

 

[George Mann]

It is possible and quite easy, cost is $7.5 per slide, 8k quality

https://www.johnsalimphotographic.co.uk/filmrecording.html

Except that this is a digital process, not an actual film reversal.

 

[138S]

Except that this is a digital process, not an actual film reversal.

You get a real Kodak Ektachrome E100 reversal slide printed digitally, but as you have the chance to modify color in the edition so you can emulate Kodachrome in the intermadiate digital color processing.

Not a digital process, but a hybrid one. "Analog to analog" through digital intermediate.

Of course not a pure optical crafting... it lacks the some "authenticity", but still sporting a top notch result. Today major $200 million productions like 007 "No Time to Die" or "Tenet" are mainly shot on film, then scanned and hybrid processed to be printed again on film for IMAX projection...

Of course not saying at all that one has to rely in that kind of workflow, only pointing that this resource is available and delivering a high quality result. I find that $7.5 per shot price is quite expensive for general usage, but it may be a great resource for some particular situations.

Personally I've never used that service but a friend has and I've seen the results, this is a resource nice to have in the tool box.

 

[fdonadio]

I haven't made up my mind one way or the other. Just don't see it as technically feasible with the processes and materials currently available.

I’ll give my 2¢: since it’s a negative film, it has the undesirable (but necessary for its intended use) integral mask. That alone is a deal breaker for a reversal process.

 

[AgX]

It's definitely not something you can put in a projector, if that's what you're asking. It's hard to exactly capture what the film looked like, and my DSLR scanning skills back then were honestly subpar, but this is my best approximation from the raw scan I have: https://i.imgur.com/Lk8ZyUs.jpgl

You overlooked that this a analogue-only thread.
Thus you should come up with a means to get rid of that mask.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Based on several of the past postings, the whole world seems to have gone nuts. Elkar, Porta, Velvia, and Kodachrome look quite different from one another. The best method for making them all look the same is to leave your lens cap on when tripping the shutter.

 

[George Mann]

Based on several of the past postings, the whole world seems to have gone nuts. Elkar, Porta, Velvia, and Kodachrome look quite different from one another.

Of course they look unique enough from one another to easily tell them apart.

Nonetheless, I feel the Ektar comes the closest to that special vibe that I found with Kodachrome, but it is nowhere near identical.

 

[Helge]

I think TMAX 100 comes closest to the Kodachrome vibe.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's easy in concept to turn a color negative shot into a transparency in the darkroom. Just use RA-4 transparency material instead of opaque printing paper. You could even contact your 35mm CN shots onto it. Lets see ... a minimum order single roll, if you cut it apart, would allow you to make nearly 50,000 contact slides. That should keep you busy awhile. The question is why?
If you want a big backlit display transparency, that's one thing; but if you just want chrome slides from color neg shots, why not just shoot positive slide film to begin with? Each respective category of product does best what it's engineered to do best.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Based on several of the past postings, the whole world seems to have gone nuts. Elkar, Porta, Velvia, and Kodachrome look quite different from one another. The best method for making them all look the same is to leave your lens cap on when tripping the shutter.

+1

 

[grainyvision]

You overlooked that this a analogue-only thread.
Thus you should come up with a means to get rid of that mask.

I mean, no one complains about scanning C-41 that removes the mask and does color correction, and likely many posts about expired E-6 involve digital color correction. Even if the mask and color bias that the mask is there for could be removed, it'd still be a sub-par slide and low contrast. C-41 film is as far as I can tell not capable of deep enough blacks to do for projection. You can see this yourself by looking through a fully exposed C-41 leader.

That being said, removing the mask is pretty much thought of to be impossible without also destroying the other dyes and emulsions. It's built into the film and even in B/W tools the mask will still be there, though as much darker grey mask (unless bleached) rather than the typical orange.

The only potential "negative" film I've seen that might have hope for being turned into suitable transparencies is ECP-2 printing film. When exposed in daylight and developed in C-41, it has no mask and will give a high contrast negative. However, I've encountered a lot of weird issues trying to turn it into a reversal film. Specifically it seems to have some mechanism built into it that prevents re-exposure or re-development. It can only be redeveloped after bleaching, which makes the process a lot more difficult and involved. That's not to even mention the issue that I'm cross-processing the film and it's suppose to be even higher contrast using proper ECP-2 developer. If it could be done though, I believe it'd give a ~1 ISO tungsten color slide film with impossibly fine grain and unmatched depth. Taming it is not a trivial process though, that's without even starting to deal with the inevitable color bias issues since it's intended to be exposed through filtration + ECN-2 mask + ECN-2 bias + tungsten light. It's about like a more involved RA-4 reversal process.

 

[dmtnkl]

Some cross processed ektar, quick scanned with my phone. It is not color corrected, that is how it actually looks

 

[dmtnkl]

And some more:

 

[Helge]

Striking. But about as far from Kodachrome as I could imagine.

 

[138S]

It's easy in concept to turn a color negative shot into a transparency in the darkroom. Just use RA-4 transparency material instead of opaque printing paper. You could even contact your 35mm CN shots onto it

This is an interesting choice... https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/e4038.pdf



Today those materials are optimized for digital printing in Lamda, Lightjet, etc... The characteristic curve looks quite contrasty and perhaps something has to be done to lower contrast and/or saturation. Materials for digital workflow tend to be saturated, as saturation is easily controlled in the edition with a single medium all kind of works can be performed, while if the medium had a lower saturation nature then saturated color would not be possible... A bit like what happened with today's available RA-4 paper...

Anyone tried that ?

 

[AgX]

The only potential "negative" film I've seen that might have hope for being turned into suitable transparencies is ECP-2 printing film. When exposed in daylight and developed in C-41, it has no mask and will give a high contrast negative. However, I've encountered a lot of weird issues trying to turn it into a reversal film. Specifically it seems to have some mechanism built into it that prevents re-exposure or re-development. It can only be redeveloped after bleaching, which makes the process a lot more difficult and involved. That's not to even mention the issue that I'm cross-processing the film and it's suppose to be even higher contrast using proper ECP-2 developer. If it could be done though, I believe it'd give a ~1 ISO tungsten color slide film with impossibly fine grain and unmatched depth. Taming it is not a trivial process though, that's without even starting to deal with the inevitable color bias issues since it's intended to be exposed through filtration + ECN-2 mask + ECN-2 bias + tungsten light. It's about like a more involved RA-4 reversal process.

ECP film is as such intended to be the transparency. Though in a a 2-films negative-positive process. As you indicated, using it as camera film and doing a reversal processing is calling for problems.

The alternative would be using a maskless C-41 film (after the recent cancellation of the Agfa film, only the Kodak film remains) as camera film in a reversal process. But neither gamma nor Dmax would be as used in reversal film.

 

[Helge]

How about Ektachrome guys? Use or lose it.
Push it a bit and you’ll increase saturation (though it’s perfect to me at box speed).
It’s not quite KC. I’d say it’s better in almost all regards though.

Projection and backlighting is the only real reasons to use slide AFAICS.
But they are very, very good reasons.
The resolution and depth of a backlit enlarged slide, or a huge projection of slide is IMO the ultimate way of experiencing film.
Awe inspiring!
Not convenient or something to hang on the wall, but it’s more than worth it.

 

[AgX]

How about Ektachrome guys?

Wasn't Apug founded to make things complicated in the first place?

 

[138S]

Projection and backlighting is the only real reasons to use slide AFAICS.

Another reason is wanting the distinct spectral response a particular slide film offers, that cannot be found in negative films or digital sensors.

When kodachrome discontinued a particular spectral response was lost:

Kodachrone vs Ektar



Graphs shows that (with Ektar) a filtration partially blocking in the 450-500nm band would later allow a color edition to make a better match to kodachrome in an hybrid or optic processing.

IMO Kodachrome is still alive in some way. Some movies in some scenes use a KC color preset, of course not the same than real kodachrome, but still impactful. KC is a major milestone in the aesthetics of our imaging culture... isn't it?

 

[foc]

And some more:

View attachment 258950

Reminds me of some of my old Agfachrome CT18 rather than Kodachrome.
Maybe you could start a new trend.
Forget the revival of Kodachrome.
Instead, revive Agfachrome CT18.

 

[dmtnkl]

Striking. But about as far from Kodachrome as I could imagine.

Just to clarify.

I posted the pictures to show my reversal results with ektar 100.

I haven't even seen Kodachrome in person, let alone claim that ektar cross processed looks like it.

 

[George Mann]

KC is a major milestone in the aesthetics of our imaging culture... isn't it?

Yes, as well as being a national icon and treasure.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pere - "Those" materials work equally well in a darkroom. The official literature typically states that somewhere if you look enough. But by marketing them as "digital" it implies that the contrast and color balance have been improved over previous analogous products with respect to common digital printers like Lightjet, Lambda, or Chromira. It also takes into account that a lot of the C41 / RA4 market was traditionally geared to softer portrait and advertising applications, whereas nowadays there's a need for more versatility, snap, and contrast. Early digital laser blacks were disappointingly bland; so the DMax had to be boosted. The changes in color balance and DMax are really modest overall, requiring little adjustment in overall procedure. Plus, for sake of commercial laser printers, recommended starter setting with this kind of equipment are provided.
But in terms of purely darkroom workflow, there are effective methods of tinkering with contrast and saturation, like masking and flashing.
Of couse, I mentioned RA4 display transparency material almost as a joke in line with all the other nonsense on this thread - it would be perfectly doable technically; but otherwise, it's a ridiculous idea, and I doubt anyone will find a logical incentive to try it.

 

[AgX]

Yes, as well as being a national icon and treasure.

I think that is the major part of it.