Kodak E-7 process

Do you know the secret?

  • No, I do not know.

    Votes: 10 62.5%

  • Yes, I know, but I won’t say it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, I don’t know and I won’t say it.

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Shhhh! Silence!

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

bnxvs

Member
Joined
May 6, 2017
Messages
232
Location
Astana, Kazakhstan
Format
Multi Format
Sometimes there are references to the Kodak E-7 process as a simplified version of E-6. Unfortunately, I do not know anyone who really held (read) the "Manual for Processing Kodak EKTACHROME Films using E-7". Does anyone know how the process E-7 actually differs from the standard E-6? Or maybe someone has this manual? Why is there such a secret around this process?
 

foc

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
2,525
Location
Sligo, Ireland
Format
35mm
Is this the reference you are talking about?
E-7 is the "mix-it-yourself" version of E-6. Functionally it was equivalent, but there were a few differences.
From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ektachrome
I have never heard of Process E7 and I don't understand the "mix it youtself".
All photo chemicals come in either a liquid or power from the main manufacturers and you then follow their mixing instructions.That to me is mix it yourself.
If you mix raw chemicals then you follow a certain formula so I don't see where E7 would come from E6.

Maybe E7 is simular to the grassy knoll or bigfoot.
 

Rudeofus

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
5,081
Location
EU
Format
Medium Format
A while back Grant Haist published a formula close to C-41, called C-42. There is a non-trivial chance, that a similar home brew formula was put forward for E-6, suitable named E-7. I have not seen these formulas, and recommend people try Stefan Lange's homebrew/chromebrew formulas, since these are public, they work well, and they can be mixed from ingredients available to photo amateurs.
 
OP
OP

bnxvs

Member
Joined
May 6, 2017
Messages
232
Location
Astana, Kazakhstan
Format
Multi Format
https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0547983A1

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5212098A/en

etc...
 

fdonadio

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
2,116
Location
Berlin, DE
Format
Multi Format
They look like typos for me.

These patents were originally filed in the 90’s, when computers were already widely used. Maybe the text in one of the patents was copied and pasted from the other.

Since process E-6 was released in 1976, I believe (it’s my opinion) that 1980 would be too soon for a new process.

Cheers,
Flavio
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,789
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
What's the real content of the call with the Ukrainian leader? Fuji and Kodak have a secret program to co-produce Instax/Instamatic Ektachrome Super Slides in the old Kiev 88 factory. 127 is the new forty.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,277
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,316
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
I vaguely recall a reference that e-7 was a process for large volume labs to use under license from Kodak. It might well be "mix it yourself" for a lab who would have at least a chemistry expert on staff. recall that some folks buy Metol in 205l drums.
 

BradS

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,120
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
I think Sasquatch is taking a vacation.....likely in southwestern Oregon...and he’s using the alias, ‘Bigfoot’.
 

foc

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
2,525
Location
Sligo, Ireland
Format
35mm
bnxvs said:
The Kodak E-7 process, if I understood correctly, was designed as a simplified alternative to the E-6 process, for home use. Similar to process E-4, which was an alternative to process E-3.
Click to expand...

E4 process was different to E3 in that E4 used a reversal agent (IIRC highly toxic) and ran at a higher temp.
Again as far as I can remember you could process an E4 film in E3 chemicals and using the light reversal method instead of the reversal agent.

I am sure someone with better knowledge of reversal processing than myself could give better details.

There is one person that would know all, Photo Engineer
 

Anon Ymous

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
3,663
Location
Greece
Format
35mm
AgX said:
The E-7 reference only hints at the stabilizer.

From this I conclude that E-7 is the washless variant of E-6.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure. E6 used to have a stabiliser bath that contained formaldehyde. This was replaced by a prebleach bath that contained a bleach accelerator, as well as a formaldehyde - bisulfite adduct. It reduces the exposure to formaldehyde to personel, but is also effective at stabilising the dyes that E6 uses, that require formaldehyde. Nowadays a final rinse is used that uses a biocide and wetting agent.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
I know, but that would just be a product development, without any processing variation, but not a basically different process as a washless one would be. So there would not ne a reason to give the process a different designation.

Though I then would have chosen E-6WL or such instead of E-7....
 

Mr Bill

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,484
Format
Multi Format
bnxvs said:
Does anyone know how the process E-7 actually differs from the standard E-6? Or maybe someone has this manual? Why is there such a secret around this process?
Click to expand...

Let me first say that I have no personal knowledge of an E-7 process, but am not surprised about its (presumed) existence.

The reason it is generally unknown, assuming it exists, is most likely that the information in it is confidential and proprietary. Cmacd123 is most likely correct. The only people (outside of the manufacturer) who would have first-hand knowledge about it would be licensed holders of the formulary manuals. And they apparently have done a good job of maintaining the confidentiality.

I mentioned a similar situation with the case of the C-42 process. See my post #19 in this thread:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/c-42-is-kodaks-home-version-of-c-41.89135/#post-1191803

I would never have mentioned anything about C-42 except that certain aspects have previously been publicly revealed. One is that Haist of Kodak had published a C-42 developer (tank solution) formula (per Rudeofus in this thread); a second is that a former Kodak guy had once mentioned on a forum that such license agreements were sometimes made with large finishers. So there was already some public knowledge of C-42. I'm not gonna say more, but people should be aware that the ideas that C-42 was intended for "home use" and that it is somehow not equivalent to C-41 are only speculation.

Ps, some patents listed in this thread refer to an E-7 processing manual. One might presume that such manuals are therefore open to the public, but I don't think that this is correct. Perhaps they might be used in court cases, but presumably could still be held in confidence. I'm just speculating about this, though; I'm sure that a patent attorney could answer this.
 
Last edited:

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
If it was a "complete" process, in the Kodak waste handling listing above the other parts aside of the stabilizer would show up too.
 

Terrence Brennan

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
489
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Format
35mm
I worked for a larger photofinisher in the 1980s, and we used 3rd party chemistry kits for process C-41 and E-6. We did some bulk mixing, and also had the manuals for C-42 and E-7, which I was told were the bulk mix equivalents of C-41 and E-6. We found that the 3rd party kits were cheaper and faster and less problematic that bulk mixing.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format

This is in contradiction to the document from post #7.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,277
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
AgX said:
This is in contradiction to the document from post #7.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The E7 stabilizer may be the only E7 component that differs from E6 for the purpose of that document.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Exactly. That was my idea uttered in post #12. But Terence hints a E-7 being a made from scrap or so process. Then either all or none chemical would show up at a disposal list.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,277
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
If E-7 was essentially the "mix from scratch components because you are using it it volume lab quantities" version of E-6, it may be that the disposal rules for the E-7 components are just the E-6 rules, save and except for the E-7 stabilizer.
That stabilizer may include formaldehyde, which differs from E-6, where the formaldehyde like component is included in an earlier stage of the process. The inclusion of formaldehyde would be a logical reason to have special disposal rules for that E-7 component.
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,316
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
MattKing said:
If E-7 was essentially the "mix from scratch components because you are using it it volume lab quantities" version of E-6, it may be that the disposal rules for the E-7 components are just the E-6 rules, save and except for the E-7 stabilizer.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps there was no advantage in mixing the stabilizer from scratch, (it tends to be one of the least expensive solutions in most processes) and so Kodak sugested just sticking to the one for E6. recall the KES pub refers to KODAK Stabilizer and Replenisher E-6, E-7 and E-6AR (Working solution) so it would be the same product in all three cases.
 

Terrence Brennan

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
489
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Format
35mm
The lab I worked for mixed a house stabilizer for use with all of our film processes, except C-41A, the Disc film process, and our B&W film processor, which was simply Photo-Flo and water. The film processes which used the house stabilizer were C-41, E-6, E-4 and the old Ektachrome movie film process, which was EM-26 if I remember properly (and I may not!).

The house stabilizer for most of our processes was mixed in 600-gallon batches, and was mostly water, with a 1-gallon bottle of Photo-Flo 600 added and a quantity of formaldehyde. AFAIR, the stabilizer for C-41A was water, formaldehyde and a wetting agent called, if I remember correctly, "NO-STAT-X" instead of the Photo-Flo.

After all these years, a discussion on stabilizer. Who would've thunk it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…