Maskless negative film in C41 to create slides

[FilmCurlCom]

Hi everybody!

Have been experimenting with maskless negative film for some while now, Rollei CN200, to see if I can make some sort of slides in C41 chemicals. I tried both to record inverted images off screens onto the film as well as to contact-print other negative films.

Both ways work if you play around with color balancing, actually the results are not so bad.
But unfortunately the CN200 is not clear at all, it has a quite grayish mask and this prevents the results from being useful for any projection.

Does anyone of you know if there is a way to get rid of the gray color? I tried much longer bleaching (helped a bit, but did not make the film clear). I've seen some others using the Washi X, a second maskless film, but I think this is yet again the same Agfa film that is used for the CN200, AGFA ASP 400X?

Does anyone know of any other maskless films for C41, the only other idea I have would be to use expired Kodak Vericolor Slide Film S0-279, which creates slides in C41.

Bernhard

 

[AgX]

Welcome to Apug!

There should not be a grey "mask". But I get your point. Dbase=0.4 ?
There is no alternative film for your 35mm camera.

 

[FilmCurlCom]

Thank you!

I also wondered if I could use ECP film instead, so some Kodak Vision Color print film.
Would there be any alternative to actual ECP chemistry, so similar to using C41 on ECN-2 films could C41 or something similar work on ECP?
I know, it's not what the films were made for, but C41 on ECN-2 does give images (of lesser quality, stability, ...).
Many people are using ECN-2 films with C41 but for ECP films I did not really find discussions yet.

Bernhard

 

[AgX]

Print film is very unsensitive and not spectrally sensitized as camera film.
(To be fair the Rollei CN200 is not designed as slide film either.)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I suspect that the gray color is due to a tinted film base. No amount of fixing, bleaching or washing will remove it since it is inn the plastic itself. Since the dye is gray it will act only as an ND filter. If you project your slides I doubt that the viewers would notice that they are a bit darker.

Years ago I used Agfa slide duplicating film to make some very nice slides. Since duplicating films are not designed for in camera use there is no anti-halation dye. They are also low contrast and slow. However increasing development time corrects both potential problems.

 

[FilmCurlCom]

That is actually one thing I tried last time, since I got very low contrast images with the CN200, I used a longer developing time of 3:45 vs. the usual 3:15 (with Tetenal Colortec). Maybe I could use even longer times, what do you suggest, what did you use?

 

[Rudeofus]

Print film is very unsensitive and not spectrally sensitized as camera film.

Can you explain how color print film could possibly work without spectral sensitization? Or did you just mean "has different spectral sensitivity from regular color film"?

 

[AgX]

I meant "not the same as".

(I'm not a native speaker and used the german wording instead.)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

That is actually one thing I tried last time, since I got very low contrast images with the CN200, I used a longer developing time of 3:45 vs. the usual 3:15 (with Tetenal Colortec). Maybe I could use even longer times, what do you suggest, what did you use?

Since you are not using color negative film you are not really bound by the CN time. I would suggest a series of experiments to get what you are looking for. I was using the duplicating film to get regular slides with correct color balance using the E4 process. The method was published in the Dignan newletter which provided an article with the timing.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Color negative films and processes are designed to yield low contrast images with long latitude. The high contrast is achieved during the printing process. Reversal films have high contrast.

PE

 

[Rudeofus]

Color negative films and processes are designed to yield low contrast images with long latitude.

This may well come from the process rather than the medium. If one processes B&W negative film with a B&W reversal kit, contrast is equivalent to what one gets with E6 film+process.

 

[FilmCurlCom]

Hi Ron!

As you definately know it, could you please answer my question I asked above:
Would there be any alternative to actual ECP chemistry, so similar to using C41 on ECN-2 films could C41 or something similar work on ECP?
I know, it's not what the films were made for, but C41 on ECN-2 does give images (of lesser quality, stability, ...).
Many people are using ECN-2 films with C41 but for ECP films I did not really find discussions yet.
Thanks alot!

 

[Rudeofus]

@FilmCurlCom: Roller CR200 is advertised as having a "transparent synthetic base", so you should be able to achieve better than a Dmin of 0.4. Here is, what I would do:

1. BLIX an unexposed and undeveloped test clip of this film for about twice the recommended BLIX time. Note: fixing alone won't work, because some color films have a colloidal silver layer as yellow filter or as anti-halation layer and therefore rely on silver removal in color processes to become fully transparent. This BLIXed test clip should establish real base color
2. If this base color/density established in previous procedure is too high, then you need to change film stock, there is nothing you can do to lower Dmin short of removing the emulsion.
3. If this base color/density is noticeably below the Dmin you got with straight C-41, then you need to modify your C-41 CD. Either lower its pH with Acetic Acid, or add a restrainer like KBr. Adding 1 g/l KBr would be a good starting point in this case.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The motion picture camera films themselves are designed for low contrast and have a Dmax limit. Therefore, you likely can never get the deep blacks you want from a reversal film when using ECN in camera for a transparency.

However, all that Rudi says is true, but C41 was not designed for ECN, nor was Rodinol. I suggest at least trying another first developer such as one intended for B&W reversal processing. That is posted on one of the Kodak pages with the entire formula, but you could use D-19 with about 500 mg /l or more of Sodium Thiocyanate.

PE

 

[AgX]

Agfa do not use collodial silver.

 

[Photo Engineer]

They did at one time. In fact, their formula for CLS was published.

PE

 

[FilmCurlCom]

@FilmCurlCom: Roller CR200 is advertised as having a "transparent synthetic base", so you should be able to achieve better than a Dmin of 0.4

I think there might be a misunderstanding? I was talking about the negative C41 film CN200 but you seem to talk about the slide version CR200, right?

What I was/am trying is to contact-print C41 negative film onto another C41 negative film (this time the maskless CN200) to get a positive that way.
Or, second option, to see if I could possibly contact-print C41 negative or better ECN-2 negative onto a ECP (which will be maskless too) and there the idea was if ECP could be cross processed in C41 chemicals, similar to ECN-2 cross processing (with all the known issues of different processes, stability, ... that are discussed a lot with regards to Cinestill for example).

Bernhard

 

[georgegrosu]

Color print film is a high contrast film to be printed from a color negative, duplicate negative, or internegative.
Color positive is expose to tungsten light.
It was also a discussion about removing a orange mask from the color negative here on APUG.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
After me, think they can get better results with the process a positive color in ECN 2 developer than processing the film color negative in a reversible mode.
That is simply my opinion.

George

 

[Rudeofus]

I think there might be a misunderstanding? I was talking about the negative C41 film CN200 but you seem to talk about the slide version CR200, right?

Yep, sorry, I mixed those up
According to The Internet (tm) this Rollei CN200 is the same film as Agfa Aviphot X400. Its data sheet states a Dmin of 0.4, which is exactly what you reported. You did well!

What I was/am trying is to contact-print C41 negative film onto another C41 negative film (this time the maskless CN200) to get a positive that way.

If color negative film is already quite low in contrast, then multiplying the transfer curve of two negative films will give you insanely low contrast.

Or, second option, to see if I could possibly contact-print C41 negative or better ECN-2 negative onto a ECP (which will be maskless too) and there the idea was if ECP could be cross processed in C41 chemicals, similar to ECN-2 cross processing (with all the known issues of different processes, stability, ... that are discussed a lot with regards to Cinestill for example).

This approach sounds a lot more reasonable, since ECP is meant to give high contrast, and light sensitivity is a non issue. Note, though, that ECP is meant as positive process for ECN, which is lower in contrast than C-41, so expect higher contrast from your procedure. Also note, that ECP-2 uses CD-2 instead of CD-4, so plan on modifying C-41 CD both in composition and process time in order to get ok results.

 

[georgegrosu]

I have made much comparative samples of color reversible process E6.
I used Kodak E100GX two films that were exposed identical.
Mamiya medium format camera.
A film I developed in the process compatible E6 (George).
The other film I have developed in the original E6 Tetenal proces.
Scanning two frames (E6 George + E6 Tetenal) I did on the Epson V800 as a single photogram.
The scanned image without any correction was not further processed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/21121448@N06/30599998764/
In my process E6 compatible I used in color developers CD 2 substance.

George

 

[flavio81]

I have made much comparative samples of color reversible process E6.
I used Kodak E100GX two films that were exposed identical.
Mamiya medium format camera.
A film I developed in the process compatible E6 (George).
The other film I have developed in the original E6 Tetenal proces.
Scanning two frames (E6 George + E6 Tetenal) I did on the Epson V800 as a single photogram.
The scanned image without any correction was not further processed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/21121448@N06/30599998764/
In my process E6 compatible I used in color developers CD 2 substance.

George

Multumesc pretenul!!

So you have created an E6-compatible process using CD2? Interesting...
But i wonder, why? Is CD2 cheaper?

 

[georgegrosu]

flavio81, you know Romanian language?
Yes, it is a process compatible E6, to play back with more halftone image, especially in white.
By 1977 when I started with color photography in Romania was on the market only Orwo Chrom films - UT 18, UK - 17.
These films give a picture about contrast and with the blacks cold.
So this desire was for a long time.
I do not know now tell you if CD 2 was most cheaper than CD 3.
I used CD 2 was better photographic results.
When you prepare yourself solutions is inexpensive process.

George

 

[Rudeofus]

George, AFAIK these old Orwo emulsions used a process of their own, and this process uses CD-1, which in turn is very similar to CD-2, but not CD-3. Therefore I am not surprised, that these Orwo emulsions worked better with CD-2, and at the same time I would expect modern slide film to work better with CD-3 than any other color developing agent.

PS: CD-3 and CD-4 are less critical with respect to allergic sensitization of your skin, therefore I would prefer these two for health reasons.

 

[georgegrosu]

Rudeofus, process for reversible color films ORWO was 9165.
I have ORWO FORMULAE - 1982 edition.
Orwo Instuction 9165.
In the color developers ORWOCOLOR 17 use Diethyl-p-phenylene diamine sulphate (TSS).
You call it CD-1.

George

 

[Rudeofus]

In the color developers ORWOCOLOR 17 use Diethyl-p-phenylene diamine sulphate (TSS).
You call it CD-1.

AFAIK the terms CD-1, CD-2 etc. were coined by Kodak, and since they were the big game in town, these terms stuck. For equally understandable reasons there were different terms common at Agfa, and yet different terms in Eastern Europe. In the end, it doesn't matter, as long as we have unique ways of specifying compounds.

As you can see, CD-1 and CD-2 are very similar, and there is a good chance that both will yield very similar results, with better archival stability if you use CD-2. CD-3, however, is a different animal, so watch out if you substitute CD-3 with CD-1 or CD-2.