Maximum Acceleration Speed Possible with Fuji Astia 100?

Karl_CTPhoto · May 25, 2009

First post on APUG!

I am looking to get in to film acceleration, for which I hear the Ektachrome 200 film is best, or maybe Fuji 400.

Unfortunately, I only have some older Astia 100 lying around.

I am hoping to get at least E.I. 5,000 out of it. . . Is this realistic at 40 min. at 75° Fahr. (24°C)?

Also, I note that the C-41 bleach is not optimal, rather the ferricyanide/bromide variety is better for "optimal" results.

Does anyone know if the 8- & 12g or 30- and 10g varieties of ferricyanide & bromide bleach, respectively, per liter, are better for this purpose?

nickandre · May 25, 2009

I believe the maximum attempted push is about 3 stops, which is asa 800. You're looking at very high contrast and coarser grain. You can try more if you really want.

If you want to do this correctly buy a Kodak 5 Liter E6 kit. Ferricyanide bleaches don't agree with the dyes in modern color films. 75 degrees is also asking for hell, you should heat it up to 100. If you do try 75 degrees you're looking at VERY long times.

Karl_CTPhoto · May 26, 2009

No, there are examples going back to the early '70s with Ektachrome 200 pushed up to 10,000.

One is a train at night, at a shutter speed fast enough to stop it's motion.

And, just to clarify, I'm not looking for crazy, wonky looking colors; I am doing this to attain the maximum possible film speed. I've no desire for crazy looking stuff that is much easier, cheaper, and more controllable digitally.

Fredrik Sandstrom · May 26, 2009

Well, how long does it take to develop an E6 film to completion (in the first developer), and how many stops of a push does that represent? That would be the maximum theoretical push, and the results would probably be very weird. E.I. 5000 or 10000 from a 100 or 200 speed film sounds totally unrealistic to me. Can you show some of those examples?

Ian Grant · May 26, 2009

Karl_CTPhoto said:
No, there are examples going back to the early '70s with Ektachrome 200 pushed up to 10,000.

This is most like not achieve just through processing but with special Hyper-sensitisation prior to exposure. You could look up how film speeds were accelerated for Astronomy as this was the major area where these techniques were used. Michael Maunder in the UK specialised in this area his company is Speedibrews, he has a website.

Ian

Karl_CTPhoto · Jun 12, 2009

Sorry for the delay in replying back.

No, I am 100% positive it was E200 ('70s version) with nothing else done, just film acceleration.

I have the article scanned but, frankly, am unwilling to pay to post it here.

Can I e-mail it to you?

Can someone else here post a scan if I were to e-mail it to them?

benOM · Jun 12, 2009

I have recently been playing around with film acceleration the best results so far has been with sensia400 @3200, so 3 stops and I suspect anymore would result in not much of an image. Also you will get a colour shift with slide film in c-41 but how much depends on how you scan it.
I've had better results with using a c-41 developer first rather than B+W.

EASmithV · Jun 12, 2009

Is film acceleration the same thing as push processing?

benOM · Jun 12, 2009

In a word no.. should be a first development in B+W or colour, stop and fix, then a time in rehal bleach before redevelopment this can be looped to increase the effect, then to finish normal bleach, fix stab.
It might also be called intensification/amplification i'm not sure which.

Photo Engineer · Jun 12, 2009

benOM said:
In a word no.. should be a first development in B+W or colour, stop and fix, then a time in rehal bleach before redevelopment this can be looped to increase the effect, then to finish normal bleach, fix stab.
It might also be called intensification/amplification i'm not sure which.

This is not film acceleration, it is rehal processing or amplification. But then it is not amplification in the strictest sense.

This method will not get you higher speed, just higher contrast in most cases.

Push processing of reversal films does not increase speed actually, it decreases Dmax thereby giving the illusion of increased speed in normal density areas at the sacrifice of worse color, grain and contrast.

PE

benOM · Jun 12, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
This is not film acceleration, it is rehal processing or amplification. But then it is not amplification in the strictest sense.

This method will not get you higher speed, just higher contrast in most cases.

Push processing of reversal films does not increase speed actually, it decreases Dmax thereby giving the illusion of increased speed in normal density areas at the sacrifice of worse color, grain and contrast.

PE

Thanks, it's nice to know what it's called, sometime's I see it refered to as acceleration sometimes amplification.
What would be the proper method for film acceleration, if you dont mind me asking?

Ektagraphic · Jun 12, 2009

I think that you are looking to go to far. You are correct, E200 is amazing to push. It goes like a charm, but the highest I would go it 1600. Welcome to APUG!

Photo Engineer · Jun 12, 2009

benOM said:
Thanks, it's nice to know what it's called, sometime's I see it refered to as acceleration sometimes amplification.
What would be the proper method for film acceleration, if you dont mind me asking?

Ok, well, amplification is usually carried out on negative working systems and involves catalytic amplification of images via peroxide or cobalt hexammine.

Hypersensitization, sometimes called acceleration is usually done on astronomical films and involves use of hydrogen gas to hypersensitize the film emulsion to extremely high speeds.

Push processing merely takes what is there and makes it higher in contrast and foggier. In the case of the casual observer, the mid tone densities have undergone a speed change to higher values, but this is an illusion created by higher fog, contrast and in the case of reversal film the fog causes lower Dmax.

Hope this helps.

PE

Karl_CTPhoto · Jun 12, 2009

Maybe it is called amplification, PE, but it seems that, colloquially, just like solarization, the term "acceleration" is commonly accepted for processing E-6 with a pushed first developer, re-bleaching, and then running through standard C-41.

I am interested in the process for extreme speed situations, hopefully running medium format so that the grain isn't too extreme. I can't believe I lost that book!

Will look for the article again, but it was a picture of a moving train at night that was stopped mid-motion that impressed me with the potential of this technique. It was, IIRC< from 1976, maybe '78 actually.

It was the old Ektachrome 200 they were using too. New one would, hopefully, be much better! Doesn't Fuji make some kind of extreme speed 400X slide film too? Assuming similar characteristics, maybe even 200,000-speed, or an approximation thereof could be achieved.

Exciting stuff.

benOM · Jun 12, 2009

Thanks, that does clear up a lot of questions. I've read a few articals about hydrogen gas sensitizing and I could not see how that and what seems to be commonly called film acceleration, which seems to just be rehal/amplification fit together. But it all makes much more sense now.

I think I'll stick to rehal I dont much fancy mucking around with pressure pots and mixed gases for the sake of experimentation.

Photo Engineer · Jun 12, 2009

Karl;

Many people call many photo processes by many names. Call it what you will, but if the guy next to you cannot understand you then you have to give details of the process and that brings you both to a common level.

The process you describe above is one that I have never heard of, mixing C41 and E6 In fact, since the E6 and C41 process mix would not normally give the correct tone scale polarity there is obviously some detail that is omitted from your description that is critical to making it work.

As for the rehal process, it seems integral to the process you describe, but in an obscure manner. Rehal just allows you to keep pushing dye formation. Using a C41 and E6 color developer mix may give some pretty bad crossover due to the coupler-color developer mix you are creating.

Good luck.

PE

StorminMatt · Jun 13, 2009

Ektagraphic said:
I think that you are looking to go to far. You are correct, E200 is amazing to push. It goes like a charm, but the highest I would go it 1600. Welcome to APUG!

I don't know about pushing E200 to 1600. I actually tried having Dwayne's push Elite Chrome 200 (the consumer version of E200) to 800. And it looked like potty - way too dark, way too much contrast, and way too magenta. Even though E200 is a professional film, I just can't imagine E200 being THAT much better.

Karl_CTPhoto · Jun 13, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Karl;

Many people call many photo processes by many names. Call it what you will, but if the guy next to you cannot understand you then you have to give details of the process and that brings you both to a common level.

The process you describe above is one that I have never heard of, mixing C41 and E6 In fact, since the E6 and C41 process mix would not normally give the correct tone scale polarity there is obviously some detail that is omitted from your description that is critical to making it work.

As for the rehal process, it seems integral to the process you describe, but in an obscure manner. Rehal just allows you to keep pushing dye formation. Using a C41 and E6 color developer mix may give some pretty bad crossover due to the coupler-color developer mix you are creating.

Good luck.

PE

Sorry, PE, I cannot find the article. I had it when I originally posted the article, but have looked all over and cannot find it.

Will endeavour to look it up, but it basically was identical to what is colloquially referred to as "film acceleration" here.

OTOMH, it referred to processing in a high-accutance B&W first developer for extended lengths (so, a classical push), then finishing up, I think, just a portion of the process, a bleach, and then running through the C-41 standard process, with room lights on.

I think running through standard C-41, at least as a matter of convenience, was why the process was used to complete the development in '78.

What is befuddling to me is that it yielded a negative, with no base obvioulsy, and then making up for any wierd color contrasts in printing, perhaps by sandwiching the clear-base negative with a piece of standard C-41 base mask.

In any case, that is all I can remember without having the article in front of me.

If you'd like, let me e-mail you scans of the photographs in the magazines; I apologize for not having scanned the article before I misplaced the book.

Photo Engineer · Jun 13, 2009

I have no idea of what you are trying to describe.

A C-41 color developer is much weaker than an E6 color developer, in that the latter goes to completion. So that seems to be at odds with the process in and of itself.

PE

Karl_CTPhoto · Jun 13, 2009

PE

See my e-mail for an example of what the process is capable of with circa 1978 Ektachrome 200.

I don't know why they did it the way they did it. I am only reading what they wrote in the article.

If there is a better way than the method (I think?) I correctly described from the article in the book, please let us know!

P.S. If you could post it here (I seem unable to figure out how to do it!) I'd appreciate it.

Apologies for the line from the crease between the pages.

Maximum Acceleration Speed Possible with Fuji Astia 100?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency