Mystery Kodak Edupe- is it good?

[Finn lyle]

I just picked up an old Lloyd bulk loader which appears to be full of Kodak slide duplicating film circa 2009. The people I picked it up from had no idea what it was so I don’t think they’ve opened it, but I’m wondering if the film would be any good for pictorial use (even if just in B&W). The inclusion of color compensating numbers makes me think it’s an odd batch or something.

 

[MattKing]

Nothing odd about having colour compensating numbers.
It will be very, very slow, low contrast positive film.
Here is an outdated link for the 4x5 version: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/227088-USA/Kodak_8119935_Edupe_4x5_Ektachrome_Slide.html

 

[AgX]

Slow and non-continuous spectral sensitisation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It might be usable if it had been frozen the whole time, but out of a bulk loader, not likely. Expect general hue anemia and bad highlight crossover, and that's an optimistic scenario. It was basically a lowered contrast tungsten-balanced Ektachrome, nothing really exotic, but with a specific intended applications, that of slide duplicating. The cc correction numbers were routine, matched to any specific batch itself; nothing odd in that respect. Pretty much worthless for black and white usage - it creates a positive color image.

But if you just want to have some fun fooling around with it, you might start with the given filters and ASA neighborhood of the rating (which will likely have changed, losing sensitivity over time), maybe bracketing exposures in the ASA 8 to 25 range, and then have the roll E-6 push processed for a little higher contrast. It might be appropriate for ghoulish Halloween shots.

But it is continuous spectrum. Otherwise, it would be worthless as a slide duplicating film in the first place. Like I said, it's just a tweaked Ektachrome. The sheet film product was somewhat different, being tungsten balanced and optimized for longer exposure times.

 

[cmacd123]

like colour paper of the day, each batch came with compensation numbers, so that labs could confidently start a new batch without having to run a test each roll. take away the old compensation and add the new compensation and you are dialed in.

 

[Konical]

Good Evening, Finn lyle,
Give it a try for split-exposure night exposure shots. The typical approach is to make an exposure (maybe 4-10 seconds at ƒ16) when dusk has clearly set in but before artificial lights are all on, followed by a second exposure (perhaps 3-5 minutes at the same ƒ-stop) around 45 minutes later when darkness has descended. It takes some experimentation which will vary with each subject, the amount of exposure each time, and a VERY STURDY tripod. A view camera makes all of this a lot easier, but the basic idea should work with smaller cameras--it would just be a lot trickier. When everything, including luck, is in your favor, the results can be very satisfying, especially the deep blue skies. Years ago, I used Ektachrome 6121 copy film in this manner, but E-Dupe should give similar results. Oh, yes--bring a flashlight!

Konical

 

[AgX]

But it is continuous spectrum. Otherwise, it would be worthless as a slide duplicating film in the first place. Like I said, it's just a tweaked Ektachrome. The sheet film product was somewhat different, being tungsten balanced and optimized for longer exposure times.

Seen your background your reply is most astonishing.

Second stage materials do not need to see a continuous spectrum, but the dye peak of the 1st stage material. To avoid misabsorbtion the spectral sensitisation of the 2nd stage is kept narrow. At Agfa discontinuous. And at the current 2nd stage films from Kodak the overlaping of spectral curves of sensitisation is much less than for the 1st one, at one of the two contact zones there hardly is a overlapping at all.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I worked with Edupe and all three generations of Fuji duping film, but sheet film, not the 35mm product; and there are admittedly differences. Fuji was superior, and theirs was simply a tungsten balanced Astia. In fact, I eventually switched to regular daylight balance Astia 100F sheet film which required no change in workflow whatsoever, except for the illumination color balance per se. Preferred the finer grain better dimensional stability (polyester base) of the daylight product;
and by that point in time, total batch to batch consistency. But Kodak E dupe was entirely analogous in being continuous spectrum. Automated duping machines based on pre-flashing and fast flash exposure are a little different.

I'd have to go back to my tech manuals to tell all the distinctions, but it's all ancient history now. Batches of Edupe were already getting outdated even in Kodak storage prior to shipment. To my knowledge, there are no second-stage or third stage films being made by anyone, except perhaps special movie film applications. Astia-based Fuji duping film would easily handle 3rd generation dupes with no hue shift at all. I now make internegs instead, for sake of RA4 printing, likewise using regular continuous tone sheet films.

 

[MarkS]

All you can do is try it... all you'l be out is your time and the cost of processing. However I recall that it's a tungsten-balance film. So use an 85B filter in daylight.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hard to say, 85A or 85B in daylight. Since there is a greenish offset factor printed on the box, that would suggest maybe the less strong 85A, if all things were still equal. But they aren't. The aging of the film is a wild card.

 

[Ozxplorer]

Hi... you might find the attached file to be of some further assistance...

 

[AgX]

You see that its spectral sensitivity, though being continuous, has got no resulting straight level over het spectrum as with camera films, but resulting peaks.

 

[railwayman3]

About 40 years ago, I used this (or a very similar film) supplied by Kodak in 35mm cassettes or 100ft bulk, Used it for copying slides with a camera mounted over a "Lupo" slide duplicator....a bit like the head of a color enlarger whereby you could dial in color corrections to suit the batch number. It worked well, but was very fiddly, doing tests then having to wait for the processed film to assess the results. (Still got the kit, but doubt I will use it again now....)

 

[DREW WILEY]

AgX - that's what all Ektachrome plots look like. They are dye sensitivity peaks. Dupe film is no different in that respect from ordinary taking chrome films. What on earth are you thinking? But there are certain minor tweaks involved.

Note that EDupe sheet film gives plots standardized to 10sec, roll films to 1 sec exposures. Different equipment.

Some of their claims on the spec sheet are either a holdover or a bit deceptive. By that time, Fuji CDU II was a significantly better product with finer grain too. But like I already stated, I had already shifted to regular Astia 100F sheet film - exactly the same as the shooting product. Getting really good dupes required supplemental masking no matter which brand of product.
Commercially, flashing was generally used instead, though it's nowhere near as flexible and precise as masking.

 

[AgX]

AgX - that's what all Ektachrome plots look like. They are dye sensitivity peaks. Dupe film is no different in that respect from ordinary taking chrome films. What on earth are you thinking? But there are certain minor tweaks involved.

Well, what am I "thinking on earth"... that 2nd stage materials are to be sensitized not for continuous spectrum but for the dye peaks of the 1st generation films.

Seemingly there are two Earths... one is in Europe.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Properly filtered for daylight (a headache indeed), and a duping film will work just fine for first generation daylight in-camera exposures. It will of course render a somewhat softer image. Since Kodak never produced a lower-contrast chrome film for general usage, that fact is a bit easier to prove in the case of Fuji Astia, where their dupe sheet film and taking Astia film were almost identical except with respect to daylight versus tungsten balance. And gosh, I've got a lot of experience working with all of these, at least all the sheet film versions.