Kodak UltraColor, VividColor and NC [NormalColor] were discontinued years ago so that is why those films are pricey. When the UC and VC were discontinued, I went out and brought every roll and boxes of 4"x5" sheet film in the West Los Angeles area to store those films in my freezer and keep them from the hoarders.
Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle.
Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle.
NC not included? Was that why my freezer has a lot more NC than UC and VC? Well, I don't shoot 4x5. What you did could not keep me from getting my hands on 35mm, 46mm, 120 and 220. I don't remember how I got a lot more NC. Was NC bad? Did I make a mistake?Kodak UltraColor, VividColor and NC [NormalColor] were discontinued years ago so that is why those films are pricey. When the UC and VC were discontinued, I went out and brought every roll and boxes of 4"x5" sheet film in the West Los Angeles area to store those films in my freezer and keep them from the hoarders.
NC not included? Was that why my freezer has a lot more NC than UC and VC? Well, I don't shoot 4x5. What you did could not keep me from getting my hands on 35mm, 46mm, 120 and 220. I don't remember how I got a lot more NC. Was NC bad? Did I make a mistake?
My plan for my Ektar recross is to bracket at 100 and 50, but still push two stops. similarly to what I did with my c200 recross.160 VC sorta evolved into Ektar 100, market-wise; and Portra 400 replicates some of its former look (but only so-so in my opinion); but that's apparently why it was discontinued. 160 NC was simply improved a bit into the current Portra 160. The crossover characteristics of Ektar are quite a bit different from Portras due to the higher contrast, among other things. For that reason, you might want to experiment with Ektar at box speed 100, and E6 pushed a single stop. Just suggesting. I don't know exactly what you'll get.
one thing I didn't mention was I got two good frames from that ektar roll simply because I shot on a gross overcast day160 VC sorta evolved into Ektar 100, market-wise; and Portra 400 replicates some of its former look (but only so-so in my opinion); but that's apparently why it was discontinued. 160 NC was simply improved a bit into the current Portra 160. The crossover characteristics of Ektar are quite a bit different from Portras due to the higher contrast, among other things. For that reason, you might want to experiment with Ektar at box speed 100, and E6 pushed a single stop. Just suggesting. I don't know exactly what you'll get.
Enough now! I am going to go out an buy a dozen rolls of Kodak Ektar!
I've mostly done expired stuff because that's what I have the most of- still... the over two plus two method has worked very well with most films I've tried. I've got plenty more to color correct over the distant future, but here's largely what I've crossed so far: https://www.lomography.com/homes/thegreatgasmaskman/tags/22599-crossprocess/photos?order=popularNailing down the characteristics of an obsolete film in a cross process sounds like a bit of a wild goose chase, but as in all cases, start with visual inspection of the final cross-positive. Too thin? Then the first developer is too strong and/or second developer is too weak. Alternately, try exposing at or OVER box speed to get more density in your final cross-positive, potentially with a different set of color shifts.
If you're scanning, just about anything goes, as you'll be able to recover some sort of images in most cases. It looks like you've found some combinations that work for you... try not to get too reliant on VC filmstock though
Gold 200 in E-6 (raw positive scan, curves adjusted)
View attachment 290927 View attachment 290928
2254 in E-6 (possibly the thinnest negative ever)
View attachment 290925
I imagine trying to use such materials in darkroom printing would be a nightmare... exposing a C41->E6 cross-positive onto RA-2 and then reversal processing the paper....? No thanks!
Is it possible to remove the orange mask during development?
Yea, these are definitely quality enough to project.Results are interesting. To what extent are they the product of image software? In other words, are they capable of being projected?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?