Portra 160 VC and e6 crossing - how much latitude?

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

over the past few years, I've become more and more interested in cross processing c41 films in e6. This past summer, one of the films I tried was a portra 400 vc, but it hasn't been scanned yet but it's going in at the end of the month.

Needless to say, I want to try 160 vc in the spring. though I've acquired a roll, I've got two problems. first, 160vc is uncommon and kind of pricey. second, another discovery I've made is that c41 films with low latitude like ektar or c200 have slightly different rules for crossing- IE, the owner of my e6 lab told me to over expose two stops and push two stops, but I've found this approach doesn't work for the two mentioned films:
2011 expired c200, iso 50, plus two stops

Fresh Ektar 100- iso 25, plus two stops

but I found not over exposing and just pushing c200 worked a lot better, even if it can blow out the highlights (expired 2010, iso 100)

I haven't tested this theory with ektar yet, as that got pushed back until spring.

My point is, I don't want to spend $60 on a 160 35mm propack so I can do a bracket snip test. this test too is not going to happen until spring, and I'll sporadically check ebay for any sort of deals, but I simply want to know- does 160 vc have good latitude or not?

and I promise I'll show a frame or two from the 400 vc roll once I get it scanned.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle.

If you got it, smoke it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle.

You clearly are unable to understand that I am keeping the film from the hoarders.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you still do not understand, I will explain it to you more slowly or draw a picture.

 

[mtjade2007]

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?

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

NC was good and evolved into Portra 160 and Portra 400

 

[DREW WILEY]

I miss VC. It had cleaner color than NC or earlier color neg films, and better blue reproduction than current Ektar. But Ektar is better hue balanced overall, plus higher contrast and overall saturation - more suitable as a quasi-substitute for chrome films. Not the best thing for high school year book pictures of teenagers with zits. But I have no experience with any of them with respect to the immediate topic - cross processing.

The current Potra 400 is neither entirely fish nor fowl. It's a fine product, but as a Portra (portrait) product, it still does dump a lot of warm tones into a default Caucasian skintone category - good if you want that; but a step backwards from Portra 160VC in terms of cleaning up the hues. VC would be a nice compromise if someone didn't want the higher contrast and saturation of Ektar, but apparently no longer has a sufficiently distinct niche to make it commercially realistic, in Kodak's opinion.

Portra 160 is wonderful in it's own intended zone. I don't shoot with it, but do sometimes use it in sheet version for very high-quality internegatives from chrome film originals. That demonstrates just how well balanced it is, if properly exposed.

 

[mtjade2007]

Glad to hear NC was good film. Thanks for the info about Kodak Portra films. It would take me a lot of shooting, processing and printing to learn all these. I did shoot some in the past but not enough to really know them. One impression I got was they are more sensitive to processing failure and are more difficult to scan. I guess the scanner was Japanese maybe this is why it is easier to scan Japanese films and difficult to scan Kodak films. This could be very wrong I know. Sorry for the off OP's topic talk here.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

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.

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.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

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 day
(iso 25, plus two stops)

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Nailing 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)

2254 in E-6 (possibly the thinnest negative ever)

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!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Enough now! I am going to go out an buy a dozen rolls of Kodak Ektar!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Enough now! I am going to go out an buy a dozen rolls of Kodak Ektar!

Correction: 15 but it is not ISO 400.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Nailing 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!

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=popular

 

[George Mann]

Is it possible to remove the orange mask during development?

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

in my experience, pretty much all the films will retain the base (Lomochromes have a green base so they're a bit different, and bwcn films turn either cyan, green, or orange). Crossed fourth layer fuji films will still have an orange leader, but turn out like this:

and while I haven't tried silberra cn film yet- those appear to be another beast

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is it possible to remove the orange mask during development?

The orange base is added to make up for color deficiencies in the emulsion, the printing chemistry removes most of the orange thus achieve the proper color balance. Therefor removing the orange base would produce off color [not in the sense of a dirty joke] prints.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Results are interesting. To what extent are they the product of image software? In other words, are they capable of being projected?

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Results are interesting. To what extent are they the product of image software? In other words, are they capable of being projected?

Yea, these are definitely quality enough to project.

 

[dmtnkl]

Ektar 100 crossed with Tetenal's 3-bath E6 kit. These are my notes:

- shot at EI 125.
- mixed solutions were one week old.
- third roll that was processed with this set of solutions.
- First Developer: 10 minutes.
- Color Developer: 7 minutes.
- Blix: 7 minutes.
- Stabilizer: 1 minute.

The images below were captured with my phone and show some of the mounted slides. This is how they actually look on the light table, the images are not color corrected.