X-processing EPY, EPT, EPJ and EPP

Ryuji · Dec 4, 2006

Hello,

I'm working on cross processing lately. For the first time I used Ektachrome EPT (160T) shot under daylight and processed normally in C-41. When I searched on the internet and here, I've found a few comments to shoot it at EI 100 to 125. However, my negs came out way too dense, with noticeable highlight "clipping." This time I felt like going for a challenge so I shot mostly street scene with panoramic camera, so the subject brightness range was very difficult for reversal film to begin with. If blue sky clips, I understand it (because it's originally very blue sensitive for tungsten balance) but red emulsion seems to clip as well. So I'm suspecting that EPT might be best shot at EI 200 or so under daylight. What do experts have to say?

I know most EPP shooters rate it at EI 100. But what about other films, especially tungsten balanced films?

Photo Engineer · Dec 4, 2006

Ryuji;

I have done a lot of cross processing. I have never used tungsten film, and have mainly used EPP. All I can comment on is the fact that EPP has done well and Kodak recommended the use of Citrazinic acid in the C41 developer to decrease contrast and reduce crossover if that is a problem.

I have used ISO 100 for EPP, and find that the slight magenta fog mimics the masking of negative films and gives me good prints. However due to the high contrast, it is hard to print. I usually use it for special effects.

The normal contrast of cross processed EPP without Citrazinic acid is about 1.8 as opposed to a negative film of about 0.6, so this is the main problem. A secondary problem is the use of CD4 instead of CD3 which causes a mismatch in activity with the couplers.

A home mix of a CD3 negative developer with some CZA would be an elegant solution. I have seen it done. Otherwise there is some distortion. Fuji films tend to fare worse due to the extra layer.

PE

Ryuji · Dec 14, 2006

Do you have any official Kodak publication on use of citrazinic acid for cross processing developers? If you change citrazinic acid concentration in E-6 developer, even a very small change can lead to very noticeable color shift. However, this color shift is probably not hard to correct by filtering or digital process after scanning.

The different substitutions of the tertiary amine in developing agent will lead to shift of absorption spectra of the resulting dyes, but I think this is, in part, what causes interesting color crossover in cross processing (with the other part being different couplers made for different absorption for viewing v. printing), so why should I use CD-3 to lose this interesting phenomenon? (If you use Fujichrome, it is plausible that CD-3 may result in more realistic color...)

The Anscochrome AR-1 developing agent is more similar to CD-4 but without the ring substitution at ortho position to the primary amine. I'm guessing that this AR-1 color developer may work fine for this purpose with modern couplers, but with slightly different absorption spectra from resulting dyes (compared to CD-3 and CD-4).

jd callow · Dec 14, 2006

Ryuji,
You may need to test the film using your equipment and technique and measure it against your expectations. I rate EPP @ 80 and EPT @ 100 and have shot many hundreds of rolls of the latter with great success. Any crossed chrome is generally going to fail dramatically at the high and or low end. You have to figure out what you want rendered and what you can live without.

Photo Engineer · Dec 14, 2006

Ryuji;

Kodak recommended CZA in C-22 at up to 1.5 g/l with pH adjustment needed. The same would be true for C41. The C-22 data was published and widely used back in the 50s and 60s, but they never published this for C41 AFAIK. It was used internally though.

The developing agents with a methyl substituent in the 3 position near the coupling nitrogen twist the dye slighly off planarity and shift the hues. They also impart a huge improvement to dye stability. That is why Kodak uses the methyl substituted p-phenylene diamines.

I agree with you. I never use CZA at all and cross process only Kodak films due to the problems with the Fuji films. I like the crossover and shifted dyes. So, my statements were intended as a pointer to the direction of decreasing them if that is what you want.

The CD4 gives broader, more bathochromically shifted dyes, IIRC than CD3 due to the hydroxy group rather than the sulfonamido group. The couplers in the two films are entirely different, and therefore react at different rates in the presence of the two developing agents. This leaves out the difference in the pH of the developers, which surprisingly affects the final hue and half-bandwidth of the dyes.

I am able to print these quite well, and have enjoyed cross processing for years. Just as a historical note, I was introduced to this at Cape Canaveral. The famous picture of Alan Sheppard on the cover of Life, and the pictures of him being pulled from the capsule in the water in Nat Geog, were shot on Ektachrome 160, and cross push processed in C-22. The ISO used was 400.

I have seen uncorrected original prints from these negatives, and the final prints. There is a world of difference due to the masking introduced by the magazines printing processes.

PE

George Papantoniou · Dec 14, 2006

I've always underexposed EPP a stop or two (or more, when I was intending to develop in D-76 before the C-41 routine) when cross processing. Results have always varied, depending on the lighting conditions (photographed scene lighting contrast) and my personal mood... :rolleyes:

wirehead · Dec 14, 2006

Also remember that some people consider the clipped highlights to be an important part of the "look"

PE, is there a Kodak pub that talks about how harmfull/harmless crossing is to your chemestry? I see the one for doing C-41 in E-6 chemicals, but not the other way around. Also, why did they cross process the Nat Geog picture, exactly?

jd callow · Dec 14, 2006

It is also possible to overexpose and pull process crossed e6 materials to somewhat tame the contrast. This will work or be more applicable with EPP than EPT, but will promote greater crossover.

Photo Engineer · Dec 14, 2006

AFAIK, there is no EK publication on cross procesing E6 in C41. Going the other way isn't very good either. Of course, I have never seen the publication about running C41 in E6 either. I went by internal documents when I had to process. I know it works. I will scan some and upload them later. I did a recent experiment using Portra VC vs EPP and ran them in the same drum at the same time.

Remember, with the E4 / C22 cross processing all developers contained CD3, and differed mainly in pH. The E6 / C41 proceses contain different developing agents as well as use different pH. So, crossover is more evident in these modern processes, and part of the crossover is due to the shift in dye hue, part is due to curve shape changes due to different activities.

In the Nat Geog and Life pictures, it was a question of getting ISO 400 IIRC and they could not do that with reversal film and maintain quality. They could by cross processing according to what I was told at the time. IDK why they didn't just use negative film, but they didn't.

PE

Photo Engineer · Dec 14, 2006

Portra VC and EPP in C41 comparison at identical exposures

Here are two shots on 4x5 film.

They were given identical exposures and then processed at the same time in the same drum.

They print on Endura paper at almost the same filter pack. In fact, they can be printed on the same proof sheet with little difference except in contrast.

Portra is on the left, EPP on the right.

PE

wirehead · Dec 14, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
AFAIK, there is no EK publication on cross procesing E6 in C41. Going the other way isn't very good either. Of course, I have never seen the publication about running C41 in E6 either. I went by internal documents when I had to process. I know it works. I will scan some and upload them later. I did a recent experiment using Portra VC vs EPP and ran them in the same drum at the same time.

Tech pub CIS-184

I keep hearing that Kodak made a statement about xproc having no effects if less than 5% of your total output on a C-41 bath was E-6, but I've never seen it printed.

Photo Engineer said:
In the Nat Geog and Life pictures, it was a question of getting ISO 400 IIRC and they could not do that with reversal film and maintain quality. They could by cross processing according to what I was told at the time. IDK why they didn't just use negative film, but they didn't.

Maybe they ran out of / ruined / etc. any neg film they had.

Ryuji · Dec 14, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
The developing agents with a methyl substituent in the 3 position near the coupling nitrogen twist the dye slighly off planarity and shift the hues. They also impart a huge improvement to dye stability. That is why Kodak uses the methyl substituted p-phenylene diamines.

I'm aware of this line of arguments in US Patent 3656950. However, I must say the real reason why methyl substituded developer is still used is because it develops faster without slowing down the coupling rate, so that the processing time can be further shortened. Konica and Fujifilm people advanced the coupler technology in mid 1980s and since then the permanence of the dye image improved quite a bit, largely due to the new couplers. I'm not too concerned about the durability of the resulting dye without 3-alkyl substitution. But one thing that needs testing is developing time. Anscochrome was made with poorly hardened film emulsion and the processing is pretty long even at 80F. I'd still process at 27C or 30C for this purpose, but I'm already looking at 7-10 min developing time, unless the modern couplers are a lot more efficient than older ones. Another concern is whether the developer keeps well in absence of hydroxylamine derivatives to preserve the developer.

Ryuji · Dec 14, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
Remember, with the E4 / C22 cross processing all developers contained CD3, and differed mainly in pH. The E6 / C41 proceses contain different developing agents as well as use different pH. So, crossover is more evident in these modern processes, and part of the crossover is due to the shift in dye hue, part is due to curve shape changes due to different activities.

I know the hue shifts with pH but they are generally due to different diffusion and reaction rates in each layer, so it can be corrected by filtering. But I think the crossing is due to different couplers and different developers. Yet another difference, which may affect more on the contrast part is different emulsions. I think some film company should make a negative emulsion containing reversal couplers. Ideally the film base should be masked and the emulsion should be made to minimize color fog when processed in C-41.

Photo Engineer · Dec 14, 2006

See my patent with C. Edens on color developer stability without hydroxyl amine.

With regard to developing agents without the methyl group in the 3 position, there are many examples where the developing agent without the methyl group develops more rapidly, as it couples more rapidly due to planarity. In other cases, where there is a 3 methyl group, development is more rapid due to the molecule being less polar.

The most rapid of color developing agents is N,N diethhyl p-phenylene diamine, but it is not soluable enough in alkaline solutions, and concentration wins out in comparison tests at maximum solubility.

The most rapid color developing agent I saw was N ethyl, N methoxyethyl 3 methoxy p-phenylene diamine (see also my patent with R. Bent), but it made horrible dyes.

Stating what the activity is, is a chancy thing and depends on coupler and pH among other things. Also, reaction with sulfite is important as is permeability to the particular coupler solvent. Alcoholic and phenolic coupler solvents change the picture regarding reactivity when compared with esters used as coupler solvent.

I might add that the leaving group during coupling also influences each developing agent in a different fashion.

Now, as for dye stability, Kodak, Fuji and Konica all demonstrated large improvements in overall image stability within the last 5 years. Recent publications by Kodak and Fuji engineers show the structures and outline the improvements clearly. Neither has a monopoly.

The biggest issue is the test condition rather than the actual stability. Current Kodak strategy addresses low light and album keeping, and Fuji stability addresses display keeping in large well lit areas. It is a challenge to decide who is right here.

Of course, digital is not in the running yet.

PE

Photo Engineer · Dec 14, 2006

At one time, both E2/E3 and C-22 films contained many of the same couplers, but this diverged with the change to E6 and C41 due to the change in developing agent and the addition of DIR and DIAR couplers. This changed the picture regarding cross processing, and Kodak no longer published any suggestions related to cross processing.

PE

Ryuji · Dec 14, 2006

Competition among reduction kinetics, adsorption, introduction of solubilizing groups, and solubility is a very common problem in B&W developers as well, and you and I are referring to the same principle here. The additional factor in color is coupling rate, and I know how complicated this thing is. I have a Japanese literature tabulating developers, its properties, couplers and its properties and general law extracted from the substitutions at various positions. Many of the data were originally published in English by others as well. But the relative order of developer power (measured in terms of dye image) varies a lot depending on the coupler, enhancer, other additives that affect coupling. In reality, with combination of the Ansco developer and modern Ektachrome couplers, I think nothing but experimentation can tell what they can deliver. If the developer is disappointing I have no hesitation in switching to CD-3, CD-4, or even mixture thereof.

I still think it would be interesting to have an Ektacross XP 100 or something. Toy camera users will jump on it and I think this is another thing that's unique to film.

Photo Engineer · Dec 14, 2006

Ryuji;

I agree with you totally. Development kinetics of color developers and B&W developers is complex. The work of Pontius and Willis among others are some favorites of mine. I knew both Rex and Roland during my time at EK and there is much of their work that is unpublished.

That is the most unfortunate part of this whole thing, the fact that much knowledge is totally unknown and so much could be done regarding the design of both color and B&W developers by us, out here, because neither Kodak nor Fuji are interested in pursuing this.

I have been applying this to some of my recent work in both B&W developers and Fixers. Since the patents have expired, and the other knowledge I have is not published, I feel free to use it. IDK, time will tell.

PE

Ryuji · Dec 15, 2006

It's true and unfortunate that Fuji and Kodak aren't pursuing a lot of stuff that we know could be done, but I become to think that it's more important to get a few useful things done and bring them to actual use rather than talking about what could be done without reduction to actual use.

X-processing EPY, EPT, EPJ and EPP

Ryuji

Photo Engineer

Ryuji

jd callow

Moderator

Photo Engineer

George Papantoniou

wirehead

jd callow

Moderator

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Attachments

wirehead

Ryuji

Ryuji

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Ryuji

Photo Engineer

Ryuji

X-processing EPY, EPT, EPJ and EPP

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency