I read people saying this but I find the results of underexposing even one stop pretty bad. I've admittedly not tried pushing neg film to see if it actually works better. Pushing E6 does work and works pretty well actually.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Roger, see the set of photos I posted here on over and under exposed scanned negs and prints. I have posted both here and on PN.
Originally Posted by Lamar
Originally Posted by erikg
How would that work?
-) if developed to completion there would be no developable halides left for the colour developer. The image would only be the faint colour one produced by Rodinal
-) if not developed to completion in diluted Rodinal expecially the lights would be affected and thus excluded from image forming except for that faint Rodinal colour.
AgX, it wouldn't be developed to completion, the density would be massive for that to occur, and takes a lot more developing power. I've used Rodinal to develop dMax to completion in the highlights on colour neg film before without any solvent added, and it took approx 2 hours, at 40 degrees celsius for 1+50.
You would fix after first development, bleach the image back, and expose to light and reprocess in normal C-41 (not counting wash steps etc).
You could first develop, then C-41 process as normal with no light exposure in there. I'd use a weak developer to amplify the latent image before processing in C-41 to give some boost.
The best C-41 film to reversal I've done has been Reala. But I didn't do standard process. I used my own first dev in that case though.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Reala (120) in Custom E6 by athiril, on Flickr
It's unpredictable to what you'll get, it's kind of pointless wanting any kind of quality results out if I think. Rehal? Yes. Reversal? No.
This is the most extreme I've taken with Portra 400 -
New Portra 400 @ 25600 by athiril, on Flickr
From memory the development wasn't nearly enough - I wasn't expecting more shadow detail with more development, but the overall density was too low.
I'd like to revisit this sometime with a longer development, given the results the pre-flash with Superia 800 gave me.
Originally Posted by Athiril
That is something different than stated before. Thank you for clarification.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Last edited by Lamar; 03-16-2014 at 06:47 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Rodinal is known to lose half or even a full stop, whereas C41 CD reaches full emulsion speed. I would therefore assume that a pretreatment in Rodinal lowers color dye densities in the regions that had more exposure, while the weakly exposed regions remain mostly unaffected. As a result one can push harder with C41 CD without getting runaway contrast. If I were to try this technique, I'd slowly work my way up with Rodinal pretreatment and do at least a two stop push with C41 CD, possibly more for optimal shadow detail.
Athiril, how did you get rid of the orange mask in your Reala slides? Also how is color stability if you process C41 film with a CD-3 based color developer?
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
I dont know about the stability. Presumably less so, I haven't made any kind of testing into stability. If I can find that particular piece of film again I'll check it out.
If I were to guess, I would say it's better than with E-6 films and a CD-4 developer, I'm sure I've had a slide I processed in whatever first dev I had at the time, and used the C-41 process from the colour dev step instead of E-6, after returning to the slide, I found it quite dull and poor looking, I think it degraded in a short period (~12 months). I dont remember that kind of thing happening to the C-41 reversed films. Though these films have dye stabiliser built in which may or may not help, I'm sure I used a formalin based stabilising bath for both films though anyway.
It was digitally balanced with levels, the integral mask is still there, however it is somehow balanced well enough against it, that it's not particularly noticeable by eye too much on a light table comparatively to any other neg I've reversed, it's the best looking C-41 film to reversal I've done imo.
In regards to B&W dev pre-treatment... if I were to try this, my starting point would be very weak, as in, you don't want a visible developed negative, but rather amplification of the latent image, but not to the extent of visibly.
Think of SLIMT (selective latent image manipulation technique) vs a full strength bleach. So, a regular developer would be equivalent to a full strength bleach, you want a developer equivalent to the strength of bleach used for SLIMT. At least imo that's where I would start.
The areas that had some amplification/development, would be like increased exposure in those areas, so you need very little. A visibly developed negative would likely give runaway density real quick I would assume.
I did what you recommended and developed the roll normally and the results seem very acceptable. Much more so that I would have thought. A few samples are attached. They appear a little better than when I push in C41. The grain looks a bit nicer but as the light drops off to the back of the room the grain gets worse. This is where I wanted some improvement and thought the Rodinal pre-process may help. I'm sure that's ISO 3200 equivalent exposure or higher back there. These are straight scans color balanced and rezized. No grain / noise reduction. No tone curve adjustments, linear from black point to white point. A little sharpening to clean up after the resize. Light drop-off in the room was really bad since there was a big north facing "shop" window on one end of the long room with florescent lighting inside adding to the mix. Shooting with my Nikon F and standard prism. I was metering using a phone app at ISO 1600 on the blue mat where the subjects were standing. Developed with newly mixed Tetenal C-41 press Kit.
Last edited by Lamar; 03-17-2014 at 07:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.