|
|
|
-
X-processing EPY, EPT, EPJ and EPP
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?
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
-
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
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
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:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
|
|
Adv Reply
