Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,284   Posts: 1,535,058   Online: 1075
      
Page 1 of 8 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 71

Thread: Alternative E-6

  1. #1
    mts
    mts is offline
    mts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    335
    Images
    119

    Alternative E-6

    A lot has been posted in the past, in published articles, and in various web pages about scratch-mixing E-6 chemistry. It's more difficult to achieve a proper speed/contrast/color balance with reversal films than color negative, but it can indeed be done with care and patience to test your chemistry.

    Scratch-mix E-6 appeals to me for a couple of reasons. First, I started photography about 50 years ago mixing chemistry from the Kodak B&W formulae, as I was taught to do by a seasoned photographer who began his work in the 20s (that's the nineteen-20s). It was only much later in the 1960s that I learned you can actually buy chemistry kits.

    Second, I process very little reversal film and want to have small quantities (1-liter) of chemistry readily available when I have a few rolls to process.

    Third, an aspect that is interesting with reversal chemistry is the ability to modify the contrast and also (to a lesser degree) the color balance by adjusting the chemistry. Of course hand-processing E-6 makes push or pull processing easy, although that is of less interest to me now. I used to do some astrophotography with E-6 films and push-processing with contrast adjustments was important in days before CCD detectors completely eliminated photographic emulsions from astronomy.

    The examples here are 35-mm Fuji Provia 100 processed in E-6 scratch mixed chemistry by hand in Nikkor tanks and reels. The scans were made from the positives with a Nikon 9000 ED.

    I didn't have a recent MacBeth chart strip handy, so I processed one from film that was exposed several years ago and has been stored in the freezer. The scenic shot was made and processed last month (Feb. 2009). These films were processed using light reversal and with quinone bleach instead of the usual Fe-EDTA formula.

    If anybody has interest in pursuing E-6 alternatives I will be happy to e-mail the formulae that I used.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails MacBeth-Provia-100.jpg   Electric-Cliffs-Provia-100.jpg  
    By denying the facts, any paradox can be sustained--Galileo

  2. #2
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Your neutral, on my screen, goes from white to bluish to brown. If so, that is ungood.

    PE

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    905
    MTS, a more informative test would be a control stip, with attendent densitometer readings. Then (and only then) could you declare the process a success.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    113
    I mixed E-6 from raws for many years with success but process control was a religion with me. Small quantities can be tough to mix consistently. I also found that any deviation from the Kodak formula invariably caused something ungood to happen somewhere. By that I mean a great many films process in E-6 but not all respond in the same way especially when pushing and pulling. Some may be fine, some may be ok normal, some will suffer from a host of cross overs and other ugly things.

    I guess I'm saying it can be done but when it counts be sure you know where the monsters dwell.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    McKee, KY 40447 USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    82
    I've thought about processing E-6 but don't have equipment, but would try stainless steel tanks and reels if I thought I could get the right results. With E-6 does temperature control have to be right on the money for the chemicals and rinse, or can slight variations occur and still get reasonable results?

  6. #6
    mts
    mts is offline
    mts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    335
    Images
    119
    I certainly agree that process control is more difficult with E-6 especially so when mixing in 1-liter quantity. You have to mix component solutions carefully and pay attention to measurements and pH of the final solutions. Please don't think that I make any claim for duplicating Kodak's chemistry--not by any means.

    The greenish shadow on the grey card is evidently a shadow cast by the tree that is nearby the place I set my chart for the picture. The same shadow appears in a C-41 sample that I posted in a different thread, so it is definitely not a processing artifact. I suppose it's time to take more test images and that more care should be used in their creation. I have no densitometer and no facility for producing calibrated test strips so my measure has been good images that scan well. I avoided using positive film for quite a long time because so many monsters hide in the exposure and processing, even when using commercial processors. Some of my worst results came back in the mail. E-6 film does not like its latent image to be stored or mis-handled--nor does unexposed reversal film for that matter--which makes finding commercial processing increasingly difficult for people who live in the wilderness.

    I use Nikkor tanks and reels held in the water bath for temperature control. It's fairly easy to hold within a degree for the ~7 min. that is needed. Temperature control is most important for the first developer and the color developer. The other solutions process to completion and their temperature range can be relaxed in my experience. I rinse using warm water and hold the reels a few inches from an outdoor flood lamp mounted above the sink for reversal exposure. Processing E-6 by hand in small tanks does test your darkroom technique. Good wet-side technique comes with practice.
    By denying the facts, any paradox can be sustained--Galileo

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    152
    Dear mts !

    I’ve tried a similar thing 1 ½ years ago for processing a batch of somehow pre-aged / wrong stored films. This was quite a hassle, but very instructive in a way.
    At the end I was at least able to process these “somehow off” films better than with commercial chemistry.

    Link: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/4...-assumend.html

    I would be very interested in your formulation; most published formulations are not working very well…

    Regards from Germany,
    Stefan

  8. #8
    mts
    mts is offline
    mts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    335
    Images
    119
    Your link appears to omit the ethylenediamine component in the color developer. It's a necessary component that can be found (with difficulty) in solid form as the sulfate, or in liquid as the free-base which is what I use. Unfortunately the free-base is one of the nasty chemicals one does not like to handle!
    By denying the facts, any paradox can be sustained--Galileo

  9. #9
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Also not used in most formulas is Hydroquinone Monosulfonate. This is used to balance development rate between the 3 imaging layers due to the thickness of the film. HQ by itself is too active and will tend to overdevelop the top layer while underdeveloping the bottom layer. The HQMS diffuses faster being more ionic even if larger, but it develops more evenly and slowly.

    This is detectable often if you look at grain and sharpness, even if you compensate somehow for the color imbalance it may cause.

    I keep telling people that HQMS was used for a reason! HQ is not what you should use in the first developer!

    PE

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    152
    Dear mts, dear PE!

    Yes I know the mentioned stuff is not perfect, but remember I did it to process films that where somehow off and not acceptable in commercial developers.

    That formulation lacks a contemporary chelating agent (like dequest 2000, was surrogated by calgon) and a different silver solvent agent (Ethylenedithiodiethanol or another thiol was surrogated by Sodium thiocyanate).

    But what is is (was) Ethylenediamine (EDA) used for?
    As reactive as it looks, it seems not to be a chelating agent like EDTA, more a kind of silver solvent / bleach. Looking to older E-4 formulas intensify these thoughts.
    Is that right?

    If it is as nasty as described, was it replaced by XY-thioles for environmental reasons as well as the butylamine borane?

    Regards,
    Stefan

Page 1 of 8 1234567 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin