It was kodak ektachrome 7240 process VNF 1. The processing artefacts I expected and they added to the 'hand process' atmosphere, I am looking to invest in a lomo tank. It was processed in an AP 2-reel processing tank with just the centre shaft in it to make the hole light tight, no reels, apart from the refix, rewash, and stabilizer which was done in a tray. I constantly turned the developing tank in the heated water bath. (I just used hot/cold water in the sink to bring it up to temperature then ensure it stayed there for a bit with the bottles in, adding a couple of drops of hot water here and there as the temperature dropped by like 0.5 of a degree. I use clear white bottles the sort you let alcohol beverages ferment in as they are thin for the hot water to warm them up, cheap, airtight and can be squeezed until the chemical is at the top of the bottle neck. For a hand processed one plus its age (it had been stored in a fridge according to the seller) the quality was stunning as was the sharpness, apart from the processing artefacts bit. It was not viewed at it's native 18fps but slowed down to like 8 as I stated because it was filmed with that intention Slowing down things like the seagull flying over and into the background of the trees, or just life in general. This has made me want to shoot more! I have one more of the 7240 rolls and a couple of new ektachrome ones, and two plus-x B/W ones and one Tri-x B/W. I think for super 8 mind that I prefer colour to black and white, but with my photos I generally prefer black and white over colour so i have kind of found something to do colour work with I wasn't going to judge my future super 8 on the old VNF films but they gave me much better results than we expected and initially it wasn't going to be used for serious shooting but one thing just lead to another and my view of just 'shoot it and see how it goes' paid off I knew it had the same colour developing agent but i read E6 was missing things like benzyl alcohol and was like a 'push process' hence knocking off 30 seconds off the time. I expected a colour cast too as many had stated, although I think that has a lot to do with storage conditions, too. Cannot wait to shoot more viewing even a good quality electronic copy would not beat the film what I like is the actual rays of light from that scene made the change to the film which was made visible when processed. So it is like it captured 'part' of the scene and not just a representation of it. I see that about film in general but especially with a direct positive.
Last edited by jm94; 08-13-2012 at 09:30 AM. Click to view previous post history.