Cross-processing E200 in C41?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Michael A. Covington, Nov 2, 2003.

  1. How well does E200 (Elite Chrome 200 or Ektachrome E200 professional) work
    when cross-processed in C-41 chemistry?

    I'm doing astrophotography and need the red sensitivity and reciprocity
    characteristics of this film. But developing it as a negative might have
    some advantages:

    - faster access (processing at home or locally)

    - easier scanning (the pictures have a pitch-black background, and the most
    interesting features are in the shadows; negatives would stay within the
    density range of the scanner better than slides do)

    Because I use a scanner, the lack of an orange mask layer wouldn't be a
    problem (would it?)?


    What happens to the speed and grain when this film is cross-processed?


    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope
     
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements



  2. I don't understand why this would be of any value compared to using
    true negative films, of which there are dozens.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Nov 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. As I said: "I'm doing astrpohotography and need the red sensitivity and
    reciprocity characteristics of this film."

    There is, as far as I know, no negative film still on the market with a
    strong response at 656 nm (hydrogen nebulosity) and none with reciprocity
    characteristics as good as this film (p > 0.95 in the modified Schwarzschild
    formula in my book).

    Supra, PJ400, and PJM, in their time, were more or less suitable. All
    discontinued.

    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope
     
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 2, 2003
    #3
  4. Michael A. Covington

    Frank Pittel Guest

    Why not process the films with E6? I don't think that E6 is any harder
    then process to do at home then c41. Take a look at the Tetenal kits from
    Jobo or the Kodak single use kit.

    Frank


    : How well does E200 (Elite Chrome 200 or Ektachrome E200 professional) work
    : when cross-processed in C-41 chemistry?

    : I'm doing astrophotography and need the red sensitivity and reciprocity
    : characteristics of this film. But developing it as a negative might have
    : some advantages:

    : - faster access (processing at home or locally)

    : - easier scanning (the pictures have a pitch-black background, and the most
    : interesting features are in the shadows; negatives would stay within the
    : density range of the scanner better than slides do)

    : Because I use a scanner, the lack of an orange mask layer wouldn't be a
    : problem (would it?)?


    : What happens to the speed and grain when this film is cross-processed?


    : --
    : Clear skies,

    : Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
    : Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    : and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope




    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Nov 2, 2003
    #4
  5. How about hypered Tech-Pan, taking three filtered exposures.
    I bought a 20x24 of this http://www.scienceandart.com/photom31.htm
    for my father's birthday and the quality is stunning.

    For nebulosity, they have quite a few nebula photos as examples.
    http://www.scienceandart.com/0gallery.htm
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Nov 2, 2003
    #5

  6. But the dyes of cross-processed film will not be accurate. This
    technique is often used for deliberate colur distortions. It won't
    give accurate colours. If you don't need accurate colours, of course
    B&W remains an option, filtered to the wavelenth you need.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Nov 2, 2003
    #6
  7. Scanning. The interesting details are underexposed and I'm guessing the
    scanner might see them better if the developed film is a negative, for 2
    reasons: less density range, and the underexposed parts are the thinnest
    rather than densest.

    Also, is it true that E-6 films gain speed when cross-processed?
     
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 3, 2003
    #7
  8. Vastly more work! I've used hypered Tech Pan also. It is actually rather
    tricky to work with (though not as bad as other hypered films).

    Modern color films, especially E200, have as little reciprocity failure as
    hypered Tech Pan, even without needing to be hypered.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 3, 2003
    #8
  9. I take it nobody knows the answer to my original question?
     
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 3, 2003
    #9
  10. Michael A. Covington

    Frank Pittel Guest

    :
    : > But the dyes of cross-processed film will not be accurate. This
    : > technique is often used for deliberate colur distortions. It won't
    : > give accurate colours. If you don't need accurate colours, of course
    : > B&W remains an option, filtered to the wavelenth you need.

    : I take it nobody knows the answer to my original question?

    You could always try it and see what happens. :)

    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Nov 3, 2003
    #10
  11. Michael A. Covington

    aasainz Guest

    A long time ago I did some cross developing. The film was Ektachrome and the
    process was a slightly modified C22. I followed Dignan's recommendations to
    add some citrazinic acid to the C22 developer.

    Perhaps this would be an alternative.

    I still have the booklet with all the information, including the C22 formulas
    and times. I can dig it up and either send it to you or post it if there is
    interest here.

    I think I still have a small amount of citrazinic acid. It is old and I can't
    guarantee it is still in good condition. I bought it about around 1970. You
    can have it, I am no longer into such fancy experimenting.

    Bert
    aasainz at ix dot netcom dot com
     
    aasainz, Nov 3, 2003
    #11
  12. Michael A. Covington

    aasainz Guest

    A long time ago I did some cross developing. The film was Ektachrome and the
    process was a slightly modified C22. I followed Dignan's recommendations to
    add some citrazinic acid to the C22 developer.

    Perhaps this would be an alternative.

    I still have the booklet with all the information, including the C22 formulas
    and times. I can dig it up and either send it to you or post it if there is
    interest here.

    I think I still have a small amount of citrazinic acid. It is old and I can't
    guarantee it is still in good condition. I bought it about around 1970. You
    can have it, I am no longer into such fancy experimenting.

    Bert
    aasainz at ix dot netcom dot com
     
    aasainz, Nov 3, 2003
    #12
  13. This really does sound like a candidate for "try it
    and see". You may have to wait a couple of weeks,
    though. :)

    I had my first experience with E200 last week: took
    some terrestrial shots, did some test astronomical
    shots at a local dark(-ish) sky site, developed the
    lot in Agfa E-6 chemistry.

    As expected, the daylight shots have bright colour,
    bordering on garish. The best astronomical shot is a
    5 minute exposure of the region around Deneb (piggy-
    backed OM-1, 135mm Zuiko lens, wide open), with the
    North America and Pelican nebulae plainly visible, as
    well as all the nebulosity around Sadr.

    I look forward to trying it under better skies, and
    also look forward to trying it in 120 - I could only
    get 35mm locally. I knew I should have grabbed some
    when I was last at Glazers...

    Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
    Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..."
    ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte
     
    Laura Halliday, Nov 3, 2003
    #13
  14. That's E200 working its magic. It *really* picks up nebulae!


    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope
     
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 4, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.