E6 Processing
Rex the Strange
and have been doing some research on the subject. Most notably I've
been looking into mixing my own E6 chemicals and I found this "how to"
guide:
http://www.opie.net/orphy/photo/dr/wkft-e6.html
Here, the writer gives a step-by-step breakdown of how to mix the
chemicals and how to do the processing. However, he notes (in note 1)
that at some point in the processing you need to expose the film to
light.
Another site that I saw mentions that an advantage of E6 processing
over other slide film processing methods (such as E4) is that this step
is not necessary.
So, here's the question: what is he talking about? This sounds to me
like a very tricky step that could easily scrap all of your hard work
and probably one to be avoided if possible.
Is this really necessary and, if not, then is there a step that needs
to be done instead (some sites I saw mention a "reversal processing"
step using a different chemisty.
I'm confused. Can someone please explain?
tia,
rts
Malcolm Stewart
news:1132592965.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.opie.net/orphy/photo/dr/wkft-e6.html
>
> Here, the writer gives a step-by-step breakdown of how to mix the
> chemicals and how to do the processing. However, he notes (in note 1)
> that at some point in the processing you need to expose the film to
> light.
>
> Another site that I saw mentions that an advantage of E6 processing
> over other slide film processing methods (such as E4) is that this step
> is not necessary.
> I'm confused. Can someone please explain?
>
> tia,
> rts
Early (domestic) reversal processes required (2nd.) exposure of the film to
light after the first developer, and before the colour developer stage. It
was simple, and I did it without problem, using a white Xmas pudding basin
to hold the film under water in a transparent spiral beneath a suitable
lamp.
E6 uses a special chemical stage which effectively does the 2nd.exposure
without needing to remove the film from the light-tight tank.
I assume that you're after repeatable results, rather than simply proving
you can do it. If so, and if this is your first attempt at reversal
processing, I'd strongly recommend that you use commercial chemicals.
There's too many variables (like accurate temperature control and precise
timing for the 1st. developer) to make life more difficult by mixing your
own chemicals.
When you're comfortable with the processes, buy your scales, raw chemicals
and have fun.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
Richard Knoppow
"Rex the Strange" <roger...@widgetinc.com> wrote in
message
news:1132592965.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
a fogging agent in it, commercial E-6 second developers do.
The silver halide left in the emulsion after the first
development in any reversal process must be made developable
either by exposure to light or by a chemical fogging agent.
There are a number of home-brew formulas for color work,
you may be able to find one that includes the fogging agent,
but I don't have sources.
The results should be the same either way but a fogging
reversal developer is more convenient and may have an
advantage in more uniform and complete fogging of the
halide.
A fogging second developer or a fogging intermediate bath
is sometimes called a reversing bath.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dick...@ix.netcom.com
UC
reversal bath.
It used a different chemical than the E-6 does.
Rex the Strange
UC wrote:
> For the record, E-4 was the first Ektachrome process to have a chemical
> reversal bath.
>
> It used a different chemical than the E-6 does.
For the record, I don't care. I suggest you go around to all of those
websites and posts that mention the light based reversal process as a
part of Process E-4 and correct them as you seem to have nothing better
to do with your life.
Thanks to all who answered my questions. Appreciated.
UC
In fact, the reversal was done in the color developer.
Rex the Strange wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > For the record, E-4 was the first Ektachrome process to have a chemical
> > reversal bath.
> >
> > It used a different chemical than the E-6 does.
>
> For the record, I don't care. I suggest you go around to all of those
> websites and posts that mention the light based reversal process as a
> part of Process E-4 and correct them as you seem to have nothing better
> to do with your life.
I know my shit. They don't.
nailer
the method you refer to is an old method by E. Gehret later adopted by
many parrots.
it is far from the original formulae. it may give some image, but it
will not be an optimal one. Mainly due to variations in pH, different
developing agents.
original e6 uses stannic salts as 'reversing' agent. e4 used boron
based compound.
in original e6 a film hops from stop/reversal directly into color
developer.
you can use plain vinegar thing instead and afterwards expose both
sides of film to light. at this stage you can't damage the image.
since paranoia erupted around the world (we fight a war on terror,
courtessy of some moron from Texas) it is difficult to buy
chemicals.ot to mention loss of liberties by an average citizen.
I would recommend buying 5L kit instead. You can dilute a part of it,
say to get 1 L.
On 21 Nov 2005 09:09:25 -0800, "Rex the Strange"
Rex the Strange
nailer wrote:
> you were too hard on UC, he was right (at least once).
I have an ongoing battle with UC. He/she/it often shows up on my posts
to either abuse or show off. As far as I'm concerned he/she/it exhibits
unacceptable behaviour.
Little Green Eyed Dragon
"Rex the Strange" <roger...@widgetinc.com> wrote:
Best way to deal with the troll is to ignore the ignoramus.
or kill file the twit once and for all.
--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle.
UC
David Starr
>I know my shit. They don't.
At least that's SOMETHING you know. :-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Frank Pittel
Please ignore the troll. If we all ignore it, it will go away.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
nailer
posted something with merit.
On 22 Nov 2005 08:26:18 -0800, "Rex the Strange"
nailer
same in depth thinking, variety of arguments.
On 22 Nov 2005 14:39:40 -0800, "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Thor Lancelot Simon
nailer <m...@home.universe.org> wrote:
>On 22 Nov 2005 08:26:18 -0800, "Rex the Strange"
><roger...@widgetinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>I have an ongoing battle with UC. He/she/it often shows up on my posts
>>to either abuse or show off. As far as I'm concerned he/she/it exhibits
>>unacceptable behaviour.
>
>posted something with merit.
If UC is Scarpitti, as many here seem to believe, then he/she/it, as
you put it, is probably spending most of his/her/its time fighting
extradition from Canada. I suspect his/her/its continual venting
of its spleen in this newsgroup is an effective way to blow off steam
(perhaps lighting fires and blowing up construction equipment was, too)
but it's unfortunate that we have to be around to watch.
http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=20019
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/07/tre_arrow__clos.html
Trees, evidently, spoke to him and told him to change his name to Tre
Arrow. I wonder what spoke to him and told him to change it to Uranium
Conspiracy?
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
David Nebenzahl
> In article <fj48o11rn5g7gsi90...@4ax.com>,
> nailer <m...@home.universe.org> wrote:
>
>> On 22 Nov 2005 08:26:18 -0800, "Rex the Strange"
>> <roger...@widgetinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have an ongoing battle with UC. He/she/it often shows up on my
>>> posts to either abuse or show off. As far as I'm concerned
>>> he/she/it exhibits unacceptable behaviour.
>>
>> I would not disagree in general, however, he/she/it may be sick and
>> posted something with merit.
>
> If UC is Scarpitti, as many here seem to believe,
It is; of that, there's no doubt.
> then he/she/it, as you put it, is probably spending most of
> his/her/its time fighting extradition from Canada. I suspect
> his/her/its continual venting of its spleen in this newsgroup is an
> effective way to blow off steam (perhaps lighting fires and blowing
> up construction equipment was, too) but it's unfortunate that we have
> to be around to watch.
>
> http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=20019
> http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/07/tre_arrow__clos.html
No way; that's got to be a different Michael Scarpitti. This one's a
rightwinger who would never get involved in "eco-terrorism".
Unless it's all some kind of an elaborate cover ...
--
... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that
the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney
out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped,
"I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient."
(Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS)
Thor Lancelot Simon
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>
>> http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=20019
>> http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/07/tre_arrow__clos.html
>
>No way; that's got to be a different Michael Scarpitti. This one's a
>rightwinger who would never get involved in "eco-terrorism".
Even the middle initial matches -- as well as the general paranoid lunacy
and the crazed tendency for weird pseudonyms. If you search on "Tre
Arrow" you'll find some more reports on his antics.
David Nebenzahl
> In article <V45hf.3$Dc4....@newshog.newsread.com>,
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>>> http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=20019
>>> http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/07/tre_arrow__clos.html
>>
>> No way; that's got to be a different Michael Scarpitti. This one's a
>> rightwinger who would never get involved in "eco-terrorism".
>
> Even the middle initial matches -- as well as the general paranoid lunacy
> and the crazed tendency for weird pseudonyms. If you search on "Tre
> Arrow" you'll find some more reports on his antics.
Nah, different guy: the one on the lam is 26 and seems to care
passionately about the environment, however misguidedly. "UC", on the
other hand, is evidently older (judging from his posts) and couldn't
give a shit about trees--just Leicas, apparently.
Lots of people share the same name, you know.
Thor Lancelot Simon
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>Thor Lancelot Simon spake thus:
>
>> In article <V45hf.3$Dc4....@newshog.newsread.com>,
>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=20019
>>>> http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/07/tre_arrow__clos.html
>>>
>>> No way; that's got to be a different Michael Scarpitti. This one's a
>>> rightwinger who would never get involved in "eco-terrorism".
>>
>> Even the middle initial matches -- as well as the general paranoid lunacy
>> and the crazed tendency for weird pseudonyms. If you search on "Tre
>> Arrow" you'll find some more reports on his antics.
>
>Nah, different guy: the one on the lam is 26 and seems to care
>passionately about the environment, however misguidedly.
Well, the reporting on the first extradition hearings last year said he
was 30. I think "Michael J. Scarpitti" is a sufficiently uncommon name
that I doubt there are two of them out there. Plus, consider the habit
of insane name changes -- "Uranium Conspiracy", "Tre Arrow", etc -- I
still think they are probably the same guy.
UC
distant relative, in the Akron area.
Steven Polgar
In the standard Kodak E-6 processing the reversal step is done chemically
so that you don't need to expose your film to light in the middle of the
process. Slide processing is very complicated. To get the best you should
use Kodak E-6 chemicals. If you want to experiment keep in mind your result
may be off and the images you get may fade quickly.
