Slide development?
Mike Ruskai
color slide film.
Now, a couple more general questions...
Is the exposure sensitivity of slide film only a factor when considering
direct viewing of slides, or is it more difficult to compensate for
under/overexposure when scanning or printing than with negative film?
What's the best 35mm slide film for maximum detail? I used Kodak's Royal
Gold 25-speed print film quite a few times while it existed, and even on the
prints the detail was much better than the 100-speed film from either Kodak
or Fuji. Also, the color balance was very good with 4800K flood
illumination. With both Fuji and Kodak 100 film, the color balance at 4800K
is horrible, so I had to get a 80A filter for 3200K tungsten lamps.
Is Kodachrome 25 equally good with color balance at 4800K? If not, are any
other fine grain slide films? I've already been down to a shutter speed of
1/4th of a second using 100 film with the filter on (two 500 watt floods), so
25 will likely require either more lighting, or superhuman abilities using B
(all pictures are shot at f/16 for maximum depth of field - most are pushing
the minimum distance of the 50mm lense, making DoF very important).
I appreciate any information anyone has on any of the above issues.
- Mike
SA/AG#1106
Remove 'spambegone' to send e-mail.
BC Pix
and stainless steel. I think stainless steel is preferable because it's easier
to maintain temperature. You'l also need some film reels(one for each roll in
the processing run) and a method of maintaining temp. at about 100 degrees
farenheit. I use a water bath with an auaqrium heater. You need running water,
preferable filtered to reduce scum on film, and, of course, chemistry. Several
companies make E6 kits including kodak, beseler and unicolor. I happen to like
the one gallon unicolor kit because you can break it down into 4 separate 1
quart mixes.
It's been my experience that negatives are easier to work with when scanning
than slides. With improperly exposed slide film, there just isn't much detail
in the shadows or highlights.
Gook luck
Brian Cleary
http://members.aol.com/bcpix
Jerry Gitomer
Equipment you will need:
Changing bag
Tank
Large dish pan and aquarium heaters for temperature
control
High quality thermometer that goes to 110 Farenheit
Fill the dish pan with water stick your chemical bottles
in the water
Heat to the recommended temperature (usually 100 degrees
F)
Develop according to instructions that come with your E6
kit (Do not deviate)
As far as the slides themselves are concerned "What you see
is what you get" For direct viewing there is no way of
compensating for over or under exposure.
If you scan your slides you can compensate, just as you can
when scanning negatives.
If you are shooting with a top quality lens you will be
pleased at the quality of your projected slides. I use either a
55mm Micro Nikkor or a 100mm Vivitar macro lens and both give
excellent results. (Most of my slides are of my wife's art work
and are shot at 1:1 and I am constantly amazed at the detail
when a piece that is 1.5 x 2.0 inches is blows up to 3'x4'). Not
having tried them all I have no idea which slide film is best for
maximum detail. I have used most of the ASA 100 films and have
been pleased with the results. (I have not used Velvia because I
want truly neutral colors, but for your purposes it may be the
best slide film going)
Because I shoot art where accurate color rendition is
paramount I use an electronic ring flash and daylight film. I
have not been pleased with the results when using daylight film
and color compensating filters. YMMV.
In general I think that slides are more sensitive to color
balance than negative film. I have found that none of the slide
films are truly accurate across the entire color pallete
regardless of lighting. I have used blue photofloods and the
results were good. I prefer the electronic flash because the
degrees Kelvin doesn't deteriorate with age like the blue
photofloods. I have also tried 3200K lighting with color
correcting filters and have not been pleased.
regards
Jerry Gitomer
========================================
Mike Ruskai wrote in message ...
Ben Brockwell
-b
Mike Ruskai
>didnt they discontinue RG 25 a while ago?
Less than a year ago, I believe.
Al Doyle
Mike Ruskai wrote ...
>What's the best 35mm slide film for maximum detail?
Kodak 5071. And you can process it at home with an
Ektachrome kit.
Al Doyle
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/subminiaturephotography
Mike Ruskai
>Mike Ruskai wrote ...
>>What's the best 35mm slide film for maximum detail?
>
>Kodak 5071. And you can process it at home with an
>Ektachrome kit.
I'll have to see if the local "complete" camera place (Fishkin Brothers) has
it. Ektachrome is E-6 chemicals, correct?
Sam Reeves
>
> I'm looking for a good idea on what sort of equipment I'll need to develop
> color slide film.
If you want to make it easy on yourself, get the Tentenal 3-step E-6 kit. A
little more expensive than the normal six-step E-6 kit but works just as well.
Also a Jobo processor wouldn't hurt if you are planning to get serious and do
your own E-6 all at home. However you can still work with a simple steel tank,
but it's important to keep the process consistent which is hard to do manually.
Sam Reeves
--
Sam Reeves Photography - http://www.sysresearchassoc.com/srphoto/
Mike Ruskai
>Mike Ruskai wrote:
>>
>> I'm looking for a good idea on what sort of equipment I'll need to develop
>> color slide film.
>
>If you want to make it easy on yourself, get the Tentenal 3-step E-6 kit. A
>little more expensive than the normal six-step E-6 kit but works just as well.
>Also a Jobo processor wouldn't hurt if you are planning to get serious and do
>your own E-6 all at home. However you can still work with a simple steel tank,
>but it's important to keep the process consistent which is hard to do manually.
What's a Jobo processor?
And do you know anything about the availability of K-14 process chemicals?
I've been trying to find information on it, but the only thing on Kodak's web
site is how they've replaced a barn-sized set of equipment with a large
room-sized set of equipment. Surely it can be done without buying a machine
intended for commercial film development use?
Alex D. Hemsath
> I've been trying to find information on it, but the only thing on Kodak's web
> site is how they've replaced a barn-sized set of equipment with a large
> room-sized set of equipment. Surely it can be done without buying a machine
> intended for commercial film development use?
No. E-6 films are "substantive", K-14 films are "non-substantive." The reason that
Kodachrome is thinner (and therefore supposedly sharper) than Ektachrome,
Fujichrome, etc. is that the dye couplers that form the colors in the transparency
are not imbedded in the emulsion itself, but, rather, are contained in the
developing chemicals. This process therefore requires an extremely high degree of
agitation which is impossible to effect without big equipment. I'm probably not
explaining it perfectly, but the fact remains: you can't self-process Kodachrome,
period, unless you happen to work at a Kodak Qualex lab...:)
Why exactly are you so interested in doing K-14 at home?
--Alex
rlv
incorporated dyes or couplers. Agitation, while important is not the
main reason for the need for large and complex processing facilities.
The lack of dyes is.
First development is more or less the same as for other reversal films.
The big change comes in re-exposure and color forming development.
Each layer has to be re-exposed or chemically fogged separately from the
others as the developers that forms the colors can only work on one
color layer at a time. This requires very strict time, temperature and
agitation; a task that is a real challenge without complex automation.
I worked for a photofinisher who used an independent Kodachrome
processor in the past. They often ahd to reverse engineer their setup
to keep up with Kodak. I also remember that the photofinisher had
negotiations with a fellow who had enginered a Kodachrome processor in
his garage and was offerring it at a nice price for those who wanted to
offer their own K processing at a deep discount. He used all sorts of
substitutes, such as low voltage auto headlamps for some re-exposure.
It worked fairly well.
The setup and maintenance on such a processing system is so high that
only a photofinisher could achieve the volume necessary to effect a
reasonable return on the investment.
I used Ansco(GAF), AGFA/Gevaert and Kodak systems in the past, at home.
Most of the time I used their kits straight from the package, with good
results. Later, I modified the Ansco and Kodak formulas and systems for
improved results and, eventually just mixed my own from scratch. These
were all substantive processes similar to E-6, and not Kodachrome.
In article <37A1A87B...@owlnet.rice.edu>,
--
Robert L. Vervoordt
r...@cnct.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.