Cross Proces 5285 with bleach bypass/enr/ace? and testing preflashed film?

Colin Malone · April 5, 2009

First of all it is possible to skip bleach in the negative bath when cross processing reversal film right? For some reason I don't think reversal has silver to wash off of it... and yet it seems to be exposed to bleach in the E-6 process from what I understand. Please enlighten me as to if this alternative processing combo is possible or why it would not be.

I am running this test. I loaded some of the film into a still camera and am looking for a lab in the Philly area to cross process the test I shot, bracketing different types of lights and shooting a range of bright colored objects, neutral colors, and flesh tones under various types of lights. Tungsten, blue flourescent, CTB'd tungsten, Mauve gelled tungsten, old green spiked subway flourescents. I need to shoot a roll in daylight and also, does anyone know a lab that would be able to process it, preferably within the Philadelphia area?

I'll post the test when I get it back.

By the way I am a cinematography student at Temple U in Philly and work in the area as a freelance gaffer/DP. I am very interested in doing a lot of experiments with film processing. I've shot a few short films on various stocks, and some push/pull tests. I am also currently interested in testing flashing film. I'd like to preflash some s16mm 100' loads of the vision 2 stocks 50D, 100T, 200T, and the new vision 3 250D, does anyone know how to run a flash test relatively cheap? I don't know how much to open the aperture while shooting a grey card so that isn't a very sensible test. And I don't think I can spare the money to rent a Panaflasher. Perhaps a lab would be willing to do it for me for a reasonable sum?

I will also try to post these.

I am also interested in doing a test of ENR and ACE processing if there are any suggestions on how exactly to do this economically... is there a still equivalent?

The idea is to eventually combine this knowledge for my friend's film in late May, rather than just run with my intuition to try to find a lab to flash Vision 3 250D (what's the number?) 5%, underexpose it 2 stops, push 1 for night scenes, 2 for day, and ENR it for 35% silver retention. TEST! TEST! TEST!

This website would greatly benefit the art of cinematography by collecting and organizing these types of tests for a reference catalog. It would do so because, it would help save young cinematographers if not us all the money and time we really don't have to spare on extensive and strenuous tests by putting us in the relative ballpark of how a film will look, with an ongoing dialogue about the limits of cinematography itself. This would be much more useful than the standard response of "well test it out and see for yourself. and suit it to your taste" because lets be serious, the greater expanse of aesthetic experience at our disposal, the more refined and more useful our cinematographic taste becomes, which I think is the goal.

Hal Smith · April 5, 2009

First of all it is possible to skip bleach in the negative bath when cross processing reversal film right? For some reason I don't think reversal has silver to wash off of it... and yet it seems to be exposed to bleach in the E-6 process from what I understand. Please enlighten me as to if this alternative processing combo is possible or why it would not be.

I am running this test. I loaded some of the film into a still camera and am looking for a lab in the Philly area to cross process the test I shot, bracketing different types of lights and shooting a range of bright colored objects, neutral colors, and flesh tones under various types of lights. Tungsten, blue flourescent, CTB'd tungsten, Mauve gelled tungsten, old green spiked subway flourescents. I need to shoot a roll in daylight and also, does anyone know a lab that would be able to process it, preferably within the Philadelphia area?

I'll post the test when I get it back.

By the way I am a cinematography student at Temple U in Philly and work in the area as a freelance gaffer/DP. I am very interested in doing a lot of experiments with film processing. I've shot a few short films on various stocks, and some push/pull tests. I am also currently interested in testing flashing film. I'd like to preflash some s16mm 100' loads of the vision 2 stocks 50D, 100T, 200T, and the new vision 3 250D, does anyone know how to run a flash test relatively cheap? I don't know how much to open the aperture while shooting a grey card so that isn't a very sensible test. And I don't think I can spare the money to rent a Panaflasher. Perhaps a lab would be willing to do it for me for a reasonable sum?

I will also try to post these.

I am also interested in doing a test of ENR and ACE processing if there are any suggestions on how exactly to do this economically... is there a still equivalent?

The idea is to eventually combine this knowledge for my friend's film in late May, rather than just run with my intuition to try to find a lab to flash Vision 3 250D (what's the number?) 5%, underexpose it 2 stops, push 1 for night scenes, 2 for day, and ENR it for 35% silver retention. TEST! TEST! TEST!

Sorry to be a nag but the Forum rules require that your Display Name be your real first and last name. That very simple requirement greatly reduces flaming and trolling here.

Frankly I didn't like the look of "Three Kings", shot by Newton Thomas Sigel, ASC with cross processed 5285, it looks like badly color timed video to my eye. I'm a big fan of the vivid colors of which 5285 is capable, to me crossprocessing it is a waste. But not to dis your ideas too much, here's a good link for info on crossprocessing and skip bleach.

http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/testing_limits.htm

K Borowski · April 5, 2009

First of all it is possible to skip bleach in the negative bath when cross processing reversal film right? For some reason I don't think reversal has silver to wash off of it... and yet it seems to be exposed to bleach in the E-6 process from what I understand. Please enlighten me as to if this alternative processing combo is possible or why it would not be.

Hey Colin.

Good for you for doing some research on E-6 first. It shows!

I've never heard of it being done this way before, but it *should* be possible to retain half of the silver. From memory, this is the way a color reversal process works (E=6, E-4, ME-4, VNF-1, RVNP, etc. . .):

1. High Con B&W Developer - yields a B&W negative with exagerated contrast.

2. Bleach - removes developed silver, but leaves undeveloped silver halids intact

3. Clearing Bath?

4. Color Developer - develops remaining silver halides into metalic silver and colored dyes.

5. Fixer - Removes remaining silver.

6. Stabilizer - adds protective agents (formerly formaldehyde) to protect color dyes from premature fade.

At this point, I'm going to have to grab a book, because I'm pretty sure I missed some clearing baths and a bleach or fixer step somewhere in there too. . .

OK, bleach actually comes after the 2nd (color) developer. In it's place is a fogging bath or light fog. You basically turn on the light after being sure to clean all of the developer off, and "turn on" all of the remaining, undeveloped silver halides. So, these will be developed into the dye that forms the actual color image.

I'm not entirely sure if skipping the bleach, which comes after the color developer in the process, because IDK if it is selective.

Actually, I want to say that bleach will actually turn the metalic silver image (the negative one formed in the first developer, back into silver halides, and the fixer is what removes just the halides not any of the metallic image silver.

So the effect that would have would be totally bizarre and unusual. You'd have, I think, a B&W negative and color positive image there at the same time.

IDK if that would produce images that would even be coherent, but it certainly sounds like it is worth a try. This would be similar to an effect they used to use with 200-speed E-6 slide film, called "Film Acceleration" that, allegedly, could yield EIs of 10,000!

I have a photo in an old book here somewhere with a train, shot at night in the '70s, handheld, that was moving, that stopped its motion in the dead of night. It's actually pretty amazing.

I think though, Colin, that you are a little confused between cross-processing and silver retention. They are two separate effects, which can be used in conjunction, but usually aren't.

You have to remember that you don't get any bonus points on your project for every alternative effect you utilize. Ultimately, the best examples of cross-processing and bleach bypass I've seen have been subtle, and paired with other filtration effects to further exagerate the look.

To sumarize: Cross processing exposes either a reversal film to negative chemistry, or a negative film ot reversal chemistry. Bleach bypass, with color film leaves black metalic silver in the camera negative or positive, whereas it would normally be converted back to silver halides and fixed out by a fixer. This heightens contrast and usually involves deliberately underexposing film to cut the very formidable contrast that is caused by leaving black metalic silver in the negative/positive too.

One can also process color films in pure B&W chemistry, although you'll still have excessively high contrast in E-6, and the orange ECN-2 mask in the negative film, which would interfere quite heavily were you trying to print film cross processed in such a manner onto the very slow, monochromatic B&W print stocks.

According to Hedgecoe, 1992 p. 155: "If you process a reversal color transparency film as a color negative the subject appears in complementary colors and reversed tones. Unlike a normal color ngative there is no overall orange mask and contrast is greatly increased. This technique can be used for special nightmarish effects. In this case, right, the technique has been used to distort color and increase contrast."

Unfortunately, it looks as if color infrared film is no longer available, except to aerial photographers in 70mm or larger sizes, but if you can get your hands on aerial ektachrome, the film is actually designed so that it can be processed in C-41, E-6, or AE-4 I think the dedicated process is called.

So then you would have false colors on top of cross processing.

You can do some really amazing stuff with the Sabattier effect, but it is best accomplished during the printing process. You basically flash the film in the developing tank of the processor. So, for obvious reasons, you probably don't want to do this with camera originals, as you can easily ruin them.

There is a striking shot I saw once, taken by a Japanese fashion photographer, I believe it was around 2000, out of NYC, and he cross processed slide film in C-41 (equivalent of ECN-2), and then printed the "negative" himself by hand. The skin tones were still maintained, but the model's black fur coat completely blocked up. That is probably the finest cross processing example I've seen in still photography.

Colin Malone · April 5, 2009

Sorry to be a nag but the Forum rules require that your Display Name be your real first and last name. That very simple requirement greatly reduces flaming and trolling here.

Frankly I didn't like the look of "Three Kings", shot by Newton Thomas Sigel, ASC with cross processed 5285, it looks like badly color timed video to my eye. I'm a big fan of the vivid colors of which 5285 is capable, to me crossprocessing it is a waste. But not to dis your ideas too much, here's a good link for info on crossprocessing and skip bleach.

http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/testing_limits.htm

Yes, sorry about the name. I didn't find out about the rule until I had already changed my name twice within a 6 month span. So, now I actually have to wait until April 5th to keep it real. Unless an admin can enable it.

Yes Three Kings looks sort of like off video but with thick blacks, and it is the most lauded and referenced touchstone for cross processing. However I can't ignore a film like U-Turn shot by Robert Richardson, or even Domino shot by Dan Mindel.

I obviously don't think cross processing is a waste of time-that's like saying to a painter that a certain palette is a waste of time. It could only really be a waste if one were to demonstrate that the process could not achieve certain ends that were intended.

The test you linked to is spectacular in some regards. It the type of test I am looking for, and learning to read at the same time. But the control stocks 5277 and 98 haven't been available since I've begun cinematography. And also, I have never actually printed film to use printer lights but rather have had almost exclusive experience with transferring s16 with the Spirit 2k. Is the ability to "pump more light" during the transfer comparable then to "printing-down?" (The real question here is, do they use the same variables?)

Edited April 5, 2009 by pragmatron

K Borowski · April 5, 2009

I obviously don't think cross processing is a waste of time-that's like saying to a painter that a certain palette is a waste of time. It could only really be a waste if one were to demonstrate that the process could not achieve certain ends that were intended.

The test you linked to is spectacular in some regards. It the type of test I am looking for, and learning to read at the same time. But the control stocks 5277 and 98 haven't been available since I've begun cinematography. And also, I have never actually printed film to use printer lights but rather have had almost exclusive experience with transferring s16 with the Spirit 2k. Is the ability to "pump more light" during the transfer comparable then to "printing-down?" (The real question here is, do they use the same variables?)

Just pretend that '77 and '98 are the comparable V3 stocks and you'll be fine. '85 is essentially unchanged from back then.

I think what Hal is saying (since he only speaks to me directly to criticize me), is that '85 has such a different look from "normal" ECN-2 stocks already, and it costs so much more per foot, that you're essentially just spending a lot more money on a high-contrast stock, and throwing out the advantages of that high contrast look by processing it in ECN-2 or C-41 developer.

Personally, no offense, I think you are biting off more than you can chew here. You're dealing with three separate sets of variables talking about doing a dual bleach bypass and a cross process at the same time.

You're "breaking" two rules at once. If you walk into an E-6 or a standard cine negative lab with instructions to skip the bleach and cost process at the same, expect to pay a pretty penny for their troubles.

How many cents per foot can you afford to spend? As opposed to a range of $0.30-$0.50/foot with 35mm, I'd expect to pay $1.50 per foot or more. Double that if you are pushing or pulling the film to boot.

The "correct" exposure, according to Hal's link to the tests will be off by a stop or more, so you'll either have to figure out, through testing, the "correct" EI for the cross process, or pay them extra at the lab to correct the processing temperature to yield the density you want on your camera negative.

Remember, too, that roller transport machines can only be controlled, usually, by altering the speed of the rollers, and replacing the standard bleach batch with either water or a diluted bleach to only partially remove silver.

So, the lab is basically dumping all of their bleach (sometimes straight down the drain) for you. SO you basically have to pay them whatever they pay for 40L of the stuff, and possibly for a fresh batch of all the other chemicals, since often running E-6 through an ECN-2 machine or vice versa will totally spend the chemicals, so they become completely used up affter they process just your film (normally they can replenish them for months and months. Barring cross-processing, some machines are designed so that the working solution never has to be dumped. They just have to replenish it every day just enough to keep it "in control".)

Colin Malone · April 5, 2009

Hey Colin.

Good for you for doing some research on E-6 first. It shows!

I've never heard of it being done this way before, but it *should* be possible to retain half of the silver. From memory, this is the way a color reversal process works (E=6, E-4, ME-4, VNF-1, RVNP, etc. . .):

1. High Con B&W Developer - yields a B&W negative with exagerated contrast.

2. Bleach - removes developed silver, but leaves undeveloped silver halids intact

3. Clearing Bath?

4. Color Developer - develops remaining silver halides into metalic silver and colored dyes.

5. Fixer - Removes remaining silver.

6. Stabilizer - adds protective agents (formerly formaldehyde) to protect color dyes from premature fade.

At this point, I'm going to have to grab a book, because I'm pretty sure I missed some clearing baths and a bleach or fixer step somewhere in there too. . .

OK, bleach actually comes after the 2nd (color) developer. In it's place is a fogging bath or light fog. You basically turn on the light after being sure to clean all of the developer off, and "turn on" all of the remaining, undeveloped silver halides. So, these will be developed into the dye that forms the actual color image.

I'm not entirely sure if skipping the bleach, which comes after the color developer in the process, because IDK if it is selective.

Actually, I want to say that bleach will actually turn the metalic silver image (the negative one formed in the first developer, back into silver halides, and the fixer is what removes just the halides not any of the metallic image silver.

So the effect that would have would be totally bizarre and unusual. You'd have, I think, a B&W negative and color positive image there at the same time.

IDK if that would produce images that would even be coherent, but it certainly sounds like it is worth a try. This would be similar to an effect they used to use with 200-speed E-6 slide film, called "Film Acceleration" that, allegedly, could yield EIs of 10,000!

I have a photo in an old book here somewhere with a train, shot at night in the '70s, handheld, that was moving, that stopped its motion in the dead of night. It's actually pretty amazing.

I think though, Colin, that you are a little confused between cross-processing and silver retention. They are two separate effects, which can be used in conjunction, but usually aren't.

You have to remember that you don't get any bonus points on your project for every alternative effect you utilize. Ultimately, the best examples of cross-processing and bleach bypass I've seen have been subtle, and paired with other filtration effects to further exagerate the look.

To sumarize: Cross processing exposes either a reversal film to negative chemistry, or a negative film ot reversal chemistry. Bleach bypass, with color film leaves black metalic silver in the camera negative or positive, whereas it would normally be converted back to silver halides and fixed out by a fixer. This heightens contrast and usually involves deliberately underexposing film to cut the very formidable contrast that is caused by leaving black metalic silver in the negative/positive too.

One can also process color films in pure B&W chemistry, although you'll still have excessively high contrast in E-6, and the orange ECN-2 mask in the negative film, which would interfere quite heavily were you trying to print film cross processed in such a manner onto the very slow, monochromatic B&W print stocks.

According to Hedgecoe, 1992 p. 155: "If you process a reversal color transparency film as a color negative the subject appears in complementary colors and reversed tones. Unlike a normal color ngative there is no overall orange mask and contrast is greatly increased. This technique can be used for special nightmarish effects. In this case, right, the technique has been used to distort color and increase contrast."

Unfortunately, it looks as if color infrared film is no longer available, except to aerial photographers in 70mm or larger sizes, but if you can get your hands on aerial ektachrome, the film is actually designed so that it can be processed in C-41, E-6, or AE-4 I think the dedicated process is called.~~~~~~A friend of mine has some infrared movie film.

So then you would have false colors on top of cross processing.

"You can do some really amazing stuff with the Sabattier effect, but it is best accomplished during the printing process. You basically flash the film in the developing tank of the processor. So, for obvious reasons, you probably don't want to do this with camera originals, as you can easily ruin them."---I'll research this and come back with questions.

Thanks for the concern. I'm not actually not confused about silver retention and cross processing, as I've actually cross processed reversal in negative. I see a lot of potential for it's use, but what I am interested in is a comprehensive understanding through references for how it reacts to different lights, different colors, different exposures, and combining with different processes such as silver retention. Silver retention is self explanatory if you know the physical characteristics of film and touchstones like Seven, Delicatessen, Evita, and that film about gamer nerds Adrien Sierkowski did at our school, which I hadn't realized was actually bleach bypassed, seeing a crappy projection ;)

I am specifically interested in combining the alternative processes. You helped me refine a question however, to do a partial silver retention in the negative combined with a cross process there is only one lab that can do both together, Deluxe in LA, correct?

Colin Malone · April 5, 2009

Just pretend that '77 and '98 are the comparable V3 stocks and you'll be fine. '85 is essentially unchanged from back then.

I think what Hal is saying (since he only speaks to me directly to criticize me), is that '85 has such a different look from "normal" ECN-2 stocks already, and it costs so much more per foot, that you're essentially just spending a lot more money on a high-contrast stock, and throwing out the advantages of that high contrast look by processing it in ECN-2 or C-41 developer.

Personally, no offense, I think you are biting off more than you can chew here. You're dealing with three separate sets of variables talking about doing a dual bleach bypass and a cross process at the same time.

You're "breaking" two rules at once. If you walk into an E-6 or a standard cine negative lab with instructions to skip the bleach and cost process at the same, expect to pay a pretty penny for their troubles.

How many cents per foot can you afford to spend? As opposed to a range of $0.30-$0.50/foot with 35mm, I'd expect to pay $1.50 per foot or more. Double that if you are pushing or pulling the film to boot.

The "correct" exposure, according to Hal's link to the tests will be off by a stop or more, so you'll either have to figure out, through testing, the "correct" EI for the cross process, or pay them extra at the lab to correct the processing temperature to yield the density you want on your camera negative.

Remember, too, that roller transport machines can only be controlled, usually, by altering the speed of the rollers, and replacing the standard bleach batch with either water or a diluted bleach to only partially remove silver.

So, the lab is basically dumping all of their bleach (sometimes straight down the drain) for you. SO you basically have to pay them whatever they pay for 40L of the stuff, and possibly for a fresh batch of all the other chemicals, since often running E-6 through an ECN-2 machine or vice versa will totally spend the chemicals, so they become completely used up affter they process just your film (normally they can replenish them for months and months. Barring cross-processing, some machines are designed so that the working solution never has to be dumped. They just have to replenish it every day just enough to keep it "in control".)

Hey Karl thanks for the responses.

Actually cross processing reversal in negative doesn't usually cost anymore from my limited experience at Colorlab in Rockeville Maryland. You pay a $50 fee for stabilization...if you want it. I am awaiting quotes from Technicolor and Deluxe on ENR and ACE processing. Those are my missing variables so far. And am unsure where you got those quotes on processing in general, because I was under the impression that 35mm was not significantly more expensive to process per foot than 16, but rather it was the fact that 35mm is over twice the length as 16 for the same amount of time. It also is not double the price to push in my experience.

http://www.colorlab.com/prices/pricelist.html#cncp

This is all very interesting. I didn't know they'd have to dump the chemicals and that they never usually dump the chemicals.

Yes yes the price thing. This is why I am testing still images, so I am still wondering if there is a still photo lab that does an equivalent partial silver retention to ENR or ACE?

I understand the concerns. However I enjoy digging holes for myself to get out of.

K Borowski · April 5, 2009

Hey Karl thanks for the responses.
[. . .]

You pay a $50 fee for stabilization...if you want it.

[. . .]

This is why I am testing still images, so I am still wondering if there is a still photo lab that does an equivalent partial silver retention to ENR or ACE?

[. . .]

I understand the concerns. However I enjoy digging holes for myself to get out of.

Any time Collin. . .

If you don't stabilize your film, be prepared to have to color balance it every time you get it printed. Color dyes that aren't stabilized will fade noticeably in complete darkness, at probably a rate at least 10X faster than normal. You still have a stable silver image, but color's the name of the game these days. . .

Yes, 5085 Ektachrome E100VS is identical to 5285. YOu can process it at any E-6 lab in the world normally, or at any 1-hour photo that will let you.

There are C-41 (still color negative) labs out there that still process hundreds of feet a day of C-41, for school photographers that still stubbornly refuse to go digital.

Expect to pay at least 60¢foot ($3.00 per 36-exp. roll though). A lot of labs will not let you cross process though, so make sure you have made it abundantly clear to them what you are sending in.

If you were to employ the film acceleration technique I described, you basically will process the E100VS yourself in B&W chemicals, fix it. And then any lab can process the film (without having to handle it in complete darkness, since it is alreday partially processed) in the standard C-41 (or ECN-2 would work too) process.

Good luck!

K Borowski · April 5, 2009

One final thing Colin: If you pull off a bleach bypass and TONE the silver on top of that (just like with B&W negatives and prints; it's possible!) you will achieve "baller status" as the first person that I know of to ever have done that with bleach-bypassed film.

It's like Uranium Toning. THere is ONE PERSON ALIVE that still utilizes a radioactive toner on all of his prints. So it's "hot stuff" :D

[EDIT to correct the spelling of "baller status" B) ]

Edited April 5, 2009 by Karl Borowski

Charles MacDonald · April 6, 2009

With so many variables I may have read wrong but I understand you want to take an E-6 reversal film, and process it to a negative, BUT leave the silver in? then presunably scan it, or make a print?

You CAN get a negative that way, but without the normal orange mask which keeps the colour from shifing due to limitations on the reponse of the colour dyes.

You really can't skip bleach in a colour reversal process, the first developer will leave a negative silver image which is not removed until after the colour developer makes the colur dyes AND a positive silver image. If you did not bleach fully you would be leaving either a netral density of perhaps a negative.

Look up the ENR and ACE and if I rember they are PRINT proceses so are not applicable to Camera orginals

Preflashing brings up the shadows a bit but after developing the film wrong you will be searching for shadows anyway.