Single-8

K Borowski · November 12, 2010

OK,, os does he change the concentration, pH? What is the time he uses, temperature?

Using E-6 for a non-E-6 reversal film will not read optimum results.

Everyone on here who advocates E-6 speaks in generalities. I am all for someone trying this method. . . with proper directions.

I've never done EM-26, VNF, or Single 8 processing in E-6. If I did, I'd shoot grey cards, probably a blank frame and a flashed frame for D-min as well, and make sure I got the processing variables right first.

You are going to have to adjust the pH, maybe concentration, and maybe processing time of the first developer.

K Borowski · November 12, 2010

This gentleman says he worked on EM-26 while at Kodak, so he should know:

"Unfortunately, Process EM-26 is no longer available. If you could get the rem jet backing off cleanly (a very big if) then you could process it in E-6. The color balance would be off [. . .]"

Ron Andrews EM-26 in E-6 http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00ShzM

Miguel Loredo · November 12, 2010

Using E-6 for a non-E-6 reversal film will not read optimum results.

Ok then. I'll tell them to stop processing because their results cannot be optimum.

K Borowski · November 12, 2010

You took that one sentence out of context.

Saying they "use E-6" without listing the modifications they made for EM-26 is worthless.

Standard E-6 will cause color shifts on EM-26 film, as said by the guy WHO DESIGNED THE PROCESS.

Friedemann Wachsmuth · November 13, 2010

Ron helped designing the process. He did not design it.

And yes, sure there might be some color shifts. So what? The results are (or can be) excellent. Excellence is most often not measured with Densitometers.

K Borowski · November 13, 2010

Ron helped designing the process. He did not design it.

[. . .]

And yes, sure there might be some color shifts. So what? The results are (or can be) excellent. Excellence is most often not measured with Densitometers.

You think there was some head honcho that designed the process himself? It was a team at Kodak that did it.

So what?!? What if the results are 0.30 Red shifted. That's fine with you? I wouldn't just throw something I shot in a non-standard developer before testing it.

Excellence isn't measured with densitometers, you're right. But they're a damned good start, just like a grey card. Cutting corners can get you in big trouble and ruin shots. If you're shooting home movies or vacation footage, there's no "do overs."

So yeah, if you want to be lazy, don't measure temperature, don't worry about color shifts, and just set the F/stop and the shutter speed based on what your "artistic bent" tells you to. By all means, don't bother measuring it; that would detract from the creative energy of the shoot! :unsure:

Andries Molenaar · November 13, 2010

EM-26 is 30-40 years ago and its development must have been even longer ago.

E6 is so much easier to apply and much more flexible in its use.

People like it as E6 works nicely on single-8 or other materials which used to need proprietary preparations or processes.

Apparently many processes relied on the same chemical components or the components do about the same thing.

You have a lot of demands on materials you don't use yourself, like super-8 and single-8 or polaroids.

You seem to have missed out on the gene for enjoyment and the one for let others do what they want or enjoy.

Unfortunately you received double on the wise-guy and cliff-clavin genes.

K Borowski · November 13, 2010

EM-26 is 30-40 years ago and its development must have been even longer ago.

E6 is so much easier to apply and much more flexible in its use.

People like it as E6 works nicely on single-8 or other materials which used to need proprietary preparations or processes.

Apparently many processes relied on the same chemical components or the components do about the same thing.

You have a lot of demands on materials you don't use yourself, like super-8 and single-8 or polaroids.

You seem to have missed out on the gene for enjoyment and the one for let others do what they want or enjoy.

Unfortunately you received double on the wise-guy and cliff-clavin genes.

Funny, I've used tons of 8mm and Polaroid. Sorry, didn't post them to flicker, or have them listed in IMDB! I've probably shot more time on 8mm film than I have on video or 16mm (personally). I've only done E-6 a couple of times, which is why I know it is finicky.

B&W reversal is finicky, and you aren't dealing with color balance.

You notice how no one on here recommends cross-processing C-41 and ECN-2? They don't even use the same color developing agents in the developer. Just because E-6 and EM-26 are "color" doesn't mean they are the same.

I had so many bad experiences with bad processing, growing up, that I simply don't tolerate it anymore. I guess I'm lucky that the labs I deal with now don't have your cavalier attitude to process control. Would you put a customer's film through the wrong process in the name of "fun"? Is "fun" to you mean not knowing how to work to get the best results out of your product?

Jacob Waltman · November 14, 2010

Didn't mean to spark any grudge matches, but very much appreciate the replies...

Friedemann Wachsmuth · November 14, 2010

You notice how no one on here recommends cross-processing C-41 and ECN-2? They don't even use the same color developing agents in the developer. Just because E-6 and EM-26 are "color" doesn't mean they are the same.

That's funny. I cross process a lot and throw almost every stock into E-6, sometimes a bit modified by experience and "rule of thumb". I alway liked the results.

Just today, I developed Kodak 7250 from 1979 in E-6 and it came out surprisingly nice. Last week I threw Ekta 100D into pretty old and dead C-41 and got amazing color shifts.

VNF:

Original Foto vs. crossed:

No Karl, my densitometer did not even saw these. Yes Karl, they look amazingly warm and artsy in projection and I do like them a lot, since I never expected them to be 1080p with AdobeRGB-Gamut. Great Technology is not required to make great film.

Martin Baumgarten · November 16, 2010

The FUJI Single-8 format, via their cartridges, is still very much supported worldwide...though not anywhere as large as Super 8. That being said, even with the demise of FUJI's fine R25 and RT200 filmstocks and the official end of their processing coming up eventually, the support it has will allow filmmakers to continue using Single-8. Super 8 film is identical to Single-8 gauge-wise, and is on celluose-triacetate, versus FUJI's polyester base. So, it can be successfully reloaded into the FUJI Single-8 cartridges, but with less volume; nominally about 40ft (12m) versus the original 50ft (15m) of FUJI's original stock. So, it's a little bit less, but still allows one to use the many exceptional and fun to shoot with Single-8 cameras that were made.

RETRO-8 Enterprises in Japan and GK Film in Germany both avidly support the format. In England there was a rather strong support club, The Single-8 Society...and I would imagine they are still around in some form, but I haven't found them on the internet. [NOTE: I have a ZC-1000 camera and plenty of frozen R25 filmstock for sale, on consignment here if anyone is interested. It will go back on eBay again when I have time.] Actually, since Super 8mm film is being loaded into the Single-8 carts these days, it's better in some ways, since now anything shot with a Single-8 camera will intercut more easily with anything shot in a Super 8 camera on similar filmstocks; and no focus shift problems between intercutting the thinner original Single-8 stock with Super 8 footage.

Regarding home movie film processing.....it's just like anything else, if you have the time, patience, and equipment......you can do it, and do it quite well. Movie film is longer and that leads to lots of extra care required. However, that being said, I knew several teenagers that processed their own movie film, myself included. So, if a 13 or 14 year old can develop their own movie film, and have it look good, I think an adult could do it also.

As with anything in photography, you can be as technical as you want or need to be, within the realm of the medium, the goal is to achieve the results you are looking for. If something works well for you, even without the use of densitometers and other more elaborate and sophisticated methods of processing control, that's fine.....nothing wrong with that. People have been processing their own films, and doing printing and a plethora of laboratory work without the benefit of high end equipment. You can make up your own control strips shooting color charts and gray scales, using care in exposure accuracy, and use these to help fine tune your own developing solutions and technique. There's plenty of information out there to assist anyone interested in doing so. Is it worth doing yourself? Only you can answer that.

Not everyone wants to or needs to be involved in every facet of the process, since in the industry, professionals concern themselves mainly with image capture process. But it wasn't always that way. In the early days of cinema, the very cameras themselves could also become contact printers and projectors, and many of the filmmakers had their own labs to process their films. Even the great DeLuxe lab was doing manual film processing and drying the films on 10 foot or better diameter Film Drying Racks, prior to the commercial advent of the motion picture processing machine.

Anyhow, yes, Single-8 filmmaking is still very much alive, albeit smaller than the Super 8 users. But that goes also for Regular 8mm, Double Super 8mm, and yes, even 9.5mm.

Best regards,

Martin Baumgarten

Plattsburgh, New York USA

K Borowski · November 16, 2010

Martin: I know that Kodak makes two of their Vision stocks on Estar base. So, if they are supplying htese in 16mm configurations, someone could probably still get Polyester stock for Single 8 cameras.

Not sure if Fuji has something similar going with their line of ECN-2 films.

If I recall correctly, you process EM-26 films. What sort of modification would you use for EM-26 processed in E-6 chemistry?

Friedemann, that EM-26 you posted shows exactly the problem I guessed at: Probably a stop too much red bias. Would that be fine if you were looking for an artsy effect? Sure.

Would that be fine if it were a customer's film, new, meant to render as standard daylight balance? Almost certainly, not acceptable. What if someone was shooting a student film and they were going for a really cool look? You just cancelled it out. What if they were shooting the ocean?

Yeah, sure you can fix all this in scanning, but what if someone were looking to put a soundtrack on it and send it to a festival? You've just ruined their project. . .

The only proper processing, especially with reversal, is within a sixth of an F/stop of correct exposure for a grey card. Otherwise you're missing out on the best the film can give you and "rolling the dice." John Pytlak always used to call it "shooting craps," with people who liked to shoot on old film, without testing it, hoping it would come out. You can luck out and get a great result, but why not do a little work and guarantee proper results?

Taking the guesswork out of it can only make your images better.

Edward Koehler · November 16, 2010

Friedemann, that EM-26 you posted shows exactly the problem I guessed at: Probably a stop too much red bias. Would that be fine if you were looking for an artsy effect? Sure.

Would that be fine if it were a customer's film, new, meant to render as standard daylight balance? Almost certainly, not acceptable. What if someone was shooting a student film and they were going for a really cool look? You just cancelled it out. What if they were shooting the ocean?

Yeah, sure you can fix all this in scanning, but what if someone were looking to put a soundtrack on it and send it to a festival? You've just ruined their project. . .

Any student 'DP' or 'Producer', or independent filmmaker for that matter, who would send their footage off to be CROSS-PROCESSED without a general understanding of the results to expect from the chemical process hired would be solely responsible for the results yielded. Regardless of whatever 'look' or color balance they were intending to maintain, the resulting redshift would not be the liability of the lab. It is a cross-process, afterall. Any dramatically unexpected result would likely be due to their inadequate testing or research of the production workflow. But it sounds like you would blame the lab in such an instance... Is that right Karl? Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me you're indicating such results would be the fault of the lab. Please clarify.

It's so thoroughly axiomatic that one should test any experimental process before shooting principle footage (to have some knowledge of what results to expect) that you're point seems extraordinarily pedantic. No one said you can process Fuji R25N in E-6 with complete color accuracy. It was offered as a cross-process alternative.

Here's a recent UK music promo from a well-known pop act directed by an acquaintance that exhibits similar color approach:

Carl Looper · November 17, 2010

Just because E-6 and EM-26 are "color" doesn't mean they are the same. I had so many bad experiences confusing the two processes, growing up, that I simply don't tolerate it anymore.