DIY Color Dev Comparison

If you have by chance read any of the other posts on this blog, you might have gotten the impression that I am into do-it-yourself (DIY) film developing and historic (aka 'alt') processes printing. That is really only half true. The other half of this blog is that I'm really cheap and am always looking for ways to economize with my photography hobby. The third half is that I just like taking pictures on film rather than with digital devices. So having said that, this post is about my first foray into making my own color developers. I started down this path when I somehow cross-contaminated my Unicolor developer with the blix, thereby killing all activity and pulling 3 completely clear rolls of film out of my developing tank. That sucked and it was completely my own fault for not doing a test strip. Always do a test strip in the developer! Anyway, I was faced with the choice of buying another kit (not a bad or really expensive option) or figuring out how to make my own (attractive to the chemist in me and probably cheaper). I googled up this post over on Flickr and it seemed like a reasonable place to start. I had most of the chemicals, so I just needed to get the developers for C-41 and ECN2. ECN2 is the process used for 35mm movie film (like Cinestill). Most people just cross process it in C-41 and it looks fine, but I thought there was enough overlap in the chemistry that I could just get the developer and give it a try.

I bought the developers from Artcraft and the other components either from Amazon or eBay. I did the calculations for both developers and bleaches and they came out pretty close. For a liter each of C41 developer and bleach it cost $5.47 and for a liter each of ECN2 developer and bleach it cost $4.57. I used my regular Ilford Rapid Fix diluted 1:4 and didn't include that in the cost, but it's cheap too. I know that (if I'm careful) I can get 25+ rolls through a Unicolor kit. So if I only get 5 through this DIY mix, that effects the price per roll. That will take longer to determine, so stay tuned.

These are the recipes I used for each developer and bleach:

C-41 Developer	ECN2 Developer
Sodium Carbonate - 24g	Sodium Sulfite - 2g
Sodium Sulfite - 3.6g	Potassium Bromide - 1.4g
Potassium Bromide - 1.6g	Sodium Carbonate - 25.6g
Hydroxylamine Sulfate - 2g	Sodium Bicarbonate - 2.8g
CD4 - 5g	CD3 - 4g
Distilled water to make 1L	Distilled water to make 1L

C-41 Bleach	ECN2 Bleach
Potassium Ferricyanide - 80g	Potassium Ferricyanide - 40g
Potassium Bromide - 20g	Potassium Bromide - 29g
Distilled water to make 1L	Distilled water to make 1L

C-41 Times all 100F	ECN2 Times
Developer - 3:15	Developer - 3:00 @ 106F
Stop - 00:45	Stop - 1:00 @ 100F
Rinse - 00:30	Rinse - 1:00 @ 100F
Bleach - 3:30	Bleach - 6:00 @ 106F
Wash - 1:00	Wash - 1:00 @ 100F
Fix - 5:00	Fix - 5:00 @ 100F
Wash & fotoflow - 5:00	Wash & fotoflow - 5:00 @ 100F

Here's what I did to test out the developers. I loaded up a roll of expired Eterna 500T into each of two comparable cameras (Pentax K1000 and Chinon CP5)with comparable lenses (50mm f/1.8-ish). I used the Chinon to meter at iso 250 (1 stop over exposed per decade past expiry) and then set the K1000 to the same exposure and took the same shot. I put both rolls into a dev tank and soaked them in remjet remover then shook and rinsed in tap water until it ran clear. Then I put one roll into a different developing tank. I repeated the shooting process with two rolls of regular C-41 film (Fujicolor 100 - expired, shot at iso 50). Each of those rolls went in with one of the Eterna rolls and I developed one tank with my DIY C-41 developer and one tank with my DIY ECN2 developer. So what I have now is two rolls with identical shots, one developed in 'native' chemistry and one cross-processed. I scanned each roll with color correction turned off, then I scanned it again with color correction turned on. I am using my Epson Perfection V600 flatbed scanner with the bundled EpsonScan software. So enough talk, let's see some pictures!

First up we have the Eterna.

Images on the left are developed in native ECN2 chemistry and images on the right are x-pro'd in C-41. First I did a straight scan with no color correction. These are obviously different. The C41 developer made denser negatives. They weren't so dense that the scanner had any trouble with them, but just good to know in case you are intentionally over-exposing, which is a common practice with color negative film. The color difference on the raw scan is not really reflective of any real difference in the color of the negatives as I look at them. Just the density seems to be different. Now let's see what the scanner does with color correction.

Now we're getting something interesting. Never mind the low contrast on the lower left shot, that's probably an issue with the scanner on that frame. I could have corrected it, but I really wanted to compare the color hue between the two processes. What I see is that the native process is reproducing a more 'true' color. That shouldn't surprise me, but I never really thought that C41 x-pro of cine film gave much of an "x-pro" look. I always thought it was just the tungsten balance cooling everything down. But now I can clearly see that the colors are shifted, and significantly.

Next let's look at the Fujicolor 100 film, designed for the C-41 process. For consistency, I will keep the ECN2 negatives on the left and the C-41 on the right. First the raw scans.

Pretty much the same story here. Not much to say, but the ECN2 negs are denser. But look at the color corrected scans.

The Fujicolor C-41 film is actually showing more dynamic range in the ECN2 developer. Now that's interesting. There is some color shifting going on as the orange umbrella on the right is the 'truer' color, but given this 'out of the box' corrected scan, I think I like the ECN2 developer results better!

So what did I learn with this little experiment? I think either film works adequately in either one of these DIY developers. Now it comes down to personal preference. Do I like the x-pros or the natives? I think I like the x-pros better in both cases. The C-41 developer gives the Eterna a bit more of that "cinematic" look that I want when I shoot that film. The ECN2 developer certainly provides a saturation and dynamic range bump to the C-41 film thought the blue-shift might need a little work in post. I am excited to try these developers on different color films in the future. Since they are so cheap to make, I suspect that they will become my regular CN developers going forward.

Please leave a comment if you have any further information, or experience with these homemade developers. I'd love to hear from you. Also, check out my Flickr album to see more photos from these rolls.

Robot Camera - Kodak 35RF

I like "robot cameras". By that I mean cameras that have exposed machinery like gears and levers. There is something to be said for the sleek, plastic-shrouded black boxes like the Contax T2 or the Konica Hexar with their clean lines and mysterious lack of 'machinery'. They take fine photos to be sure, but (for me) they don't hit my "that's so cool!" button. That button is actuated by dials and levers that make ratcheting noises and knurled knobs and gears. So when a friend over on Filmwasters said he had a spare Kodak 35RF that he would trade, I jumped.

Where to even start? Well, maybe a brief description... The Kodak 35RF is a 35mm camera with a coupled range finder. It was made from 1940 to 1948. My example rolled off the assembly line in 1946 as indicated by the CAMEROSITY code of 'EO' on the lens. So what's so cool about this camera? I guess the first thing that catches my eye is that gear to the left of the lens. That's for focusing. You turn the little gear with your index finger and the magic happens inside the lens. This is done while looking into the tiny range finder window. That brings me to the next cool feature. There are three freakin' windows on the front of this thing. Each one is a different shape and size which gives it a touch of art deco or maybe cubism. Then there is "the shield". The shield is a piece of metal that covers what I imagine is the mechanism that couples the lens focusing ring to the viewfinder. The shield also extends over the top of the lens and provides a protective er... shield for the shutter release, so you don't accidentally hit it and get a picture of your shoe or the butt of the person walking in front of you. Speaking of the shutter release, it's out on the lens barrel, not on top of the camera like you would expect. There is a button right there on the top right side. It looks like a shutter release, but don't be fooled. It's not. Push it as many times as it takes to convince yourself that the shutter isn't responding to your command (it took me three slow presses and then about five 'spam clicks'). That button releases the film winding knob, so stop pressing it. You need to hold it down and start winding the knob clockwise. The winding process, besides taking a little coordination, takes a little hand strength as well. It is a firm quarter turn with a satisfying "CLACK!" at the end. If you are thinking of loading this up with a thin-base film like Plus-X Aerecon II, think again. The film sprocket holes engage a very tight sprocket and they will tear. In fact my first roll through (Fujicolor Super HR) tore some sprocket holes and that caused the frame counter (next to the winding knob) to do wacky things. My second roll (Ilford FP4 plus) worked just fine. The back comes off to load/unload the film just like most 35mm cameras of this era. The take-up spool is fixed and the slot that accepts the film is quite thin and a bit fiddly to get the film leader into. The rangefinder window, as I said, is very small but the split-screen rangefinder is pretty easy to use. The top and bottom images are both bright and well magnified. The viewfinder window is also bright and easy to use even for me with my required glasses. There are no framing lines or parallax correction that I could tell, but the minimum focusing distance of around 3.5 ft doesn't really require much correction and I didn't notice any badly framed shots. That's about all I have to say about the operation of the camera.

The results I got with this camera were pretty good. It's not in the upper echelons of cameraness like an M3 with a Summicron stuck to it, but for a cool looking robot camera, it takes good pictures. Let's look at a few shots. The first roll lie I said was Fujicolor Super HR. I shot this at iso 200, so here in sunny San Diego, that means the lens aperture was pretty much pegged at f/16 for the whole roll. That gave me a good idea of the sharpness and contrast it was capable of.

The next roll was some expired rebranded FP4 Plus that I shot at iso 50. I have shot this film at that iso before and it came out just fine, but this time the negs were very dark and hard to scan. My poor V600 could barely push enough light through some of them to get anything at all. So these look grainy, but that's really noise because the scanner had to crank the voltage on its sensor up to 11! This was a result of me switching developers and not really experimenting enough to get good results. I think the shutter speeds are all pretty accurate (enough for me anyway) and given a better film/dev/time combination, it will do just fine with slower films. The lens also performed adequately corner to corner with maybe a tiny bit of softness at wider apertures, which I also don't mind.

Over all, I think this is a keeper and I might get some other robot cameras (e.g. Kinaflex) to keep it company.

127 - The Other Square Format

When you talk to a film photographer about square format, the first thing that probably comes to their mind is medium format 6x6 cameras that take 120 film. That is the format that most square shooters are using today (Impossible instant film notwithstanding). However, there are still a small handful of photographers using another square format. The film is 46mm wide and takes nominally 4x4 images. Back in the day, the family photographer would use slide film and they would be processed and mounted in the same size slide as the regular 35mm slides, but the opening accommodated the larger 4x4 image. It was a "super slide" and it filled the living room screens of families across the globe like never before. Since slide film is rather unforgiving as far as exposure, you needed a good camera with a full set of aperture and shutter speed controls. Kodak and other manufacturers made a whole slew of cheap plastic cameras with cheap meniscus lenses that took 127 format film. These were primarily used for print (negative) film which could manage the overs and unders of fixed aperture, fixed shutter speed cameras. There were other manufacturers that produced full-featured cameras for the 127 format. Among the most popular were Rollei in Germany and Yashica in Japan. This film used to be cheaply and abundantly available in many different flavors. These days there are about 4 fresh stocks available. You can find them at Frugal Photographer in two color and two b/w emulsions. These range from $11.45 to $14.95 for a single roll, so it's a little rich for my blood. However, recently I was given a 100' roll of 46mm film in some sort of expired, rebranded emulsion. It says "Konica 160" on the box with an expiration of 3/2006. This is right up my alley. I had an original 127 backing paper that probably came in one of the Brownies, so I used that as a template to cut some new backing papers out of old 120 rolls (I knew saving those would pay off some day). I cut the film off of the spool to the right length (I have a string the right length, so I can measure it in the dark) and taped it to the backing paper and rolled it up on the little metal spools. I wrapped these in aluminum foil just in case the backing paper isn't quite perfect and I don't want any light leaking around the edges. I have a couple of Kodak Brownies that use 127 film. These are fun to use little point and shoot cameras. For a quick outing where you don't need the precision of a higher-end camera, they are perfect. No fuss, no muss, just easy. And considering the primitive optics, they take pretty good pictures. Here are a few from my Brownie Starflash.



Now on the other end of the spectrum are the "baby" TLRs (twin lens reflex). These were made by a few companies that were already making full size (120) TLRs. The big players were Rollei and Yashica. Rollei made the Baby Rolleiflex which was the top o' the line and is still seen as a desirable camera. Next though was the more affordable yet still high quality Yashica 44. Since I now have a spool of film and don't really want to run 40+ rolls through the Brownie, I thought I should get one or the other of these nice little TLRs. I'm usually looking for "value" when I go camera hunting. I am not a collector, so I don't need the pristine 'new in box' Rolleiflex with the ultra rare lens in the color that had a run of <100, etc. I just want a camera that works enough when I get it so that I can clean it up if needed and start making pictures with it. So I went looking for a Yashica 44. I found a reasonably priced Yashica 44LM which has a different look than the other Yashica 44s which were fairly close copies of the Rolleiflex. It also has an uncoupled selenium light meter, but mine isn't working (those meters don't really age well). But I liked the looks and it looked clean. The glass was clear, etc. Anyway, it works well enough to take pictures with (the shutter needs a CLA, especially on the slow speeds). Here are a few examples.

Three films, One flower

This isn't really a very scientific comparison since most of the variables involved were not controlled. In fact none of the variables except for the subject were controlled. So take it for what it's worth... a simple visual comparison of the same subject on three different expired color films.

First is one of my favorite color films (see more here). It is 35mm Ektachrome Slide Dupe film cross-processed in C-41 as CN. I think it expired in the 90's and I shoot it at iso 25 and develop normally in Unicolor C-41 chems.

Next up is some expired 35mm Ektachrome 64D. This film was not stored well so there is some fogging and grain, but still not a bad looking film. I shoot this around iso 12 and cross-process in the same Unicolor C-41.

Finally, we have some 4x5 Vericolor II sheet film, also expired in the 90's. This shot seems particularly low contrast and there is a strange banding that I haven't seen with this film before, but I still like the look.

I hope you enjoyed this informal look at these different films. I (obviously) like shooting expired color film. Fresh CN film is also very nice, but there are no surprises really. You get pretty much what you see through the viewfinder. I like surprises, so I will keep shooting this old stuff as long as I can find it for reasonable prices. Long live FILM!!

Expired Ektachrome Delight

I like using expired film. It is cheap and slow and grainy and contrasty and just suits my style of photography well. I use fresh film too sometimes. Really it just depends on what is on hand. I don't keep a second refrigerator dedicated to large stockpiles of film. I have enough to give me a selection to choose from. Most of what I have right now is expired 35mm film. I do have a 100 ft roll of expired 70mm Vericolor III that I use in my Brownie 2a. But back to the actual topic. A while back, I traded some film over on the Filmwasters Forum and I received 10 rolls of 36exp Ektachrome 64D that had expired in the 80's. The person who bought it tried it and didn't like the greenish background fog. Apparently, the film had not been stored properly and was showing signs of age. I decided to take some of it off of his hands with the intention of doing experimental redscale and pinhole kinds of things with it (which I have done).

After a few rolls like that, I thought "Why not just shoot a roll of this straight and cross process in C41?" Okay, so what iso do I shoot expired fogged film? The rule of thumb is to add a stop for every decade past expiration. That gives me 3 stops for the expiration and puts the film at iso 8. That's a little slow even for me, so I decided to try iso 12 and see what happened.

The first roll I loaded into my Chinon CP5 with a nice prime 50/1.9 lens. I was going to a football scrimmage to see my son play, so I thought I would take it along. The event was at a local junior college which I knew would be mostly abandoned, giving good opportunities for architecture or landscape types of shots. I shot the roll and developed it in Unicolor C41, my usual for CN film. I was really surprised at how well the colors turned out. It is definitely cross-processed and the added contrast and color shifts give it that sort of 'lomo' look. Here are a couple from that day.

This film does well in the bright San Diego sun, so when the football team announced that they were having a car show as a fundraiser, I thought it would be another great opportunity to see what this film could do, this time with brightly colored subjects. Again, the film did great, this time in my Nikkormat FTn with the venerable Nikkor 50/1.4. It seems that these shots had less base fog, but that could be attributed to a few different things, so I'll probably just call it 'anomalous' and move on. Here are a few from the car show. That last one with the fog and the light leak is my favorite. I like the visceral quality of this old film, and I like making up stories about its tortured past.

So go find some old expired Ektachrome and see if it doesn't do a little magic in your camera.