Shooting and developing Ektachrome 64, expired in 1979

As well as I could tell, looking into this not so many years ago, E2 and E3 use the same films.

They might have changed what it said on the box, but they were supposed to be compatible both ways.

There is currently an E4 kit on eBay, for those who want to try it, and have some old film.

Though I suspect that this thread shows the likely results. I think I remember, just barely,

reading a Popular Science article when E4 came out.

My first film tank, the Yankee II, claims to have a clear plastic reel end (only one end) for

re-exposure of reversal films, at about the same time that E4 came out.

So, without knowing the exact flavour of Ektachrome used by your aunts, it's not possible to say for certain that it was processed using E6 chemistry.

Ekta 64 (the one that faded the most severely) for one of the aunts who routinely used her Minolta SRT101 on a tripod (50mm and 28mm lenses), the other using 100 also on an SRT101, because she was "never comfortable standing next to a tripod" (!).:rolleyes:

The OP needs to buy fresh film if they have any interest in making sure it’s available in future. 1979???

I have, since I first knew about film, known about buying recently outdated film for half price.

Sometimes I get interested in older films in sizes that they don't make anymore,

or for a reasonable price when someone does make it now. And black and white

film usually works well way after the date.

But for color film, I would rather have it new. If it is old, I keep it cold, and try to

buy film that has been kept cold before I bought it. Unless someone has a large number

of rolls, where testing one indicates the condition of others, it is best not to use old color film.

Yes, but in that case there's usually an 'advisory' sticker on the film that puts the blame firmly on the photographer.

 

A lab that just returns an uncut and unsleeved length of blank film with no further explanation really has no right to call itself a 'lab'. A slop-house maybe, but not a lab.

there is some labs that send it uncut in a single plastic sleeve unless you pay extra. i think the places i have used that do it only charge4$ roll of color 35mm film to process. Normally they cant do it correctly.

there is some labs that send it uncut in a single plastic sleeve unless you pay extra. i think the places i have used that do it only charge4$ roll of color 35mm film to process. Normally they cant do it correctly.

It is perfectly reasonable and correct from a business point of view to charge a customer extra for mounting transparency film, especially today where the process is by no means widespread and is time consuming: machines do exist to automate it, but smaller High Street labs would have to do the assembly by hand, and that is not good use of time. It was a push among professionals in publishing decades ago to have transparency film returned unmounted, uncut and in a continuous sleeved strip: this assisted speedy examination and vetting on the lightbox, and cutting then masking for e.g. drum scanning. What didn't make the cut, so to speak, ended up on the floor, in the bin or through the shredder. The last time my transparency film in any format was mounted was in 1987.

there is some labs that send it uncut in a single plastic sleeve unless you pay extra. i think the places i have used that do it only charge4$ roll of color 35mm film to process. Normally they cant do it correctly.

Where are you getting E6 for $4 a roll?

As far as mounting-I do get all of my 35mm transparencies mounted, but primarily because the mount gives me an easy place to make notes, etc. I like the plastic mounts since they are easy to extract the film from and put them back together. My local lab charges an extra $1/roll to mount. Their automatic machine does paper mounts, which they claim they can't get anymore, so everything now gets hand cut and mounted. I think $1/roll is a bargain for that!