3-bath E-6 process

Does the three bath E-6 process that some companies sell kits for (ex.

tetenal) have any disadvantages in quality or other problems compared

to the standart 6/7 step process. I was wondering because I was

considering buying a tetenal 5 L (60 film) kit from B&H.

The Kodak E-6 kit gives better results (supposedly) and is cheaper, but you'll have to get it from Adorama as B&H won't ship. The kit is easy to use and has many helpful web references to support it, whether you use small tank or Jobo processor. I haven't used Tetenal, but I have used photocolor, and I definately prefer the Kodak. I have heard Tetenal is good or bad depending on who you listen to, but I have never heard anyone say Kodak E-6 was no good.

I use the Kodak 5L kit and the results are as good as or better than my local pro lab used to achieve. I've never used any of the 3 bath kits, but from all I've read, they're inferior to the true 6 bath kits from Kodak or Fuji. Do a Google search and I think you'll find that the traditional 6 bath is a safer bet.

This has been discussed extensively here and so you should search the archives as well. The 3-bath kits combine some steps, which makes it harder to tweak things like colour balance, density, etc. by making pH changes to individual baths. If you are not planning on running control strips and using a densitometer, this is probably not an issue. Another issue is the "blix" (bleach-fix) used in 3-bath kits, which is prone to under-blixing (silver retention) unless it's very fresh.

 

If you are an occasional E6 user and hand-process the film (i.e. no JOBO) the 3-bath kit can be much easier to use. I have used several of the 3-bath Tetenal kits (in 500-ml and 1-L sizes) with great results.

I've used the 3-bath Tetenal kits. They do work. However, if you can run the 6-bath process, and can use up the chemicals before they expire, I'd recommend going that way. When I did E6 I was processing only a few rolls, and the larger 6-bath kits were not economical.

Ross, you didn't say how you are processing it: Hand inversion, Jobo, PhotoTherm Sidekick, Wing-Lynch, etc...?

 

First off, with the 3 bath kits you pretty well lose pulling and pushing (to a degree). Also, as Jordan mentioned, the bleach-fix is dicey at best, because unlike the weaker "blix" that works OK in RA-4, the E-6 version is a hack.

 

Also, it's more like a 4 step process, since you still have to use the stabilizer, after you take the film off the reels.

 

I guess if all you're doing is scanning the film as soon as it's dry; or if it's out of a film recorder for a PowerPoint presentation (especially as a backup in case of a PC crash) and the slides will end up in the trash, then it's OK.

 

On the other hand, when I shoot the Philadelphia Flower Show

http://www.philadelphiaflowershow.com I want the chromes to look fantastic, whether they are 35mm, 4x5, and this year for the first time for me, medium format; and for that I'll fire up the ATL-3 processor, mix fresh soup, and run back-to-back-to-back batches for me and my friend...

 

There's never enough time to do the job right; but always enough time to do it over...

I don't remember the issues with the Tetanal 3 (+1) chemistry, but I remember it coming up over and over here. I know Ron Mowrey (who I absolutely trust on questions of processor chemistry) has mentioned problems with creating a stable blix many times.

 

Note that the number of three-bath users as a proportion of E-6 users is about the same as the number of lotto winners compared to lotto players. I've never heard of a lab using one of these, and if it actually were easier, cheaper, higher quality, more reliable, or had any other advantage you can bet the labs would have been using it. So you have to ask yourself, why pay extra to use something that the rest of the world has rejected? I don't mind going against the majority when I think there's a good reason to, but I've never heard any compelling advantage for Tetenal.

 

As has been mentioned, B&H won't ship the Kodak 5-liter kit, but just about everybody else will. Adorama, of course, and there are Kodak distributors in most major cities. Then you can cut your costs even more by switching to the individual components, because the bleach lasts for ages if you bubble air through it and the bleach is over half the total chemistry cost. (For that matter, start with the kit and start saving the bleach immediately.)

 

Of course, if you aren't really planning on setting up for regular E-6 and will be mixing small batches intermittently, cutting down to four baths will save you time and aggravation. For most of us, the more slides we see the more we shoot.

 

Van

Well put, Van!

 

By the way, have you ever used the 3-bath kit in a pinch? I have a Tetenal kit on the shelf, that came with a Wing-Lynch processor someone gave me when I bought my Agfa Matrix Forte film recorder... That's why I mentioned using it for PowerPoint presentations, where indeed the slides end up in the trash (especially if they are only as emergency backups).

 

Speaking of which, I've actually used FP4 to make a couple "emergency backup" PP slide shows; and it worked because they were text-only, so I simply inverted them in Photoshop before exposing in my HR6000... Kept the cost down, too, since I didn't have to fire up the ATL-3 to process Ektachrome.

 

Van: Which E-6 film do you shoot in your HR6000?

I can totally understand why a commercial processor would prefer an 6-bath kit. It's a question of keeping the process in check with control strips read by a densitometer. Commercial processors need to maintain consistency in their E6 line day after day, and adjusting the pH (and timing, or whatever else) of the individual baths is how they do it.

 

Home use by a hobbyist is a totally different story, and again, I think that if you are not planning on running control strips, and are careful not to over-extend the blix, the 3-bath kit can be a good alternative -- especially if you're processing manually in a temporary darkroom or limited space.

Dan, I've switched from Sensia to Astia, but I'm not really sure that it's made much of a difference. During the last year every part of my process has improved so much it's hard to point to any one thing (other than every minor improvement put together).

 

Jordan, I'm using a Photo-Therm automatic processor these days, but it wasn't long ago that I was using a JOBO CPE-2 sitting on a board across my bathroom sink and putting each 1-liter bottle on the seat of the toilet to dry after rinsing it out. And it was only a few months before that that I was using a tempering bath and stainless tanks, with the bath balanced on the edge of the sink. At no time would eliminating three steps in the E-6 process really have appealed.

 

If you figure two washes between first dev and reversal and four washes after the fix you're talking about a total of thirteen steps. Those steps follow loading the reels and tanks and getting everything up to 38C, and they preceed hanging, squeegeeing, drying, and mounting. Cutting three steps out of the middle just doesn't make much difference, and dramatically increasing the cost of chemistry at the same time would wipe out any advantage.

 

But put all that aside for a moment, because the most important factor is probably this: There is a wealth of information available for working with the standard process, and almost none for the three-step process. BTW, I don't use control strips because I use the chemistry as a one-shot rather than replenished (except for the bleach).

 

Van