Developing Slides: Arista or Tetenal

<p>I've sort of gotten into a discussion on developing slides in another thread and rather than hijack that thread entirely, I thought I should start my own, especially since I really need to find out more about the whole process.</p>

<p>First of all, let me begin by stating that <em>I am not new to developing my own slides. </em> But the last time I developed my own slides was probably in about 1986. So it's been a while. I don't recall anymore what chemistry I used. I know definitely it was not Kodak. I suspect it was Arista. I doubt seriously it was Tetenal. But perhaps it might have been another brand that is no longer available. I bought the chemistry at a large, local, photo retailer. I remember it came in a box that was probably about 6" x 6" x 4" and that the box had photos on its exterior. Nowadays, it appears that just about the only source for slide chemistry kits is Freestyle. Freestyle carries kits by Arista and Tetenal. The Arista kits are substantially cheaper than Tetenal. Plus the .pdf instructions available for each at Freestyle allow you to read up on what's involved. I don't know about you, but I cannot make much sense out of the Tetenal instructions. They leave me with more questions than they provide answers. They are translated from German, rather poorly I suspect, and for this reason alone I am averse to trying the Tetenal. If they are not poorly translated, then the originals are poorly written, in my view. Another big reason is the price. It is much more expensive in the 1 liter size than the Arista's 1 qt size -- like almost twice as much. It appears to provide for about 50% more developing capacity than the Arista, but the Arista's directions state rather clearly that the developing quantities can be extended considerably as long as the end user is willing to understand the inherent compromises in doing so. These inherent compromises surely exist with the Tetenal as well, but they are not discussed in the Tetenal's literature. Still, even at 50% greater capacity, the Tetenal works out to being noticably more expensive than Arista. Further, the Tetenal seems to be clearly optimized for rotary processors. I have tanks and will be using agitation.</p>

<p>In this other thread, it was mentioned by a member there who has used both Arista and Tetenal that he's had poor results with Arista -- that it tends to overdevelop his slides. So he prefers Tetenal. I would like to hear from others about this. I personally do not think that a product will be that defective right out of the box, especially since I'm pretty sure that it was Arista I used all those years ago, and the results I got from it were excellent. I'm not pointing fingers, but I just doubt that Arista is such a poor product.</p>

<p>So anyway, I'd like to hear from you. Feel free to post example images from slides you've developed. In fact, I'll start. I used to develop my own slides back in the 80s because often I needed them the next day. I was a freelance motorsports photographer back then and I would sell photos to race car drivers at the SCCA races. Shoot on Saturday and sell on Sunday. Here are a few:</p>

<p><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/bugeyesprite1a.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="800" /></p>

<p><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/triumphtr4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/formula_atlantic1.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="767" /></p>

<p>Also, I would like to hear from you as to what sort of setup you use to develop your slides. I know it need not be all that complicated and it's always interesting to read how folks go about solving the problems involved with an undertaking such as this one. Chief of which, in this case, is temperature control.</p>

<p>So, what are your experiences?</p>

<p>My slide film development "experience" goes back to 1981. I had a presentation to do, and was terrified of any sort of public speaking. So a slide show was perfect. Keep them focused on anything but me! I had the chemicals, then shot, then went to develop... disaster. I paid insufficient attention to temps and the first roll was horrid. Fortunately, I had time to reshoot and redevelop, but it was harrowing. I don't recall what kit I used either.</p>

<p>That was all I ever did, until 2002 or so. I think it was the tetenal kit, and a sink full of water to hold the chemicals at temp. Much better results and I still have the slides, someplace. I did several rolls and liked it, but the availability of cheap easy processing (Fuji Slide film mailers) has just kept me out of the processing game. I do C-41 in a heated water bath and would use it for E-6. Now the mailers are out of stock everyplace so maybe they're going away, and I'll be back to doing home E-6 processing.</p>

<p>I haven't seen Fuji mailers in at least a couple of years. Last I heard they were discontinued. Fortunately, I sold on eBay a bunch of Kodak mailers -- supposedly good for "lifetime" -- before they became pumpkins. There was just no way I would have been able to use them all before the expiry Kodak put on them.</p>

<p>So Patrick, what sort of rig are you using for your heated water bath? This is the sort of thing I like to read about. I've been told that using a styrofoam cooler with water brought up a bit above correct temp works. Just wait for it to drop to the right temp then start processing. Apparently it drops slowly enough to keep it within the +/- 0.5F requirements. If that's indeed true, then that is certainly an easy way to do it. When I did mine, I used my bathroom sink -- filled it with warm water and dropped in ice cubes to get the temp down to where I needed it. I used one of those cheezy little Yankee tanks with the thermometer built into the agitation spinner, and used that thermometer for keeping an eye on the bath's temp. I'm actually surprised my slides came out as good as they did. I wouldn't mind rigging up something a bit more permanent, though. I have a couple of Paterson tanks -- the ones about 8 or 9 inches tall that will hold three or four reels, so I'll use an enclosure big enough for them. A styro cooler will probably be the best way to go, really. Cheap, too. I was thinking about using an aquarium heater -- wonder if they'll heat the water hot enough? Maybe a Crock Pot on a dimmer switch? Heh.</p>

<p> </p>

I was buying bulk Ektachrome around 1976. Anyone remember how cheap a 100' roll was? I originally used the Kodak

kit... was it E4 back then? Then I reluctantly switched to Tetenal when it came available to me, mainly because of its

price. I thought it gave me more consistent results with less error.

<p>Here's what I use for a water bath. It wasn't cheap, about $200, but it's reliable and consistent. It holds my C-41 chems at 102 degrees perfectly.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi - replying to this thread because it's fun, for once, to be a 'junior' in the discussion...</p>

<p>I started developing my own e6 only in 1992, with the Arista kits (I think they're only sold via freestyle).</p>

<p>I was doing it in my mom's basement laundry sink, with those large plastic 'tubs' people store stuff in as a water bath, several thermometers to keep on top of the temperature situation, and adding some hot water now and then to keep the 'ambient' water temperature around 100 (or was it 105?)f. I was developing 35mm film in stainless steel 4-reel daylight tanks. I also kept the chems, after mixing, in another tub with similar water and thermometer controls.</p>

<p>Probably in reality my temperature varied up or down a degree or two, but I never noticed and probably liked the slight variation.</p>

<p>I also, being a college student then and so very low on money, used to really squeeze as much film as possible out of a batch of chems as possible. So I took that excellent paragraph in the Arista instructions that starts something like "one is always concerned with the amount of film one can develop with a given set of chemicals..." or whatever - I believe the instructions are the same today - and pushed that, doing like 24 rolls when the 'specified' was 8 or whatever. I just tried to keep the temperatures steady, and developed tank after tank in one long session until - sometimes - the colors had muted so much I started to get strange (but not altogether unpleasant!) colors.<br>

<br />That was then and this is now, and I still do it the same way! I'm still as poor (making a nominally better wage than as a student 20 years ago but everything's vastly more expensive now). Now I use those red coleman coolers instead of plastic tubs, imagining that the insulation maybe keeps the temperatures more stable. And one technique I've got my eye on now is buying one of those 30-reel (35mm) trays that dip and dunk into a 2-gallon 8x10 tank - I won't be able to develop until the autumn at earliest now, and I have between 130-175 rolls already shot... probably another 50 this summer (plus 6x7, 4x5!). Maybe I have a problem, geez, I don't know... The local photo guy has one used...<br>

<br />I've always enjoyed developing my own slides, and other than the temperature control, find it no more complicated than b/w. And the most exciting thing, as you all know, is unrolling that newly developed roll and seeing all those frames on the wet film in vivid color!!</p>

<p>As for brands, I know the Unicolor kits and re-branded derivatives were popular back in the 80s and early 1990s, so that might've been the brand you had.</p>

<p>As for me, I've used the Tetenal and Arista e6 3-bath kits and found little difference (I think I used a 4-bath kit once too) - but I don't go and do all sorts of micro-measurements looking for differences, I just know that my photos looked good to me. And these days you take what you can get! Leave the 'every time exactly the same' monotony to the digicamists! The instructions for the Arista are pretty well-written, and I always use their chemistry times (and extensions for re-use) in development; when I've used Tetenal I based the process same as the Arista, maybe using times in the Tetenal kit of course.</p>

<p>Ah, and the question on how much a 100' roll cost 'back then'!! When I started I developed (as now) to save money and get as much shooting as possible; Freestyle and others often had post-dates 100' rolls of chrome (usually Fujichrome, less often Ektachrome; I'd take what I could get and/or what was cheaper!); prices were ~$20-30. Imagine what you'd get for a 5-year expired roll of that on eb these days!!</p>

<p>Here's a link to a couple of photo pages of mine, all links below were my own e6 development and scanning. I don't have any color calibration, so any 'off' colors if present probably more due to that than my development.</p>

<p>1. Some Lake Superior photos: http://rjl.us/photo/lsfoto1.htm (some of the other LS photos on my website are my own process film, some Kodachrome and E6 lab process, and some very few digi.)<br>

2. Some Lake Baikal photos: http://rjl.us/photo/baikal1.htm (all the other Baikal photos on the website also my own process)<br>

3. Some from NW Russia: http://rjl.us/photo/ru/runord1.htm</p>

<p>Many other self-developed e6 on the website too, with admixtures of lab and self-developed c41, some Orwochrom (DDR) transparency (similar to E4, self- and lab-developed), a bit of self-developed b/w, and some digi. Most film scanned with my great old Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 (2000-2004) or Nikon CS-5000 (2009+). Very little post-scan processing.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses, guys. Michael, back around 1985 I bought a roll of Kodak slide film that was meant especially for dupes. It was very fine grain and fairly low contrast. When duping slides, one of the problems is blocking up of shadow areas because of increased contrast, so this special slide dupe film helped prevent it. I don't recall what I paid for it, but being a cheap bastid, I probably didn't pay more than $25-30 for it. It actually worked quite well. I don't recall the name of it anymore, maybe 5071? Right now I have a 100' roll of some special Kodak stuff I bought on a whim. It's Kodak's Vericolor Slide film -- 5072. It is actually a negative duplicating film meant for making slides from negatives, and it's C-41. It doesn't have the orange mask. Like I said, I bought it on a whim. I thought I'd just load up a few cassettes and shoot it as regular negative film and see what sort of results I'd get. I bought it a couple of years ago, and it's still sitting in the freezer. :)</p>

<p>Patrick, I took a look on eBay for your water bath. Found a few, ranging in price from $114 to $125. Probably a good deal, but I think I'll see if I can cobble together something for a little cheaper. I build custom guitars and for bending guitar sides I have a special silicone heating blanked that's about 6" x 36" that I have hooked up to a temperature controller, which I can dial in to a specific temperature with an accuracy of approximately +/- 1 degree F. I'm thinking that maybe I can do something similar to this with a differently shaped blanket. Good temperature controllers aren't all that cheap, though, so I could probably rig up a dimmer switch and just use a thermometer to dial it in. Oh! I just had a thought. I believe I still have a heating pad for an old terrarium we used to have for some pet lizards. It is just a pad about 10" square that you plug in to the wall and it gets hot. It's meant to be located underneath sand in the tank. Well, I'm thinking I can probably rig this up to a dimmer switch and it should work just fine. Its size will be just right for setting into the bottom of a tank, plus it's water proof. Yeah . . . now I just need to dig through all my stuff in storage and see if we still have that pad.</p>

<p>Robert, I appreciate your feedback. Your slides sure look okay to me. Which reminds me. You see the few images I posted above? Those were taken probably in about 1986 or so. So, like 27 years ago. Long enough for E6 slides to start showing color shifts. And indeed some of my E6 slides are starting to show rather pronounced magenta casts now. But not the slides I developed myself. And also not any of the slides I shot in Japan in 1983 and had developed in Japan. So, I've come to the conclusion that, when it comes to archival purposes, not all chemistries are created equal. It seems to me that the commercial chemistries do not fix color as well as diy ones, or the special C-41 equivalent that Fuji uses in Japan (all my slides were Fujichrome when I was in Japan). Another significant reason to develop one's own slides.</p>

<p>Unicolor is ringing a bell. That might have been what I used. I remember it had blix, so it was just three step. Hopefully Arista is just as long-lasting. Dunno if I want to mess with Tetenal. So Robert, the Arista instructions claim a solution capacity of 8 rolls of 36 exp per one quart kit. How many rolls of 36 exp. can you typically get from a one-quart Arista kit before you start noticing that the colors are going off? 16? More? This sort of real-world experiences I consider to be invaluable, cuz I don't mind pushing the limits in order to see where hey really are.</p>

<p>I think that once I get my slide developing setup dialed in, I'll give it a go with C-41 as well (besides that weird 5072 stuff). Dunno about the economies involved there, though. I can get a roll of 36 exp developed only (no prints) at my local Costco for under $3.</p>

Hello, maybe I am the guy you were talking about, but at any rate, I suggest

trying both if you are in doubt. I have, after the Kodak full 7 bath kits ran out. All

Ican say is that after Kodak excellent reults, the Arista was such a letdown that I

resorted to ordering the Tetenal from Germany, even with the great shipping

expense. The results were that much better. I was thrilled when Freestyle began

importing it.

You are only talking a 20 dollar difference max between kits, if your shots are

worith it, get the good stuffIMO . Also, the Tetenal instruction book that comes

with the kit -don't think it is online is very well written in English, and more

explanatort than the Arista kit, including key pitfalls to avoid.t

,

<p>I'd say that, if the temperature's kept on after mixing, and the chems are used in one long developing session (as opposed to storage between sessions, as oxidation and post-mix time is part of the decay) that 3x the 'specified' capacity is well within reason. As mentioned, maybe if you shot color charts and measured with a color analyzer or whatever you could tell a difference, but I think the difference in the light of the scene, the exposure, filters, etc. will be a bigger difference. I believe I've even done 4x with reasonable results. As the Arista instructions say, things will change each batch, so you decide when it's too much. I'd say in my experience 3x is not too much. The only time I got things looking rather more 'off' was when I tried more than 3 or 4x - can't recall but remember I was really pushing the limits, so might've been the 5th batch... the colors had a sort of steel bluish-gray muted color that actually looked pretty cool too... And remember if you're scanning rather than wet printing or projecting, you can 'correct' some too.</p>

<p>But read from my above yesterday post that I'm not so obsessed with everything being perfect and consistent; it's part of what I love about analog everything. Not being such a computer myself, I can't relate to that sort of consistency/monotony. Another reason I never got overly excited by digi. Maybe that's why I don't mind expired films, 'pushing' my chem batches to maximum productivity (in e6, not b/w or so much in c41), and can't see a big difference in quality between Tetenal and Arista. I don't want unintended purple people or orange skies, but I'm happy with different palettes adding a certain reasonable uniqueness to my photos - that's fun. As I say, digicams will give the same answer to every question they're asked until their circuits fail, but film has the power to dream! </p>

<p>A reasonable option is to order some of both kits and give it a go; you may or may not find a difference that will inform future decisions. In another year you may only have one choice; in three or five you may have none - do it while you can!</p>

<p>I think the reasons for some commercially processed slides lasting longer - aside from Kodachrome, which is more stable - is the care and/or state of the chems used - some labs might've figured (accurately, it seems) that by the time people noticed their slides degrading they'd be long-extinct and so didn't care to keep chems in good state!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the reasons for some commercially processed slides lasting longer - aside from Kodachrome, which is more stable - is the care and/or state of the chems used - some labs might've figured (accurately, it seems) that by the time people noticed their slides degrading they'd be long-extinct and so didn't care to keep chems in good state!</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I'm not so sure it's the care or state of the chems. I mean, a lot of my E6 slides were done by Kodak or A&I, which is a top-notch color lab in California. I mentioned Fuji in Japan (and I should have written E6 above instead of C-41), which does not use an E-6 process, but their own CR-56 process. I don't know how the two differ, but I suspect that one difference is that CR-56 has better archival characteristics than E6.</p>

<p>Robert, thanks for that additional info. Man-o-man, if I can process 24 rolls or more from a pint of chems, that will be an outstanding savings. I have some 500ml size brown glass sample bottles that I'm thinking I can store the mixed chems in. I can use marbles (a la Aesop's "The Crow and the Pitcher" parable) to take up the air spaces, so that I can fill the bottles up to the top and minimize oxidation.</p>

<p>I get your analog aesthetic, too. I'm kinda the same way. The variability of any analog process can be part of its charm -- or drawbacks, depending on the process. And as you mention about color correction, I too have a "hybrid darkroom" in that the only wet chemistry I do anymore is film developing. I scan and/or dupe my images, where I can then play around with color settings, contrast, hue and saturation to my heart's content, then take the finalized images to a photo finisher for prints. Or for smaller sizes, I just print them onto photo paper with my Epson inkjet, which actually does an excellent job.</p>

<p>Randall, once I'm more comfortable with the process, I might give Tetenal a try. I have to survive on a fixed income, and unfortunately, to me that $20 difference is a big enough amount that I actually have to budget for it in my monthly expenses. Chances are, the only real difference between Tetenal and Arista from a user standpoint is in the mixing of the chemicals and perhaps the length of time with each bath. My problem at the outset is, I just don't have a large number of rolls of film that need to be developed that would make buying such a large Tetenal kit worthwhile. Right now, I have only three rolls of 35mm and two rolls of 220 that have been exposed. The expense of getting these five rolls developed at a pro lab is about the same as the Tetenal kit, so there's no immediate savings for me. Yes, I'd have a bunch left over, but I'd have to go buy a bunch of slide film, which I can't really afford right now, and shoot a bunch of photos just to take advantage of the extra Tetenal. At least the 1-pint Arista kit is smaller and cheaper.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd like to see your results with Tentenal Mike, post them when you have a chance?</p>

<p>I am following this thread with interest since I've recently been getting into shooting transparency film (primarily 35mm for mostly astrophotography and 4x5 for landscapes). There is an excellent processing lab not too far from where I live, (Dodge Chrome in Silver Spring MD who does E-6 up to 8x10) and their rates are reasonable, but it's a half-day endeavor to drop something off; then I have to come back again another day to retrieve them.</p>

<p>The Arista and Tetenal kits are beckoning, not only for home convenience, but who knows how much longer Dodge Chrome will provide the E-6 service. Michael, I also must confess the Arista kit seems more appealing to me because of the cost savings. I'd like to hear from more people as to its quality and know for sure if the Tetenal kits are <em>that</em> much better to justify the increased cost.</p>

<p>Yes -- Allan, Curtis, I'd like to see some results too. Maybe we can persuade Randall to post some of his Tetenal results here. Randall? Oh, Randall . . . post 'em if you got 'em. I'd even like to see some of his "bad" Arista results.</p>

<p>Allan, the city of Houston, where I live, is a town of some 2 million residents or so, but including the Greater Houston Area, that number swells to about 4 million. To meet the needs of photographers shooting E6 in a town this size, there is only one pro lab left -- Aker Imaging Photo Lab. I worry they may not have enough business to stay open, drawing from a pool of 4 million residents. But every time I go in there, they seem to be quite busy, which helps to quell my fears some. They also do two dip-n-dunk runs a day: 9:30 and 1:30. It's kinda nice being able to get same-day service. Sometimes it's even necessary.</p>

<p>I'm gonna order the small Arista kit tomorrow as a way of getting started. I believe it was Randall who suggested in another thread using a styrofoam cooler for the bath and adding water that is hotter than spec, then wait for it to cool down, and then process the slides. Simple, yet effective. I'm getting stoked. Maybe I'll break out the film gear this weekend and go look for some scenics and stuff. So I'll have more film to process. Except for certain uncommon situations (like low-light and high-magnification photography), I'm an outdoor photographer. Always have been, always will be. I reckon it might even be time for a day trip up into bluebonnet country. We've had a very cool Spring this year, so I'm hopeful that there are still some decent fields around.</p>

<p>Sounds good, let me know how it goes and let us see the results! I'm not too worried about Dodge Chrome at least for the moment because they receive processing orders from all over the mid-Atlantic region, not just the DC area, plus they do all kinds of custom imaging projects for businesses. But still...</p>

<p>I was just in Fredericksburg TX, visiting family last weekend and they tell me up towards Mason there are still some nice wildflower areas. Good luck!</p>

<p>you can always go to walmart and use the fuji mailers to get them done if you are unsure about doing it yourself. they go to dwayne's. great results.<br>

I use the tetenal and went with it over the arista because it has a 4th bath with a stabilizer in it. that is a must if you want your slides alive in 15+ years. results are great. the best reason to do them yourself is that when they are dry they look amazing! i always smile saying, I did that (developed them, not about taking the picture)!</p>

 

<p>Well, I got off the dime and ordered an Arista E6 kit from Freestyle last night. While I was at it, I went ahead and ordered a Unicolor C-41 kit too. I didn't really need the C-41 kit for 35mm because I can use Costco for negative development. They to a very good job plus they're cheap at about $3/roll. But they only do 35mm. If I want to get medium format C-41 developed, I have to take it to a pro lab now, and that is gonna set me back from $7 to $12 a roll (120 and 220 respectively) for processing only -- no prints. So not such a good deal anymore. I have a couple of rolls of C-41 220 that I've already shot, so the savings on developing will more than pay for the cost of the Unicolor kit. Plus I can still develop at least another six rolls, probably more.</p>

<p>I'm gonna dig out that terrarium heater pad from storage and rig it up to the bottom of a plastic tub I have. I built a dimmer switch into an outlet box some years back for controlling the output of other devices, and I'll use it to regulate the heat output of that heater pad. That pad gets pretty hot, so it should work fine. I also have a few cases of brown glass 500ml sample bottles that I can use to store the mixed chems in. I guess I'll go down to a hobby shop or Wally World and buy a bunch of marbles. I can add them to the sample jars to minimize air space gaps, thus preventing excessive oxidation. I also have a glass Kodak darkroom thermometer and a dial-type cooking thermometer, graduated in degrees, so I think I should be able to eyeball a half-degree variance. If not, I'll go buy a digital one that'll give me the half-degree accuracy. I'm inclined to think that it probably won't be necessary, though.</p>

<p>My biggest concern right now is insuring that the mixed chemicals will last for a while. Right now, I have only about five exposed rolls of E6, whereas the capacity of the chems is at least eight. Guess I could go buy some more E6 film and shoot some more pics before I develop anything. But I'm getting kinda antsy. So if I develop what I have, then the clock starts ticking on the chems. Which will end up forcing me to go out and shoot some more, so I don't waste the chems.</p>

<p>Do any of you have some idea as to how long mixed E6 (or C-41) chems will last if they're stored in dark containers with air spaces minimized?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael, thanks for keeping us updated. I perused the Arista processing instructions and came across the following:<br>

"If you accept the role as the final arbiter of acceptable results it is easily possible to process 25%, 50%,</p>

or even more rolls of film than those listed in the capacity charts, so long as all processing takes place with-

in several days after mixing the chemicals. There is only one rule in this exercise: process film until you no

longer like the results. The safeguard in this procedure is that results generally will not plummet precipitously

from “good” to “bad”, but will change gradually.

• If you again take full responsibility for quality of results, it is possible to process more film over a much

longer timespan. This procedure is somewhat risky unless you process some film every day or so to monitor chemistry performance. <strong>Otherwise, partially used working solutions left untouched for a week or more</strong>

<strong>might have changed so significantly that you would suffer a dramatic decline in results.</strong> If you choose to operate under these conditions, our best advice would be to process a small piece of test film, and on the basis

of these results, decide whether or not to commit valuable pictures to the chemistry."

 

 

The bold area is my editing. I guess the key is keep to going until you notice an unacceptable trend in the results. Keep us posted! Although my E-6 workload is still too small to justify a kit at this point, it may in the future as I have a bunch of Kodak E200 in the freezer earmarked for some astrophotography projects among other things.

<p>Hi Allan -- Yes, I have a copy of that pdf. I find it a bit confusing where the part that you highlighted contrasts against the sentence two sentences before it, tho. The one beginning with "If you again . . ." The two statements seem to contradict each other.</p>

<p>I suppose once I have a bit of experience at it, I'll have developed more of an intuition for when to say when. </p>

 

All Tetenal E6 home developed in my kitchen sink with no more than a simple styrofoam cooler, a digital thermometer,

and a little patience waiting for the film to get to the right temp before starting the development. Do that, and it is EASY)

 

All scanned on my Kodak pakon f235 scanner.

<p>Very impressive, Randall. Hopefully, I'll have some Arista-developed slide scans to offer up soon. It'll be interesting to see how they compare.</p>

 

<p>Hi Michael, yes it's very subjective and non-committal in the instructions. The only thing I can think of is the results will be less changed if film is processed one after another with little time in between films over a time period as opposed to processing a film, waiting that same time period, then processing another film. We eagerly await your verdict, thanks for testing this!</p>

<p>Well done Randall; so far so good for Tetenal!</p>

<p>Still getting my ducks in a row here. Finding bottles to store the chems has bee a PITA. I finally found some 1 pt. plastic milk bottles that will work. I've emptied two of the three I need and plan to empty the third tonight. Then I'lll have to spray paint them black, and I should be good to go.</p>

<p>I found in my storage a styrofoam container that is used for shipping frozen steaks. I'd forgotten I had that thing. Its walls are at least 2 inches thick, so it will be a great insulator and should retain the bath temperature well. I won't need to bother with the reptile heating pad. I've got quite a few things on my schedule for tomorrow, but hopefully I'll have the time to develop a roll or two of slides too. I'm really looking forward to it.</p>

<p>Okay, well, this took much longer than I thought it would, and my first couple of rolls were a comedy of errors. Good thing they were very old rolls of slide film and I honestly wasn't expecting much out of them. They allowed me to knock the cobwebs out and get to where I now feel reasonably confident in my technique going forward.</p>

<p>My first attempt was a very old roll of Ektachrome 64. Just guessing from its appearance, but I'd say it was from the early 1980s. I've had it frozen for over 20 years, and the guy who I bought it from claimed he had kept it frozen as well. But whatever, the film came out as a long completely clear strip of emulsion. A slight bluish tint to the film, no numbers were visible. I don't <em>think</em> it was anything I did wrong, I suspect it had just been stored too long and perhaps during some of the time when it was stored, it was stored under adverse conditions. Still, though, it looks like the entire roll was exposed to light. Which it wasn't. Makes me wonder, though, if a previous owner may have done something cute like pull the film completely out of the canister, then spool it back in -- for grins and giggles, I suppose.</p>

<p>My second attempt faired better. It was a roll of Ektachrome 160, which dated back to the early-to-mid 80s, I'd say, based on the appearance of the canister. I bought this roll from the same guy mentioned above (along with a large selection of other film, too). This roll exhibited a pronounced blue shift that, in some images, I wasn't able to correct for completely. In others, however, I was. This roll of Ek160 has fairly pronounced grain, but good definition. Here are a couple of examples of rather strongly blue-shifted images that I wasn't able to correct:</p>

<p>Consolidated B-24 Liberator WWII Heavy Bomber -- taken at the Wings Over Houston Airshow, 2011. Canon F-1, Canon FD 400mm f/4.5, probably at f/8.<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/b24_ek160_a.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Boeing B-17 WWII Heavy Bomber, taken at Wings Over Houston Airshow, 2011. Canon F-1, Canon FD 400mm f/4.5, probably at f/8.<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/b17_ek160_a.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="800" /></p>

<p>Just for comparison's sake -- to show how far the color had drifted -- here's a digital image of the same warbird:<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/aircraft/b17a1.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="600" /></p>

<p>And a digital shot of the same B-24:<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/aircraft/woh2011/b24_1.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="667" /></p>

<p>And here's an image I was able to correct and got rid of most of the blue cast. It's a vertical crop of a landscape format shot, so the grain appears to be more pronounced than the others.:</p>

<p>A friend of mine, Cliff Holland, riding his BSA 441 at the BMOA Brit Bike Rally, 2012. Canon F-1, Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4, probably wide open.<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/cliff_bmoa2012a.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>As part of my ongoing comedy of errors, I lost about a third of my first developer, which precluded me from developing any of my 120 rolls. I was using a Paterson tank and had misplaced the cover. Thinking that the small central hole was the only one in the top, I just plugged it up with my finger then did the inversion routine, and SPLASH -- 1st developer everywhere. All over me, all over my kitchen counter . . . the floor. The cat. Hooboy. So after I finished mopping up the developer -- the cat wasn't having any, so he had to fend for himself -- I measured what I had left. 11 oz. Just enough to cover a 35mm reel in my Paterson tank. But not nearly enough for 120. So, grrr, I get to order another kit. Wish I could buy just the 1st developer.</p>

<p>I'm looking forward to the 120. It's Fuji Provia, which I've used before and really like. Plus, most of it is of subjects I care about. Stay tuned.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Michael, sorry it's taken a while to respond, thanks for posting your results! Interesting that there's such a blue shift, my <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00be89">latest attempt with expired E200</a> came out with a pronounced magenta cast.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear about the mishaps, I can empathize! I knocked an entire tray of Polymax developer all over my floor last week, some of it managed to get on to one of my enlarger easels. Anyway, thanks and looking forward to you next attempt! Cheers, Allan</p>