List of labs who push C41 color film?

[timothy_saunders]

<p>Tried searching here, not much luck. <br /><br />I'm looking for labs who have experience pushing C41 color film. Preferably in the US, though if folks from other countries want to chime in, maybe we can build a *current* list.<br /><br />I live in Philadelphia, and am fortunate enough to still have two brick-and-mortar film labs to work with, but neither if them recommend pushing color film. It's possible that their setup doesn't allow for it and/or they are trying to avoid unhappy customers. I've never done it, but I KNOW it can be done. Heck, Kodak even has a reference PDF for pushing Portra on their site. On Flickr, I've seen the results of Fuji Superia pushed 2 stops. <br /><br />I'm intrigued, but at a loss. I could call around every lab in the country to ask if they do it, but I thought I'd start here to see if anyone has had good experience getting their film pushed by a particular lab.<br /><br />Thank you!<br /><br />-Tim</p>

[larrydressler]

<p> I put "C-41 film push labs" into Google and found a bunch that push and pull at one$ per stop. Now the question is if these labs are still in business.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

The Darkroom in San Clemente CA does that, and

does very good processing. Google them. Push

processing is just another check mark on the order

form.

[phil_gunderson]

Kalamazoo Color in Michigan will push c41.

[Hector Javkin]

<p>A&I, a top-notch lab back when I was shooting film, will push or pull (<a href="http://aandi.com/film-processing"><strong>link</strong></a>) for an extra charge.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p> I started doing it myself and found that one stop has very little color shift and 2 it needs adjustment more than normal. Now if I gained anything I think the old adage does not apply "You can't recover what was never recorded." does not apply The extra contrast is enough to cover that and the grain increase is much better than trying to compensate in printing or Photoshop. Not all C-41 films are equal and how those negatives are scanned/printed or post processed is where you get a little extra. Slide films used to be push processed all the time even Kodachrome. I believe that most Modern C-41 films though having great latitude can get an extra boost at times. I have seen some EKTAR 100 pushed 1-2 stops that made me go WOW!.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>Hmmmmm, Dwayne's will push E-6/slide film--at a cost of $5.00 per roll. Ouch! But they don't seem to indicate anywhere that they will push colour negative film--it's not mentioned either on the page regarding C-41 processing or on the order form (where it does mention they will cross process transparency film in C-41). So I'm guessing they won't push C-41, although it wouldn't hurt to ask.</p>

<p>Here in the UK, I use Peak Imaging for processing colour film. There service is superb quality (they do dip & dunk), reasonably priced (especially if you send in enough rolls to get the quantity discounts) and very rapid. They will happily push both C-41 and E-6 for £1.25 per roll.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>Actually, I think we can definitively say Dwayne's, despite their wide range of services, doesn't push C-41. This is from their site:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Q: </strong>Do you push or pull process?<br>

<strong>A: </strong>Yes, Our lab offers Push or Pull processing on Ektachrome E-6 slide film. Please allow a one week service time for push or pull processing. Most often it only takes 1-3 days for push or pull processing. The push or pull charge is listed on our order form. Push and pull charges are in addition to the basic processing charge. For example: to push process a roll of 135-36 exposure it costs $13.95; $8.95 for basic processing and $5.00 more for push processing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>https://thedarkroom.com/product/film-developing/</p>

<p>$2</p>

[glen_h]

<p>For black and white film, it is natural that higher speed films require longer development, and that should be true for color, too.</p>

<p>It seems, then, that E6 and C41 compromise by keeping the time constant, and that higher speed films should be more pushable than lower speed films. Kodak used to have the ESP-1, Ektachrome push processing, that was meant for the higher speed films. </p>

<p>In the C22, E2, and E4 days, did all films use the same times? That is, do Ektachrome-X and High Speed Ektachrome have the same development times? </p>

[kirk_strauchler]

<p>Another good lab is Zebra Color in St Petersburg Florida. I'm fortunate enough to live there, and they can/will/have pushed and pulled when necessary.</p>

[ben_hutcherson]

My local lab, formerly Fultone Photo, currently the Print Refinery, in Louisville KY will do push/pull on both E6 and C-41. I'm not sure what they charge for the service as I've never had them do it. Their standard rate is I think $4.50 for C-41 process only, both 135-36 and 120, and $10.50(35mm mounted, 120 in sleeves) for E-6.

[JDMvW]

One of the reasons so few labs will do pushing or pulling on C-41 films is that it is hardly necessary on films with up to 3+ stops latitude either way.

 

BTW, this was true even back in the last century:

1984-04

[glen_h]

I am not so sure, but it might be that they have to batch the push rolls together.

That is, you can't intermix regular and push.

 

There might just not be enough demand to go through the work of doing the switch, in addition to the fact that it is mostly not needed.

 

Even for Tri-X, Kodak recommends no development change for one stop push.

 

Some years ago, I had a roll of Ektachrome P800/1600, that is EI 400 with normal E6 processing, but

actually designed for push to 800 or 1600. The nearby lab would only do 1.5 stops push.

 

But I do believe that Kodak supplies times for both E6 and C41 push processing.

[rodeo_joe1]

While this 2yr old thread has been resurrected:

IME pushing C41 is not a good idea. I've had a roll or two of C41 accidentally overdeveloped, and the extra contrast and saturation makes the negatives almost impossible to wet-print, and very difficult to scan.

 

Unlike E6, the push can't be limited to the first developer, so colour balance, saturation and overall contrast are inextricably linked, and all suffer as a consequence.

 

Just stick to standard processing. As shown above, you have a couple of stops underexposure latitude anyway.

 

Also, if the film is daylight balanced and has been exposed under artificial light with no filter, the colour balance will be too yellow to pull back in printing. It's a complete fallacy that the CT can be drastically changed with colour neg film. A mistake you only make once on a paid gig!

Edited April 11, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

[glen_h]

(snip)

 

Also, if the film is daylight balanced and has been exposed under artificial light with no filter, the colour balance will be too yellow to pull back in printing. It's a complete fallacy that the CT can be drastically changed with colour neg film. A mistake you only make once on a paid gig!

 

When I was young, and mostly learning about photography from my father, I remember asking about why slide film came in Type A, and Type B, and maybe other types. There was a roll of, I believe, Type B Ektachrome in a drawer for many years. At the same time, Kodacolor X didn't come in different types. He explained that the color could be corrected in printing.

 

But I think, not so long after that, Kodacolor X recommended blue bulbs for flash, and filters otherwise.

(Also, black and white films started recommending blue bulbs for flash.)

 

It seems that at some point, Kodak agreed with you.

 

It was sometime later that I learned about Ektacolor type L (from some Kodak book, I suspect).

 

With scanned images, you could put any complicated color correction that you wanted, though I don't know

which programs will do that.

 

I have a few times set the color balance on a DSLR to other than A, then forgot to change it back.

Usually it is close enough (for non-paying gigs) to fix later.

[rodeo_joe1]

With scanned images, you could put any complicated color correction that you wanted, though I don't know

which programs will do that.

Only with much skill and difficulty.

The issue with using colour negative film under drastically different lighting from what it was designed for, is exactly the same as with reversal film. That is; the layer(s) sensitive to whatever colour is deficient in the light source get underexposed. Often to the extent that there's no image data to retrieve in that layer. So no amount of artificial 'gain' (chemical or digital) can bring back what was never captured by the film in the first place.

 

Take, for example, the common situation of exposing a daylight balanced film to tungsten lighting - 3200K, 2700K or whatever. In this case the blue-sensitive layer is drastically underexposed and has little to no shadow detail. In fact the underexposure will probably extend to the mid tones as well. OK you say, we'll boost the blue by adjusting the colour pack during wet printing, or shift the colour temperature digitally. Does that work? No! Because then the shadows become over blue, but still with no blue detail, and the highlights may not receive enough correction. Perhaps a very drastic digital bending of the blue and red curves will give a passable result, but the blue shadow detail that was there in the original subject can never be accurately recreated.

 

This is all explained quite clearly in Langford's 'Advanced Photography' and elsewhere. And is why negative film needs CC filtration just as much as slide material.

[glen_h]

Only with much skill and difficulty.

The issue with using colour negative film under drastically different lighting from what it was designed for, is exactly the same as with reversal film. That is; the layer(s) sensitive to whatever colour is deficient in the light source get underexposed. Often to the extent that there's no image data to retrieve in that layer. So no amount of artificial 'gain' (chemical or digital) can bring back what was never captured by the film in the first place.

 

Take, for example, the common situation of exposing a daylight balanced film to tungsten lighting - 3200K, 2700K or whatever. In this case the blue-sensitive layer is drastically underexposed and has little to no shadow detail. In fact the underexposure will probably extend to the mid tones as well. OK you say, we'll boost the blue by adjusting the colour pack during wet printing, or shift the colour temperature digitally. Does that work? No! Because then the shadows become over blue, but still with no blue detail, and the highlights may not receive enough correction. Perhaps a very drastic digital bending of the blue and red curves will give a passable result, but the blue shadow detail that was there in the original subject can never be accurately recreated.

 

This is all explained quite clearly in Langford's 'Advanced Photography' and elsewhere. And is why negative film needs CC filtration just as much as slide material.

 

Yes.

 

Since most of the cases where this happens are ones that are already low light, and then people stretch even more.

 

Note also that movie films (amateur and professional) are usually tungsten balanced. In daylight, you can afford

the loss from a filter, but not indoors.

 

With flashbulbs, simple cameras with color film might say 5 feet, but when you have a group to squeeze in,

it will be a lot more.

 

I remember many available light shots in museums when I was young (and not so young). Always stretch a

stop or two, to get the shot at all. I am pretty sure I handheld down to 1/8, maybe only 1/15 on good days.

Though the orange color adds to the old museum look, so isn't so bad. I don't ever remember trying a blue

filter with daylight film in a museum. (Most don't allow tripods, so it is what you can hand hold.)

[glen_h]

As to the original question, I would suspect that higher speed C-41 films would push better.

 

Note that unlike black and white films, where one commonly has a longer development for higher

speed films, C-41 is always the same. I know of E6 films designed to be pushed, though have a

recommended EI value for non-pushed. I don't know of that for C-41, but maybe there are some.

[rodeo_joe1]

I know of E6 films designed to be pushed, though have a

recommended EI value for non-pushed. I don't know of that for C-41, but maybe there are some.

There was some hideous press stuff that could supposedly be exposed anywhere from 800 ISO to 1600 or 3200. Called P800 IIRC. Dye clouds the size of golf balls and colour that looked like kiddies' poster paints. Errrrgh!

[henkelphoto]

I just checked with my go-to E6 lab, Process One in Kansas City, and they will push C41 at no additional charge.

 

https://processonephoto.com/print-film-processing.htm

[glen_h]

There was some hideous press stuff that could supposedly be exposed anywhere from 800 ISO to 1600 or 3200. Called P800 IIRC. Dye clouds the size of golf balls and colour that looked like kiddies' poster paints. Errrrgh!

 

The one I remember I believe is called Ektachrome P800/1600, and I suppose there might

have been times to 3200.

 

I had a roll once that I used on a cave tour at Shasta Lake.

(A popular tour, so lights have been installed in the caves, but are still pretty dark.)

 

Even if you have enough flash to do it, caves don't look very interesting with flash.

 

Size of dye clouds, or even color, didn't matter much for this case.

 

The second roll didn't work as well. I used it in a museum, and might have set the EI wrong.

For one, it doesn't have DX coding. Or it might be that it wasn't given the push processing that

I paid for. In any case, it came out darker than I thought it should have been.

 

I believe that for this film, the EI 400 time is not recommended.