jason_fitzmaurice Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Okay, So I decided to try cross processing and see what all the fuss was about. Problem is here in Dallas, I can't find anyone who will do it. Camera Stores, One Hour Labs, BWC, etc. No one is willing to process it for me. Does anyone know of a local lab that will do it? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Cross processing ,although trendy and creates weird effects,makes a mess in the lab.Kodak doesnt reccomend this on their website,so many labs wont do it.Keep calling labs or search online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Jason, mini-labs and high volume stores wont do it because one, they fear it will contaminate their chemistry. Although proven since the early eighties that it does not, and two, they still refuse to do it because of the time and difficulty of printing for the after school part time robots. This is the only �mess� from x-processing. I wish that people responding that have no experience in regards to the question posted would either keep their advice objective without showing their feelings towards the practice, or at least informed. If you are in Dallas, you just have to seek out the pro labs as this has been a common service for over a decade now. I think Mark Tucker is located in Dallas, http://www.marktucker.com A wonderful photographer, if you send him an email he might be able to help you out with a location. Cross processing is a wonderful venture, it takes a lot of practice on metering correctly, and a lot trial and error with how you choose to over expose, either in camera or with processing, or both simultaneously. Today with Photoshop and a lot of experience, you can create similar, not the same, but similar results with conventional films and their respective developing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_verdesca Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I am surprised that BWC won't do it, or at least recommend someone who will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 My local custom lab does this,but always runs this at days end.I assume this is because it makes a mess or throws the processing out of whack?Then again being a "pro" lab(caters to pro clients),Im sure they wouldnt risk their chemistry to be "arty".Mr.Milner is correct about the exposure,usually a lot of over exposure is needed.It also requires a lot of color in the subject,otherwise it is waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Simple: Run C41 films in C41, and E-6 films in E-6. Drop this foolishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 The tools have become smarter, and we are becoming dumber. In the seventies and early eighties, to achieve on the fly fast paced flash photography, you had to be on the ball, the distance to your subject was intuitively noted, always adjusting your aperture ring while focusing and composing. Stopping down and opening up, not getting the depth of field you want. This is but a small example of the advancement of today�s tools. Since the early nineties, and especially since the late nineties, the camera advancements in flash ttl, is incredible. The load taken off a classically trained photographer with a new F90x and an SB-26 (or equivalent at that time) was a miraculous achievement. The photographer could work faster, concentrate on his/her frame, and be more creative with the possibilities. The same can be said for film. Years ago with black and white, one had to spend hours in the darkroom, joyfully, hopefully with some good red and jazz, being part chemist part physicist, with years of practice and training to achieve a negative that would play an equally beautiful fibre print. We learned to read scenes as tones, and balance. We learned to manipulate and deceive while conveying truth and beauty. Prints that can sing. That would make people stop and smell the roses for a moment. Perhaps bleached, perhaps toned, perhaps a bit of flashing before hand. But the tools have become smarter and we have become dumber. Gone is the driving passion that was found in most that used to played this fiddle. It takes very little money today to buy a couple pieces of gear, that after reading the manual, allows one to go out and expose perfect negatives. To achieve acceptable, but bog standard results. Of course it�s the same with films and print papers today. Gone is the craft of treating Verichromepan your favorite way. Tmax 100 lowered the standard years ago, providing beautiful images with little darkroom knowledge. XP1 lowered the bar even further, you didn�t even need a darkroom, then XP2 and T400CN. Gone are the days of needing skill and practice, and an apprenticeship under a master. Gone today is that respect of that craft. Now anyone with a digital point and shoot and photoshop is a photographer. Which is fine absolutely, the more images out there the better, regardless I guess, of how they sing. At least they sing. But for anyone to demand the respect and wave the flag of this past craft with their modern tools, is the ultimate atrocity. For anyone to jump up and down with labels of ��professional� or �commercial photographer�, are usually the ones furthest from it. Anyone wishing to embark into creatively experimenting and achieving an image with all tools and resources available, past and present, that isn�t so easily and cheaply captured, has deserving respect. This is a cognitive decision, to create an image from the imagination, and if successfully executed, deserves a pat on the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_verdesca Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Well said, Eric, but you may want to start a new thread (perhaps under Philosophy of Photography) rather than having your thoughts lost under a "where do I cross-process in Dallas" thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 eric: But cross-processing is not creative. Maybe the first time, after it happened to someone accidentally, it was interesting. But not the 6,000,000th time. It does not make up for true creativity and vision, but is merely a crutch for the inept.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Hans, how can i take the words seriously from someone that only uses Kodachrome 64? I can't. And you'll just carry on arguing in some shape and form... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Joseph, thank you, I'll consider it. Most of what I quickly drafted was motivated by contempt. And would feel that this is a tarnished piece for the logical minds and attitudes that that forum doesn't deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hans, you're confusing creativity with novelty. The number of times a technique is used bears no relationship to the creativity with which it's used. It is quite common for the narrow minded to react as you have to a technique that is beyond their expertise. Blanket statements, generalizations and belittlement of superiors are crutches of the inept. Your petty jealousy is pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Jay De Fehr , feb 20, 2004; 12:01 a.m.<i>Hans, you're confusing creativity with novelty. The number of times a technique is used bears no relationship to the creativity with which it's used. It is quite common for the narrow minded to react as you have to a technique that is beyond their expertise. Blanket statements, generalizations and belittlement of superiors are crutches of the inept. Your petty jealousy is pathetic.</i><p> Of what 'superiors' do you speak? No, those who cross-process are confusing bizarreness with creativity. Nothing is 'beyond my expertise'. If I wished to partake in this 'cross-processing' fad, I certainly would have done so. Almost every one of the so-called 'creative' cross-processed images that I have scene is sorely lacking in impact or interest. <p>I am supposed to find yellow-green skin 'creative'? How clever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Jay, leave it. Hans basis his x-pro experience from a couple of PN uploads of Velvia. This is similar to his �expertise� on pushing film. He�s made his assumptions from looking over the shoulder of another photographer�s work, and not knowing the exposure to begin with, at a lab. Anyone half decent at x-pro knows anything is possible, green skin or purple, or not. Cut and paste from �Getting Pushy�. It�s a great read Jay. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006jkS Elliot N , dec 11, 2003; 11:02 p.m. Ok, Hans, when did you last push a roll of colour neg? What film was it? And what was it specifically that you disliked about the results (grain, crossed curves, contrast)? Hans Beckert , dec 11, 2003; 11:19 p.m. Elliot Nicholson , dec 11, 2003; 11:02 p.m. "Ok, Hans, when did you last push a roll of colour neg?" Personally? Never. I hardly ever use color negative film. I use Kodachrome for color. But I have seen others' attempts. Wretched stuff. "What film was it?" Don't recall. Whatever Kodak was making in the mid 90's. PMJ perhaps? "And what was it specifically that you disliked about the results (grain, crossed curves, contrast)?" Yes, yes, and yes. Basically, crap. Eric Milner , dec 11, 2003; 11:35 p.m. I can hardly contain myself. In one corner we have Steve who used marginal film stock 15 years ago, and in the other corner we have Hans, who's...who's, at least honest, but still has an opinion about something he's never done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers_. Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 So, straight processing is photography and x-processing is art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_fitzmaurice Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 Okay sorry to touch all this off. I"ve just never Cross Processed before, had some slide film just past experation date, which an article mentioned was the best time to use it for x processing. I just thought it might be interesting to try it and see what happened. Didn't mean to get a debate going on the merits of doing it... although having started one accidently I might as well put in my two cents on the is it art argument. Of Course it can be. The fact that some people find it speaks to them and affects them as art makes it art. Now it can be good or bad art, but art it is. Just as when (as has often happened) I've been involve din a play that is badly reviewed. The crititc may dislike anya spect of it, might consider it a failure, but I've never seen one say that just because they didn't like it it wasn't art. Seems like ther same rules should aplly to any artform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Jason:<p>So, you really did not think of it yourself...you read an article...<p>Do you see my complaint? How lazy can you be? You are not even original enough to try something unique. This is my major complaint. This is not 'creativity', but copy-cat behavior.<p>'Creativity' does not come from screwing up your film, but making use of the materials in a conventional way...to say or record something <b>profound</b>....<p>Cross-proccessing is just a way of making your film look bizarre...if you want to be creative, reject such shallow and unthinking behavior, and go take some photos that actually mean something.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Eric: Yes, you are correct. I have never been stupid enough to push or cross-process film, because I have seen others do it and have seen the pathetic results. More than once, I might add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_fitzmaurice Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hans You are right I read about it.. and that means? So I suppose we should never take advantage of somthing if it's been done before. So no one should perform Shakespeare. I mean I wouldn't have thought of writing Hamlet, it's been staged before, so I should asume I couldn't find an interesting spin on it, and should not do it. I guess if I were a painter, and decided to try the Pre-Raphealit aproach of painting white on the canvass, and then painting over that while it was still wet, my paintings couldn't be art because I'd have read about the aproach in a book. Personally I intend to take advantage of what has been done before, trying it, learning from it, and seeing if it is a process I want to use with my own composition, lightinig, subject choice, or not. I mean should I never try a filmstock because I've seen it used, and feel I might be able to use it creatively as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Cant we all "get along"?Believe it or not,I have pushed many a roll/sheet of Ektachrome in my days.I have even cross processed quite a bit of chrome stock thru the C41 machine to make freaky colored negs.In my line of work however,we rely on standardized processing as "written in stone".I have to admit though,I have never had a single roll of C41 pushed/pulled or otherwise processed non-normal.It is my understanding that most labs do this striclty as damage control for exposure errors,or to create some sort of special effects.There seems to be an attitude here on PHOTO.NET,that unless one frequently alters the processing of their films that they are old,stupid and uncreative?Im sure Im guilty of all three,but not because of my film processing tastes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Jason: My points are that: 1. You never would have thought of this on your own. That means you are lazy and simply a follower of fashion. 2. This technique has been done to death, and has nothing to do with creativity. It is not a substitute for having developed the skill of composition or finding the decisive moment. In other words, it is simply the lazy way to make something startling. 3. Companies spend millions of dollars to make their films produce highly accurate colors. It must turn their stomachs to see this cross-processing going on. It turns mine. 4. Somewhere along the line, maybe in 1955, somebody ran film through the wrong process. A few years later it happened again, and someone noticed the peculiar colors that are produced. This is not a 'standard' technique, but a mistake, and it has become a cliché, a crutch that the inept and uninspired use in lieu of actual creative talent. Is that clear enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Clear and narrow-minded as can be. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 <i>Problem is here in Dallas, I can't find anyone who will do it. Camera Stores, One Hour Labs, BWC, etc. No one is willing to process it for me. Does anyone know of a local lab that will do it?</i><p> The reason is that it is the <i><b>WRONG</i></b> process. It screws up the chemicals. E-6 films are designed to go through E-6, not C41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_fitzmaurice Posted February 20, 2004 Author Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hans, It is clear. I just don't think it is acurate. As for your points: 1. Is simply not true. Well It maybe true that I would never have thought of it on my own, but that does not mean I am lazy or a follower of fashion. I am curious. I've scene Cross processing used, but seing the result without knowing how the image looked to begin with (having never seen the set/models) how can I know how the result was reached, or even if I would find the results pleasing enough to use, or what I could do with the technique. The fact that I have scene a technique I would like todevleoping my skills in compo try has nothing to do with laziness. I may like it, I may not, but I won't know if I don't try, so to not try it would be lazy. 2. I never claimed ,or would claim, cross processing was a replacemenmt for developing my compositional skills, or for capturing the decisive moment. I do want to try it, just to know wheter I like it or not. If I do like it, it is no different from using different films, or different equipment, gaining understanding of a technique is never wasted. 3. Painters carefully developed paints to match the tones they wanted, and those Pre-Raphaelite's just put them on top of wqhite paint, a way thery were never meant to be used. See what I mean figuring out a way to use something that the inventer never intended seems creative to me, Oh and if they turn your stomach.. just don't look at them. I don't like the look of some filmstocks, but I would never tell someone they shouldn't use them, if they find them pleasing. 4. Is ludicrous, a lot of things happened by accident. The vulcanization of rubber for instance. If it as anrtistic technique I decide I like, great, if not no harm done. As for not being a standard technique doesn't that contradict your saying it is overused and the fashion. If it's used regularly it's a standard technique. And wheter or not it is, is irrelevant. Their is no virtue to avoiding something just because others do it, nor is their virtue in doing something jusat because others do. The only way to knwo is to try it. I can't know if corss processing would suit MY images without trying it. IT seems to me you are treating your opinions on the style, as fact. They are opinions. Perfectly valid opinions, and I may find I agree, or disagree after trying it myself, but they are not facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Jason: It is not <b> standard </b> in the sense that the film manufacturers do not design or test their films for this.<p> That is not the sense of 'standard' that you understood. The fact that hundreds of people do it, that it has become 'popular', does not make it 'standard'.<p> C41 films are designed to have certain characteristics, including a color-correcting orange mask. This mask is necessary to make the color negative process produce accurate colors because of the shortcomings of dyes used in color films. You can read about this here:<p> http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/photomicrography/colornegprocerrors.html <p> http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0303/tw0303-1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now