dan_sapper

"Snowflakes" between the emulsion layers may be voids in the gelatin caused by film production chemicals being out of balance, not being dispersed properly during manufacture of the film (not processing chemistry), or migrating/drying-out after processing. Rewetting the film causes the voids to close, at least temporarily. The voids may return as the gel structure loses moisture content. Your technique of rewetting and gentle drying is a good way to minimize problem, but you will need to reprint or scan the negatives before the snowflakes reappear.

<p>I would not expect 17 year old slide film to be usable. It will get foggy, the blacks will go towards gray (smokey look), the speed will drop. The color balance will be way off. Saturation will be affected by all those problems. <br>

Try again with fresh film for your first "real" experience with slides. You won't be disappointed. <br>

Also, if you were using Ektachrome with 1995 expiration, it was made in 1993, 19 years ago. Major improvements to the Ektachrome line have been made since then, with E100S in 1996, and another substantial improvement with E100G around 2002. E100VS (vivid saturation) was introduced around 1998, IIRC. Give one of these a try!</p>

 

<p>Could be from the slide mounting equipment - presuming they are mounted. </p>

<p>You describe a base fog, or a milky haze on the negatives. This might be from inadequate bleach-fix step in C-41, causing retained silver or silver halide. It may be possible to bleach and fix the negatives again (and rinse/stabilize). Some types of film are more difficult to bleach than others, taking longer or being more sensitive to weak/under-replenished processing solutions. </p>

<p>Larry called it correctly. Right there in the pdf he linked is the CAT# you ordered.<br>

3461<br />Thin<br />base<br />2.5 16 mm x 215 ft 615 R-186: Black plastic spool 20 <strong>845 1502</strong><br>

B&W film through C-41 process will have some silver developed, but then it will be bleached back to silver halide and fixed out, leaving nothing behind. There is no color dye image as in a color film. You will have clear film. <br>

I'm not convinced the emulsion would come off in the C-41 developer, as Ron indicated. I think it developed a little, but the bleach & fix removed the silver. The gel-based emulsion is probably still on the film. I agree with his statement not to run motion picture color negative through C-41 due to the Rem-Jet backing making a mess.<br>

Now, why did you think this was a color negative film? </p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>I would call this defect "mottle." <br>

1. One likely cause is poor agitation in either first developer or color developer.<br>

2. maybe roller problem or squeegee problem between processing tanks, if it is a roller transport process. </p>

<p>There should be no difference in dark stability between E100G and E100VS. They use the same set of imaging dyes and the same E-6 process. </p>

<p>Hello again, Gerber. The samples do not look like light leaks to me. </p>

<p>The first image 35 mm Provia 100F, lettering has disappeared: This looks like the emulsion has been stripped from the film base. Something would be dissolving the gelatin. One of the most common chemicals to do that is household bleach (sodium hypochlorite, the ingredient in "CLOROX"). It is also a powerful fogging agent and could be the cause of the other poor quality images shown.</p>

<p>Astia RAP 100F: The D-max is very low, blacks are gray, the image is smokey looking, even in the edge print which is unexposed by your camera(s). I would call this "fogged." But the uniformity of it suggests chemical fog. Again, sodium hypochlorite could do that even in small quantities if it somehow got into your developer stock(s). </p>

<p>Provia 100F 120: The monochrome look is intriguing, but overall I would say it has similar issues to Astia example. Definitely "fogged" even in the edge areas.</p>

<p>Velvia 50: All that's left of this image is the cyan dye. This is very helpful in diagnosing the problem. It indicates that the color development has taken place in the bottom most layer of the film. The color sequence is yellow dye on top, magenta dye in middle, and cyan dye on bottom next to the film base. </p>

<p>Having seen the other examples above, I am making a very educated estimate that you might have something dissolving the emulsion layers after the second step of the process. You have positive images, which indicates proper first development (negative), and also proper reversal and some color development. Again, hypochlorite bleach could do this. </p>

<p>Your process times & temperatures are adequate and should not cause such problems. I would have to conclude that your water source, your mix bottles, or your tanks have been contaminated, probably with a chemical fogging agent, but one that also melts gelatin. Hypochlorite is one of the few common chemcials that does just that. </p>

 

<p>Gerber, please give additional information regarding<br>

"or even nothing apears on the film, neither margins and lettering of<br />film type and frame numbers." Does this mean that the film is totally clear, or totally black? Since you said earlier that it appears over exposed, I'm assuming you mean clear. In that case, light fog is one possible cause. Another idea could be a problem with inadequate color development, causing no dye image to form. <br>

Since different film types are responding differently, I think chemistry might be the problem. Does the entire roll show the same problem throughout? Or is the problem on one side of the tank? Or towards one end of the roll? </p>

 

<p>I shot some of that film around 1997. It was nominally a 640 speed film. There was nothing remarkable about it, other than good exposure latitude. However, I think it was rather grainy at 640 and above. Kodak's 400 speed film at the time was so much better. By today's standards, Kodak's 800 speed films are much better than PJM ever was. </p>

<p>Thanks for sharing, Ron! </p>

<p>Ektachrome 7121 was the old sheet duplicating film, discontinued around 2001 or earlier. It was slow. The problem with developing E-6 films only as negative B&W is that the color couplers will remain in the film after processing. This will interfere with sharpness and may cause cloudiness in the neg. It wouldn't hurt to try a sheet, though. Could you get E-6 first developer only for the recommended time & temp? That would be your best bet. Then just go to a wash then fix. See what happens. Sorry I don't have exact recommendation for B&W developer. </p>

<p>to confirm Ron Andrews' statement about Kodak microscopists diagnosing these kinds of problems...<br>

Yes, we at Kodak still have the microanalytical lab staffed around the clock to support manufacturing and to help diagnose customer complaints.</p>

<p>One other possibility for processing error is if the color developer was skipped (or tank empty). No color dyes would form, and all of the silver image from the first developer would be bleached/fixed out later in the process. The result would be clear film all over, even if it once had an image on it. </p>

<p>If the film was totally clear, including no edge markings, but the notch indicates E64, then you can conclude the following:<br>

1. The film was fogged completely. Somewhere, sometime.<br>

OR<br>

2. The film was processed wrong. It would be difficult to make the film clear by processing in any E-6 or C-41 or B&W with a normal or push process. If the film was put into the E-6 bleach or reversal bath before either of the developing steps, that could cause the film to be totally clear (but that is a very difficult thing to do, unless tray processing and getting the solutions mixed up). <br>

OR<br>

3. The film was manufactured wrong. This is unlikely explanation. If the film was indeed processed E-6, but somehow the actual film was a B&W film (notched wrong), then the E-6 process could wipe out all the image because no dye would form, just silver, and that would get reversed and bleached then fixed out (see #2). <br>

Call Kodak customer support for assistance, please. </p>

 

<p>From what I can figure, not having seen the book, but knowing many of the processes involved:<br>

1. The book will explain the processes and show pictures, but not in enough scientific detail to replicate them.<br>

2. The cost to build competing processes would be prohibitive in a declining market.<br>

3. There is enough capacity and competition remaining between Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Ilford, Lucky, etc., that it would not make much sense for somebody to build new processes to make film/paper products.<br>

4. Patents have expired, or technology has become common knowledge.<br>

5. Not enough information on emulsion formulation and film systems to allow a competetive multi-layer product to be designed and produced.</p>

 

<p>Hmmm, it's been discontinued a while. It was grainy when fresh, and now it will be golf-ball grain. Also, it probably has gone a bit foggy from background radiation, which affects all high speed films, even if frozen. I would use those shortcomings to artistic effect. Perhaps moody portraits in interesting natural light. You might not get true 400 speed from this film (even when it was fresh). I'd say bracket between EI 320 and EI 400. Pushing it will severely increase contrast, but it is possible. You won't get full stops of speed for push-1 or push-2 (more like 2/3 stop exposure increase for push-1), and you will lose deep black D-Max, if it's not already gone from radiation fog. Good luck, and let us know how it turns out.</p>

<p>Translating that box flap:<br>

5044 is Kodak's code for EDUPE 35mm film</p>

<p>next 4 digits are emulsion number</p>

<p>next 4 digits are master roll and part number</p>

<p>EI 16 is exposure index at 16, which is the answer to the original post. EDUPE is very consistent speed, the manufacturing variability was much reduced over its predecessor. I think most batches are EI=16.</p>

<p>Cross process? Good luck! Tell us about your results!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've had nice success for city architectural photos with Ektachrome E200, which has less contrast than most slide films. It does a great job digging into the shadows when you've got contrasty situations like in NYC. The neutral balance is also good, without imparting color cast to the stone & brick. Colors will not be nearly as saturated as Velvia or EBX, but won't be washed out either. </p>

<p>Need to know exact product name on boxes & expiration dates to be able to recommend the color transparency films:<br>

Is it E200 or Ektachrome 200? E200 should be fine, nice to use for high mid-day sun landscape. Good shadow detail, nice contrast range. OTOH, Ektachrome 200 is very old emulsion, best use for cross process in C-41. Some folks loved it for that! Will show strong magenta cast in E-6 if old.<br>

Elite 100 (not Elitechrome?) If only "Elite" it is pre-1996 and may have color shifted by now. A high saturation film. If Elitechrome 100, then nice for landscapes. Newer generation of this film still sold today with extremely fine grain and good sharpness.<br>

Ektachrome 64 professional: Nice for landscapes, high color comparable to Elite 100, but not quite as saturated or sharp as present-day Elitechrome 100. Some color shifts may have happened depending on age (probably toward magenta).</p>

<p>Hey Ron Andrews: <br>

I remember seeing a very large print at Kodak B30 near the 2nd floor conference rooms, probably of the Grand Canyon. Is that the same image you reference? I always thought it must have come from large format Kodachrome, it was so detailed and grain free. If you remember this and can confirm it was from Ektar 25, I'd like to know just for reference sake. Thanks.</p>

<p>John,<br>

Take some of the old film with you, along with the new stuff you ordered. You never know how the the old film would have performed if you don't shoot some side by side with the new, and have them processed together. See if you can tell the difference. That way, you'll know what to use the remaining old film for. I like to experiment with film, changing to a different type of film in the middle of a subject so that I can compare results, such as high-color or natural color, different speeds, etc.</p>

<p>Expose a sheet to room light (fog it), then process it in your RA4. If it comes out only yellow again, it is most likely a paper problem, rather than a chemistry or exposure problem. </p>

 

<p>Keep it in the plastic canister for 3-4 hours at room temperature. Keep in mind Kelly Flanigan's advice regarding high humidity and potential for condensation. Keeping it in the plastic can while thawing is the best precaution, as it is sealed at the factory with optimum humidity inside (~45% RH at 70 F). </p>

<p>Comparing E100G and E100VS,  while the sharpness is better on E100VS due to extremely high saturation and the edge enhancement effects from IIE,  it has a penalty of larger grain.  If you're doing enlargements from 35mm,  I think you'll get more bang from the finer grain of E100G, than from sharpness from E100VS.  You'll see it in smoother blue sky, since you're shooting nature/outdoors.   I do like E100VS for outdoor scenic work when color impact is main consideration.  I like E100G for its extremely fine grain, good saturation, and excellent color differentiation, such as for close-ups of flowers and autumn leaves.  So maybe my recommendation would be E100VS for distant/scenic shots (love it for anything with water, deep blues),  and E100G for closer work.  That being said, I've had some great E100VS shots of mosses and fungi close-up, where the saturation and sharpness show both the delicacy and bizarre nature of those organisms.  Try a roll of each side by side and see for yourself.  Another tool in your arsenal.<br>

 <br>

 </p>