C41, E6, etc???
- Thread starter Rob MacKillop
- Start date
Dan Cattermole
Dan Down - The Steampunk Womble
Get in!! 
Stan Hesketh
Well-Known Member
I recently used a roll of XP2 in my Yahsica Electro. It is very impressive film, and I had it processed at Max Spielman without any problems. I will be using it again with my new best friend; a Spotmatic sp1000
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Cheers, Stan. BTW, I like your old geezers website!
Larry Bolch
Well-Known Member
Unless you are experimenting with bizarre colour, C41 and colour negative films were designed to work together. Chromogenic films—such as XP2 as mentioned use C41—as well. There is no alternative. Companies other than Kodak did make chemistry for colour negative processing, but it still was C41. I did experiment with pushing C41 at one time and there were non-linear shifts in colour layers that made accurate colour balance impossible. The term is "cross-over", which can result in yellow shadows and blue highlights. Correct for one and exacerbate the other.
XP-1 which I used in the day, and now XP-2 have very long dynamic ranges—high latitude. There was no point in trying push/pull processing, since they variations in exposure were dealt with in printing. Depending upon the shoot, I found them useful from ISO50 to beyond ISO800. Contrast varied with exposure, so variable contrast paper was absolutely required to get the best results. It was very different from silver halide emulsions to print, and a lot of shooters gave up in a rage when it was first introduced. Generally, the best results came with higher contrast paper and loads of dodging and burning to take advantage of local contrast.
Chromes are strictly E6, now that Kodachrome is history. Processing any colour film is an exact process. Temperatures are precise to within a fraction of a degree, and time in each solution is also absolute. While you can process colour film at home, the closer you can come to emulating a machine the better will be the results. I kept film chemistry in my lab, but only used it when faced with an overnight deadline, even though I had high accuracy temperature controls and timing.
There is cross-processing, mostly E6 film in C41. Results are highly unpredictable, and there was a short period in the 1970s where fashion photographers did experiment with it. It quickly became a cliché and vanished from sight.
Standard B&W is a totally different beast. There are fine-grain, high-energy, high-acutance, etc. developers that give subtly different results depending upon your goal. Vary time and temperature, again for different results. It was—and still might be—possible to buy the ingredients and mix your own, or alter over-the-counter chemistry. This was popular among those who were process oriented—the equivalent of pixel peepers today. No interest in photography, but hopping onto every trend that came down the line. Results were wildly unpredictable. Working photographers who needed predictability for earning their livelihood generally picked a single developer that would work with two or three films, and established routines that produced totally consistent results.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Thanks, Larry. All very interesting. I have much to learn!
Larry Bolch
Well-Known Member
Thinking about those who pursued the developer du jour, brought to mind an essay that every photo enthusiast needs to read.
Confessions of a recovering magic bullet chaser
Some of the wisest words ever written about our obsession.
Confessions of a recovering magic bullet chaser
Some of the wisest words ever written about our obsession.
Stan Hesketh
Well-Known Member
Cheers Rob. So easy to knock a website up these days I use Weebly, though there are others that are just as easy.
I use Weebly, though there are others that are just as easy.Similar threads
