E-6 to C-41: A Transition

[rguinter]

I guess Taylor (Princeton) is not in your travel area?

More importantly, where are you getting large format C-41 done that you can't get E-6 done? (I can't help with the original question).

I used to work for AT&T at a time when we had a facility in Princeton that I covered. Used to travel there regularly.

Now that I live (and work) in North Jersey it would be quite a haul and directly opposite direction from my daily commute. So no real possibility of getting there on weekdays.

But a good thought for compiling my E-6 films and taking down there once or twice a month. I'll keep that in mind.

Bob G.

[Bruce Watson]

I suspect that the "problem" here is that the subject brightness range (SBR) of your scene is limited, down around 4-5 stops. This makes it a "better match" to tranny films in general -- IOW, the tranny will be more contrasty and "rich" while the negative will look somewhat flat and "pale" in comparison. This is because you are using most of what the tranny can do, but a much smaller portion of what the negative can do.

A secondary problem may originate in the fact that negatives are more color accurate than trannies. This according to a retired Kodak engineer who worked on such things (he's PE on APUG). That's what the orange mask is all about -- improving the color accuracy. But just because it's more accurate doesn't mean that you'll like it better. Really -- there's often a difference between what's accurate and what looks good.

Either or both of these things can easily be "cured" in a scanning and photoshop workflow. Considerably more difficult IMHO if darkroom printing.

If you really like what E-6 gives you, it might just be worth finding a lab and mail ordering your processing. But if you are scanning, C-4 can do what you want if you're willing to climb the learning curves in photoshop. But really, you should do what works for you.

[rguinter]

Have you considered mailing your E-6 exposures to a reputable lab? I use AgX. Rumor has it, Fuji and Kodak will continue to provide chemistry for the next two years, and I imagine that the few remaining E-6 labs will stockpile a couple year's worth of chemistry. If you prefer E-6 emulsions your only obstacles for the next few years are: 1) dealing with the wait, and 2) dealing with the worry of loss in the mail. I've never had film lost or damaged in the mail, but it always makes me a little nervous. Using the USPS, round trip postage is about $12 for a one-week turnaround, Seattle to Sault Ste Marie.

Eric: Yes I've considered the mail-order process. But was hoping to avoid it as long as possible for the reasons you mentioned.

Bob G.

[Ben Syverson]

It's easy to get an E6 look from C41 if you're scanning. But you'll need to do some things in Photoshop that you've been taught are "bad," such as clipping blacks and highlights. That and some Saturation adjustment should give you the punchy look of E6.

Essentially you need to throw away the extra information contained in negatives.

[Henry Ambrose]

It's easy to get an E6 look from C41 if you're scanning. But you'll need to do some things in Photoshop that you've been taught are "bad," such as clipping blacks and highlights. That and some Saturation adjustment should give you the punchy look of E6.

Essentially you need to throw away the extra information contained in negatives.

^^ This. ^^

You absolutely can get most any look you want from color negative film. It can be liberating in that you're going to get to interpret the scene to your vision without being held hostage to some transparency's version of reality. Just accept that the transparency's version of reality was not truth anyway and you'll be alright.

Make your pictures look like what you had in mind when standing there tripping the shutter.

[Drew Wiley]

Henry - if you can get anything you want from a color neg, you're the first person
on the planet to accomplish that and should probably patent your method. I've never met anyone who could make a neg look like a chrome, by any method - scan
& PS, photoshop, dye transfer - you name it. Every type of film has its limitations,
and each type is in fact only an impression of reality. One gets used to a certain kind of film and workflow and begins seeing the world like that; but that doesn't make it even close to reality. Films are engineered to do certain things. Chrome films were first engineered to look good on a light box or slide show. Neg films were made to be easy to print and give good skin tones, and evolved from there. But there's still a distinct gap between what negs do and chromes do. Still a big leap
from Ektar to Astia, and that's about as close as the gap gets.

[Roger Cole]

Have you considered mailing your E-6 exposures to a reputable lab? I use AgX. Rumor has it, Fuji and Kodak will continue to provide chemistry for the next two years, and I imagine that the few remaining E-6 labs will stockpile a couple year's worth of chemistry. If you prefer E-6 emulsions your only obstacles for the next few years are: 1) dealing with the wait, and 2) dealing with the worry of loss in the mail. I've never had film lost or damaged in the mail, but it always makes me a little nervous. Using the USPS, round trip postage is about $12 for a one-week turnaround, Seattle to Sault Ste Marie.

What are these rumors?? That would imply they're also planning to stop making film some time before that, and while selection is certainly down particularly in sheets, there's really no shortage of E6 film in 35mm and 120, nor have I heard any real rumors of its demise. I guess we all suspect it will go sometime, but I never thought E6 would disappear entirely within that time frame, certainly not in 35mm or 120.

[Kirk Gittings]

When I was still shooting color negatives for commercial work, I got very good at shooting and scanning color negs to look like chromes. I didn't find it that hard. My situation was that a few times I sold stock articles to magazines based on my earlier set of transparencies that i shot for the architect. Then later when I was mainly shooting color negs a magazine would want the story but with some additional new shots with the family in the kitchen etc. So I got good at giving the new neg scans the same "look' as the earlier chromes.

I'm too tired right now to remember the guys name, but there was/is a landscape photographer in the Midwest. His name started with a B. Who swore by scanned negs. I saw some scans that he had done for another photographer and I got over my prejudice against scanning negs.

[Eric James]

What are these rumors?? ...

A friend told me that he had heard it from the manager of the lab he uses, and the manager heard it from the respective film reps. I'm certainly not trying to stir anything up by passing this along, and other than my friend's integrity I know nothing of the truthfulness of the rumor. IIWII

[Henry Ambrose]

Henry - if you can get anything you want from a color neg, you're the first person on the planet to accomplish that and should probably patent your method.

snipped.......

Certainly not the first and hardly the only.
Color negative is wonderful for scanning.
If you know how you can make it look like what you want.
Which is a big part of photography for some - coming back with what you "saw".
CN is a very flexible material.

Read Kirk's post.