Doing your own E-6 processing: Worth it??

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, I've had a few problems lately with my local lab's processing of my 8x10 transparencies (big streaks across the skies, very difficult to fix in Photoshop), and I'm wondering about getting a Jobo and doing my own E-6. Is it worth it? How laborious is it, how expensive, and how reliable are the results?

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[paulr]

Never tried it myself, but I worked at a commercial lab for a while, and sometimes helped the E6 guru while he was troubleshooting. I would NOT want to have to deal with that process on my own. The number of variables is outrageous. My old lab eventually became a kodak Q-Lab, which meant that they'd send their test wedge data to a kodak consultant several times a day, and he'd send back instructions for how to adjust all the chemistry to keep things calibrated. My frontal lobe just isn't big enough to take that on.

[Simon Knight]

I am using a Jobo processor with tetenal or Kodak 6 bath E6 kits. The process requires precise control over temperature, agitation and time which the Jobo provides, but I have had had no problems. As long as your water is OK, using the one-shot kits avoids most problems that labs have with chemicals.

[Mark Sampson]

Sure, you can learn to run E-6 to critical standards. But how much effort do you want to devote to it? It's a craft like any other- it will take time and practice (not to mention money) to learn. Time that could be spent photographing, doing photo business, or any number of other things. It would be easier to find a better lab, IMHO.

[Calamity Jane]

I'm not a pro, only a serious amateur, and there are VERY few E-6 labs in my area - none that are convenient to get to.

I have been doin E-6 at home for about 20 years and don't have any problem with it. It is the kind of thing where you have to be organized, pay attention to what your doing, and be ready for the next step, but I find that the times and terperatures aren't as critical as you might think. Sure, the chemical manufacturers set VERY tight time and temperature limits, but they are aiming for a VERY precise and repeatable result all day long. As a "home hobbyist", I can get away with a little more time and temperature latitude without any noticable shift in the results.

I actually enjoy doing E-6 - it keeps you busy enough that you don't get bored!

But then again I do tend to do things the hard way :-)

[David A. Goldfarb]

My general position about doing E-6 is that it's only economical if you're doing it in some volume, and it's not a particularly creative process, so as long as good labs are around, I'd rather let someone else do it. That said, I've occasionally been doing it myself when the film processing backlog gets big enough to justify it economically. I use the Tetenal 3-bath kit.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

In the early 1990s I ran hundreds of rolls of 120 and 35mm through the Kodak six-bath kit using a semi-automated "King Concept" rotary processor machine without a problem. I can't promise that your experience will be as smooth, but I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't. Just make sure to use everything one-shot, and make sure all chemicals are up to temperature.

It is however fairly labor-intensive, and you have to figure out if it is worth your time. It took me, all-in-all, a little under two hours for one cycle. Is this worth it for five sheets of film? As for money, it will eventually be cheaper to go the Jobo route, but the initial costs will be large, and it will probably take quite a while to recoup your investment. It might be an easier idea to simply find a new lab.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I have done my own E-6 processing in a JOBO now for 15 years .
Weather it pays is only a question of volume; how many sheet do you need process to pay for the processor if you do not
calculate your own labor and you can invest about 90% of what you usually pay for processing ? E-6 sheet film processing is easy in a JOBO but C-41 is very difficult. I do all sizes E-6 but no sheets bigger than 4x5" in the C-41. The first developer in E-6 is 6 min 30 seconds but in C-41 the time is 3 min 15 seconds so big sheets are difficult to process evenly. The cost of chemicals and the disposal of used
is about 10% of what they charge for the process at a commercial lab. I have always used the biggest automatic JOBO there was
available first ATL-3 and then the ATL 2500. The first JOBO ATL-3 was used 5 day a week for 9 years and then JOBO
took it s a down payment on the new. Before I began to use a digital back the processor was on every day and it payed for itself
every 18 months. Tetenal chemicals and Fuji come ready to use in the JOBO but you need to adjust the pH of the color developer in
the Kodak process and you might need to adjust the dilution of the reversal bath. Neutral emulsions like EPY, EPR and E100G are the
most critical for color balance if the chemicals are not quit fresh but Astia and especially Velvia are forgiving. Always use a six bath process, the three bath process is not the same quality. I hope this gives you confidence.

[QT Luong]

It depends on how much time you want to spend on a task that is basically not creative. As for the results, I guess that if you processed as many sheets as your lab, your own error rate might be similar.

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

Yes, it is worth it for the total satifaction and perfection of results alone. Cost is not a factor.

As for equipment, I use the Jobo CPP2 with lift and have the expert drums to 20X24"

With this equipment I can process all paper, film sizes and types.

As stated above, the more you put through the system he cheaper it gets, but IMHO, there is no real alternative for perfection.

[Ellis Vener]

Chris If you can find a Merz processor you can get pro results with this unit. It is also a drum type processor but heavier duty and better temperature controlled.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I have had no problems doing 4x5 sheets in the 2500 series Jobo tanks as well as 5x7 in the expert drums. I use a Jobo CPP2 and the Tetenal 3 bath kit. I don't see a need for anything else. I use mine because I don't like to run to the lab and they charge $4 a sheet around here, so I get my film done when I want it and I save some major money. The time spent is the only problem I have (about an hour per run).

[ronald moravec]

I have done a lot of E6 35mm in open stainless tanks with a lift rod-total darkness. Works fine. I had six open tanks filled with solutions in a water bath.

4x5 in an expert drum and later 35mm stuff. Tetinal 3 step gave poor results. Regular E6 by Kodak looked as good as lab processed.

For rotary the reversal bath needs less concentration.

Go with one shot all the way and you won`t have to deal with replenishment. If you go off in replenishment in the developer, the colors go off. Acid or base must be added to the developer to keep it right. Very hard for low volumn. I did not use the starter solution. Just a little less time for the first developer.

All the steps can be purchased separately so buy extra developer right away. That is what goes bad. Decant to smaller containers right away upon opening.

Use an aquarium pump to oxygenate the bleach.

This is not hard IF you go one shot and won`t cost all that much.

Enjoy.

[Jim Rice]

To me the biggest advantage would be the ability to come home after a day's shoot and that night see the results. Near instant gratification and all. If I was to try it myself, I would listen to Ronald and seriously consider a dunk and dip (or even better nitogen burst) line for E-6 and use the jobo for prints. That is, after all, a proceedure for which all the materials were actually designed. I've been pondering the wet/dry darkroom question for some time, and I must admit to be no where nearer an answer than when I started. Currently I'm leaning wet.

[Jim Rice]

Oh, and I would one shot.

[Jim Rice]

And seven step.

[Andre Noble]

Once you begin processing with your own Jobo, you will never desire to send your tranparencies to a pro lab. I also use the Jobo Pro Time 100 timer with it. It makes running the E6 steps through my CPP2 mindless and foolproof.

[JanE]

Gudmundur and Ronald,what went wrong with the three bath kits?

If these could be used, as they are not temperature critacal too, would be a child's play to
process 8x10's.

[ronald moravec]

The colors were dull and the image lacked contrast. I had been using 6 step Kodak for years before with much better results. I thought maybe it was the lens or film, but I reshot and sent the film to pro lab that used a Jobo and full 6 step. Georgous.

[Skip Abadie]

I have had no problem doing 4x5 and 8x10 Kodak six step with one-shot chemistry use in my CPP2. My very first sheet was beautiful, and every subsequent sheet too. If you use all of the solutions before they get too old (they last for me about double the time that Kodak says), and you don't count the cost of your labor, your cost per sheet will be roughly half what the labs charge.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

The three bath process had much too high a contrast for my taste ! The people at JOBO in Germany
said that the three bath process was intended for people in a hurry, processing 35mm film for immidiate
feadback. I process mostly 50 Iso Velvia alredy a hard film in either Fuji or Tetenal E-6 six bath and
get soft results. Fuji films are slightly magenta and somewhat harsh if processed in Kodak E-6 six bath
that gives you good color balance with Kodak films (this is my subjective opinion).

[JanE]

Well, there would be a free lunch somewhere if three steps could rival six..........?
But I'm still a little confused. I have a friend here that processes 8x10 slides withTetenal 3-part kits and Jobo, and what I've seen, there's nothing wrong with the films. But of course I don't know the startpoint..........thank's for sharing experiences anyway!

I've always custom developed my own films for only 5 minutes in E-6. One stop more for the shadow parties and two stops more in the highlights. And exposing correct is much easier with lower contrast and broader exposure latitude. Getting a place to have 8x10 films evenly developed in C-41 is hard to find. There's also a lot of trouble scanning the negs. Sometimes it works nice, but most often not. So I'll go for slide again, though the output will be big Lambda/Lightjet.

Jan, Finland.
www.janeerala.net

[JanE]

Chris, I see you've also gone with the UC-inks. I have a 7600 here as somekinda proofer, but I think it could be wiser to take the step out and buy the 9600.

May I snoop a little and ask, what you mean with float-mount? And I think you use some glossy or similar paper. The matte papers don't laminate as well, and with the matte, there's harder to achieve good separation on the dark end...........right, uh?

"For presentation my prints are trimmed to the edge of the image and mounted on plexiglass. The mounted prints are then floated-mounted in handmade wood frames."

Jan, Finland.

[ronald moravec]

They claim the trade off is the inability to replenish the bleach and fix with three step.