EDUPE Film - Slide Dupe Film for Landscapes?

[Ed K.]

Once again, the urge to experiment comes around.

Kodak EDUPE E6 film is very slow, lower contrast color reversal that is available in roll and sheet sizes. I haven't been especiallypleased with color neg films, however there are times when a super fine grained, very slow color reversal film with lower contrast would be very handy to have for certain landscape conditions, especially if the end result is scanning the transparency. If it doesn't work out, I do have other experiments in mind too, so it's no big deal. The specifications for EDUPE film are quite remarkable as long as speed isn't the desired attribute.

While I'm waiting for the box to arrive, has anyone else played with EDUPE in their LF camera? If so, would you mind sharing some thoughts?

[Mark Sampson]

Don't forget that it's balanced for tungsten light.

[Greg Lockrey]

AND different color correction filters (like used on an enlarger color head) are needed from batch to batch. The numbers posted on the box are just starting points, factors such as lamp age and true color temperature affect it also. I don't think it will work out for your purpose unless color doesn't matter to you.

[Ron Marshall]

Ed, current color negative films are very good. Since trying Fuji Pro 160S, I only shoot positive if I want to boost contrast. Fine grain, saturated color, scans well, handles a large contrast range. Another possibility for you if the Edupe doesn't work out, or you need more speed.

[Ed K.]

Thanks for the information! I thought that it might yield some unusual images, and possibly have a use as an "FX" film of sorts. With filters, it's hard to imagine just how slow it might be. Also, what I don't know is how well Photoshop will be able to "correct" a non-filtered image from it until I try. That said, scanners and PS do manage to correct for even color neg. If anything interesting turns out from it, I'll let you know.

I'll have to revisit neg film again. The last stuff I did was very grainy compared to slide film (when scanned, NOT when printed with a regular C print). I must admit though, that the tonal range captured by modern color neg film is amazing.

Again, thanks!

[Al Seyle]

Long as you're experimenting, I suggest EPY. It's for tungsten also but very fine grain and low contrast. Some day I'll get around to trying it for landscapes with an 85b. Should be good for scanning.

[erie patsellis]

I've got ~250 sheets of CDUII here that I'm going to be experimenting with, some cross processed, some processed straight. Hopefully I'll have some chemistry in house before I leave for B.C. in early Dec. I'll post my results.

erie

[Ed K.]

I should have some test shots back Monday night. The documents from Kodak suggest that the stuff is balanced for about 5000. The first thing is to arrive at an acceptable film exposure, because 4x5 sheets do not seem to indicated their EI (unlike the roll stock). If I get any good information from the first test series, I'll post it.

[Ed K.]

Oops. A light leak spoiled the test shots, all frames have the same leak more or less. I'll test again with a different camera.

That said, it appears that my 4x5 EDUPE box has an approximate speed of 25 without filtration, and while not tungsten balanced, it's not daylight either without filters. It almost looks like it would render the old greenish fluorescent lights about like daylight. With the proper filtration, a speed of around 12 seems about right. It doesn't appear to be linear in the color balance either, however I'll know better in tomorrow's tests.

What is very interesting is the very fine grain and sharpness, as well as the amazing dynamic range it can capture. Much, much less grainy than EPP, and smoother than Provia. I bracketed 6 full stops, and there is an image on all sheets. If it can be Photoshop-corrected, it might be an interested capture medium. Of course, I've never tested six sheets with a light leak present either. Oh well! Seems like there was someone else posting today about how mistakes or problems can crop up from time to time, maybe it's the alignment of the planets!

Stay tuned if interested. I should be able to post some good samples tomorrow, and make more sense of this.

[Glenn Thoreson]

I'd be interested in seeing how it turns out. I have a bunch of internrgative film I'd like to do something with. Also, some 8X10 Kodak stuff for making trannies from color negatives.

[Ed K.]

Okay, Wile E Coyote does not get the Road Runner this time. I'll admit defeat on this one. The Acme instructions on the yellow box and web site sorta told me so, and the comments here were about right.

So I got test shots back, this time no light leaks and also this time starting with the initial recommended filter pack (40C+40Y), in other words, pale yellow/green. It does look close to tungsten balanced film with the filter pack. At the lab, we laid gels on the transparency. It looked like about +30Y, +20R brought it about right for daylight using a properly exposed slide. As another poster stated, color sure isn't an open the box and use it situation, and yes, gel filters are a pain, not to mention they do degrade image quality - the image quality this film could contribute. If one can gel the lighting - it's well worth considering this film. The first tests that I did with no gels were amazing in how well highights held. These tests show more problems, probably due to the gels themselves adding flare. Grr, no free lunch!

Photoshop WILL correct for the EDUPE color balance, but it's a stretch. The recommended filter pack does help get it in the ball park. While it's not out of the question to Photoshop it, I think anyone would find that the adjustments are just a bit too far, and that brings one right back to the gel situation. We're talking 25 buck a piece gels here too, unless you find an old box of them somewhere.

With the recommended filters, the 4x5 sheet of it turns out be equivalent to ISO 12, however obviously, I didn't use ISO testing methods. The stuff has a very, very wide range that it will form an image. I tested a range of 6 stops! That said, the right exposure of course looks the best. Contrast is significantly lower than the control test I shot with Velvia 100.

As for posting something meaningful, I realized that I have no scanner capable of making any sort of meaningful representation (4990) here, and I don't wish to drum scan one of the tests right away. From what I have seen however, the Velvia had ever so slightly finer grain (or was it scanner noise??) and the EDUPE appeared to be sharper (or again, was it the scanner?). Both had good shadows, but the EDUPE held highlights AND shadows considerably more in what I could scan. Let's say that the EDUPE had about 25% less contrast than the Velvia, but the Velvia had 90% of the details and possibly the same or finer grain at ISO 100 and no filters. Hmmm, Velvia 100is pretty darned good stuff, and EDUPE is very smooth compaired to the coarse sawdust of EPP.

Promising, interesting, but well, so is an empty room to a Zen master...

I'll have to leave it up to the film experts to determine if there is any scientific approach for comparison that would be useful. For me, I'll try this film in the field when I'm faced with any of the following conditions, provided that I get the color correction right:

1. High subject contrast, but long exposures ok.
2. Night time mercury vapor and unusual greenish lights, with very long exposures.
Reciprocity isn't really much of an issue with this film.
3. When I want to pull a little extra sharpness from a 4x5.
4. Duh! To shoot flat art, in a studio situation, with gelled lights - perfect!
5. Perhaps more when I get around to having a decent drum scan.

It was silly of me to think of posting samples that would mean much, however I'll post a pair because I said that I would. Note the "useful" lack of a color target, and the typical blah subject matter of test shots taken at high noon on in the parking lot. The sillly two shots uploaded here are a full frame and a crop.

I do have a 25 sheet packet of it left. It's past dated, however I'm sure that B&H kept it in the cold. If anyone wishes to try their hand at it (make it into Acme Rocket Fuel?) I'm happy to mail it to them for their experimentation.

Meanwhile, pardon me while I get back to more useful explorations... We now return you to your normal channel.