Old and Crusty: Kodak Ektachrome P800/1600 5020 (XPRO)

Well, this is quite an odd way to introduce my progress with home developing color film. This film is something I came across at a flea market, and I knew I had to try it out. This particular roll (Of which I have two, from the same batch) expired in October of 1986, which leaves a lot time for the emulsion to deteriorate, but further complicating things is that I only have BW and C-41 chemistry, so I did the logical thing, applied the normal math for calculating an effective ISO for expired film, and came to the conclusion that the usable ISO is between 50 and 6. I then went outside with a homemade greyscale target, and bracketed a few stops, then ran back home to develop the short end of film. Looking at the negatives (Which were really blue), I chose the ISO 25 rated negative, given its density looked the closest to a normal C-41 negative, with subtle yet visible differences between shadows and the base color.

Said ISO 25 shot and greyscale card.

First thing to give me trouble was that there are no truly optimal color profiles for cross processed slide films, short of chromogenic BW profiles, so I tried making a profile (One of the few worthwhile features of Silverfast AI Studio), but the software just wasn't having any of it, so I had to fall back to using the Kodak BW400CN profile. I didn't expect much, especially with a fellow blogger trying his hand at cross processing even further expired Ektachrome, and his attempts looking "Lomoesque" at best. Maybe I just got lucky, but my results came in a lot better, though that 1986 expiration has still pretty visibly taken its toll on the emulsion, with some obvious edge fogging, and massive grain (Think Delta 3200 in Rodinal levels of grain), plus nuclear skies galore, but nothing overwhelmingly Lomo.

I used the Kodak Flexicolor chemistry, processing at the normal temperature of 100°F, for the normal 3:15 time. To my shock, the negatives dried very flat, much flatter than films like Fuji Superia 400. A good amount of the photos have some moderately accurate colors, but it looks like something about how the film conveys color is lost when cross processing, as there is a look with every photo. There's something very obviously weird with how this film handles highlights, as the skies are totally inaccurate in each photo, but all of which are wrong in a different way. I've been experimenting with other expired film, and I haven't seen anything as strange as those skies.

I do feel like I should try processing this stuff as E-6, but buying the chemistry would be pretty wasteful given how little slide film I shoot, and my local lab charges 10 bucks per E-6 35mm roll, so for needing to spend 20 bucks (!) on one roll (First part to find the effective ISO, second part to actually use it). I'm a greedy person, so that wouldn't do. Besides, I think the results look pretty great for the film being very overly aged. I'm probably going to try buying other similarly expired color film, since I consider this a success. If anybody needed some encouragement to try cross processing expired slide film, I hope this did the trick.

Ilford PanF+ 50 pushed to 400, three stops above box speed

Here's a thing everybody warns against, push developing an already contrasty film. Well, I like seeing why doing a wrong thing is so wrong, so I took a spare roll of Ilford PanF+ 50, loaded it into my Minolta Maxxum STsi, locked on my 70-210mm F4 Maxxum lens (Objectively my sharpest lens), set the ISO to 400, and expected nothing for my efforts. Having rarely used PanF+, and only ever at box speed, I expected thin and messy negatives, but when I took the film out of the tank, the film looked great, with density that doesn't give away the push processing. The negatives looked contrasty, but as contrast is subjective with film, it wasn't that big of a deal to negate.

Just a boring test shot, Ilford PanF+ 50 at 400, Xtol 1+3

Right away, the first thing to jump out at me when scanning was that the grain was nearly nonexistant for such a push, comparable to the grain from Delta 400 (Albeit with less latitude). Now pushing Ilford PanF+ 50 to 400 isn't very economical, given the film is about a dollar more expensive than FP4 (Which is also similarly pushable) in 35mm and 120, and is nearly the same price as Delta 400, but I didn't shoot a roll of PanF+ 50 at 400 just to tell others not to do it, I did it to show others what to expect.

"Abandoned", Ilford PanF+ 50 at 400, Xtol 1+3

Boring flowers, Ilford PanF+ 50 at 400, Xtol 1+3

I can say that this film (@400) has a nice tonal rendition, with the film not having trouble separating the highlights and the shadows, and it keeps things punchy. Honestly, if I found a good deal on a lot of moderately in-date Ilford PanF+ 50, I'd probably mostly shoot it at 400, since it doesn't suffer like most people online say it should. Don't let random people on old forum posts dictate what you do with your film, because film photography should be fun.

End of the roll, Ilford PanF+ 50 at 400, Xtol 1+3

 

New developing times for 5234, Xtol 1+3

It's been a minute, but I'm back for my first non-introductory post, and I've made a monstrosity of a list for developing Kodak Eastman 5234 in many developers and dilutions, so this is one of those developer and dilution combos I've tested, Xtol 1+3.

"Immature", Eastman 5234, Xtol 1+3

I wish I could remember how I came to the development time of 27 minutes and 27 seconds (Massive Dev Chart removed the 27 seconds from my submission, which honestly don't hurt the end result), but I simply don't. I do know that the negatives developed in Xtol Stock versus Xtol 1+3 look identical in terms of density, but the results from 1+3 look just a tad bit cleaner, and of course using less chemistry whenever possible is always nice. For this roll, I used gentle agitation, inverting constantly for the first minute, then for 10 seconds every minute for the total 27 minutes. No prewash, standard fixing, no hypo-clear, no intermittent washings, nothing special.

"Old Reliable", Eastman 5234, Xtol 1+3

"Little Flakes", Eastman 5234, Xtol 1+3

Side tangent, this film is probably the best nature/architecture stock available, since it's incredibly cheap, with Ultrafine selling it in 100' rolls for $54.95, $10 cheaper than FP4, $10.24 cheaper than Pan F Plus, and $15 cheaper than Delta 100, while still being very fine grain (Probably more so than Delta 100) with rich tonality, and being able to resolve more than a lot of existing lenses for film cameras. It's a film I initially tried because I happened to have Xtol handy, but I'm fully head over heels for this stock, and I have plans to try developing it in whatever I next have available to me, since everybody should be able to experience this film for themselves.

Keeping in mind that this was shot wide open, it's incredible how well this film resolves fine details.

I need to make a post dedicated to showing my love for Eastman 5234, but this is just to show that you don't need Xtol Stock to develop this film. Once I find out how the hell I got that development time, I'll interpolate a development time for Caffenol-C, since that's a developer you don't need to buy 5 liters at a time, it's always available everywhere, and it smells like a vintage cadaver. Thanks for reading, and I hope I can push myself to post here somewhat regularly.

An informal introduction.

Hello there, I'm Joseph Rice, and I've been doing film photography since mid 2017. I made this blog because I've recently been experimenting with dilutions of Xtol and development times for Kodak Eastman 5234, since The Massive Dev Chart only shows a development for Xtol stock, and I feel that's wasteful. I'll be posting all sorts of film photography tripe here, with a focus on the nitty gritty stuff, like development times and grain, and lots of me doing things "wrong". I've got a post on my current trials with Eastman 5234 coming up soon, which is my new favorite landscape/architecture film. See you then, and here's a sample of that film.

"Thin Ice", Eastman 5234, Xtol Stock