question about cross-processing

Brevity being the soul of wit, this post is likely to be long and
rambling. Apologies in advance.

I was recently given several rolls of various types of slide film that
expired in 1996. They had been kept in refrigerated storage since the
date of purchase, but due their age they were going to be thrown away.
I decided to rescue these rolls from their doom, with the idea of
having them cross-processed in C41 chemistry.

I had only cross-processed one roll of film before, (Fuji Provia) and
the results were more or less what I expected: weird color shifts,
high contrast, and noticable grain. Spiffy! I was eager to
experiment similarly with this film.

As with the Fuji roll, I had the lab process the film and print a
contact sheet. However, unlike the Fuji roll, the results from some
of the rolls were utterly unlike what I expected.

Here's a summary of the results I got:

1. Fuji Provia 100, fresh roll, overexposed by 1 stop -- Contrasty,
slight greenish-yellow cast, noticable grain

2. Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100, expired roll, overexposed by 2/3 stop
- severe magenta cast, very grainy, yet fairly flat contrast

(So far so good. I expected something like that, and it's what I had
hoped to see. Here's where it gets weird

3. Kodak Ektachrome 320T Tungsten balanced, expired, exposed at
EI200, shot outdoors under natural light -- "good" contrast, extremely
vibrant, DISTURBINGLY NATURAL-LOOKING colors. In fact, the colors are
really impressive. This was the real shocker, because I figured that
8 year-old tungsten film shot under natural light and then
cross-processed would yield anything BUT natural-looking images, but
here we are.

4. Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100, same as in #2 -- again, a fairly
"normal" looking result.

My question is this: Is it likely that I would get results from
outdated, cross-processed film that look pretty much like color
negative film processed normally? Or is the lab doing some sort of
unwanted color correction? It seems unlikely that the same place (a
highly reputable pro lab) that produced the first two oddly colored
results would suddenly decide to "fix" the second two rolls. Is this
just random chance?

3. Kodak Ektachrome 320T Tungsten balanced, expired, exposed at
EI200, shot outdoors under natural light -- "good" contrast, extremely
vibrant, DISTURBINGLY NATURAL-LOOKING colors. In fact, the colors are
really impressive. This was the real shocker, because I figured that
8 year-old tungsten film shot under natural light and then
cross-processed would yield anything BUT natural-looking images, but
here we are.

I've had the same result with "barely" out of date 320T, with "DISTURBINGLY
NATURAL-LOOKING" colors, rather than wild colours.
JJ

the letter K wrote in message . ..
Brevity being the soul of wit, this post is likely to be long and
rambling. Apologies in advance.

I was recently given several rolls of various types of slide film that
expired in 1996. They had been kept in refrigerated storage since the
date of purchase, but due their age they were going to be thrown away.
I decided to rescue these rolls from their doom, with the idea of
having them cross-processed in C41 chemistry.

I had only cross-processed one roll of film before, (Fuji Provia) and
the results were more or less what I expected: weird color shifts,
high contrast, and noticable grain. Spiffy! I was eager to
experiment similarly with this film.

As with the Fuji roll, I had the lab process the film and print a
contact sheet. However, unlike the Fuji roll, the results from some
of the rolls were utterly unlike what I expected.

Here's a summary of the results I got:

1. Fuji Provia 100, fresh roll, overexposed by 1 stop -- Contrasty,
slight greenish-yellow cast, noticable grain

2. Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100, expired roll, overexposed by 2/3 stop
- severe magenta cast, very grainy, yet fairly flat contrast

(So far so good. I expected something like that, and it's what I had
hoped to see. Here's where it gets weird

3. Kodak Ektachrome 320T Tungsten balanced, expired, exposed at
EI200, shot outdoors under natural light -- "good" contrast, extremely
vibrant, DISTURBINGLY NATURAL-LOOKING colors. In fact, the colors are
really impressive. This was the real shocker, because I figured that
8 year-old tungsten film shot under natural light and then
cross-processed would yield anything BUT natural-looking images, but
here we are.

4. Kodak Ektachrome Elite 100, same as in #2 -- again, a fairly
"normal" looking result.

My question is this: Is it likely that I would get results from
outdated, cross-processed film that look pretty much like color
negative film processed normally? Or is the lab doing some sort of
unwanted color correction? It seems unlikely that the same place (a
highly reputable pro lab) that produced the first two oddly colored
results would suddenly decide to "fix" the second two rolls. Is this
just random chance?


This is just unbelievable. Put E-6 film through E-6, and C41 film
through C41. That's what they're DESIGNED to do.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:



This is just unbelievable. Put E-6 film through E-6, and C41 film
through C41. That's what they're DESIGNED to do.


Stay in your straightjacket Michael.